What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Half of America Shut off from Economic Growth (1 Viewer)

I disagree. Anyone can better their situation if they want to.

Take a class, work more hours, save money instead of buying the latest iPhone....

It all sounds like an excuse.

 
Bernie Sanders: "No ####".

I know, let's elect a millionaire for President. That'll fix things!

 
eoMMan said:
I disagree. Anyone can better their situation if they want to.

Take a class, work more hours, save money instead of buying the latest iPhone....

It all sounds like an excuse.
Click to expand...
It's unbelievable people think it's this simple. Try that while being born in the Chicago inner city and avoiding gunfire on your way to school. 

 
Capella said:
It's unbelievable people think it's this simple. Try that while being born in the Chicago inner city and avoiding gunfire on your way to school. 
Click to expand...
Agree with your example, but it goes so far beyond that too in others. 

Over half of this country is just a cog in a machine, as I get older and mature it is pretty sad to think about. 

 
The worst part is, nothing is going to keep this in check in the near future and the income gap is going to grow to new stratospheres.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Agree with your example, but it goes so far beyond that too in others. 

Over half of this country is just a cog in a machine, as I get older and mature it is pretty sad to think about. 
Click to expand...
I know it does. I just hate the simpleton approach from people who had every advantage. 

I did it why can't you 

 
Pikkety is an idealogue. His work reflects his ideology.

The middle class has shrunk significantly over the past 40-50 years, but most of that shrinkage is due to upward income mobility. In fact, the same could be said, to a lesser degree of the lower class. Take a look at this chart, which is in constant 2014 dollars, and then reevaluate the thesis of the article in light of what you have learned.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Pikkety is an idealogue. His work reflects his ideology.

The middle class has shrunk significantly over the past 40-50 years, but most of that shrinkage is due to upward income mobility. In fact, the same could be said, to a lesser degree of the lower class. Take a look at this chart, which is in constant 2014 dollars, and then reevaluate the thesis of the article in light of what you have learned.
Click to expand...
What's the graph of the median of that metric? Also, the subject is household, not individuals. Household income levels could have risen because people got compensation increases for a given job, or they may have taken on more jobs, or more people in the household took on jobs. Is there any measurement of that accompanying this data? If my household income went up because I got raises, that's great. If it went up because I had to take on an additional job and my wife needs to work full time too, that's not so great.

 
Capella said:
I know it does. I just hate the simpleton approach from people who had every advantage. 

I did it why can't you 
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the idea that every person should try to make the best of their own situation?  That's a far more empowering message than complaining about the tax system.

 
Gr00vus said:
What's the graph of the median of that metric? Also, the subject is household, not individuals. Household income levels could have risen because people got compensation increases for a given job, or they may have taken on more jobs, or more people in the household took on jobs. Is there any measurement of that accompanying this data? If my household income went up because I got raises, that's great. If it went up because I had to take on an additional job and my wife needs to work full time too, that's not so great.
Click to expand...
This is spot on. household income is a horrible way to refute this article.  There are ways to refute this article, however.  

I would pull data on individual income earnings by high school educated workforce, to start.

 
eoMMan said:
I disagree. AnyONE can better their situation if they want to.

Take a class, work more hours, save money instead of buying the latest iPhone....

It all sounds like an excuse.
Click to expand...
Individuals can and do break out of their lot in life all the time...but the article is talking about an entire class of people....millions and millions of people. It is literally impossible for them all to do it.

 
Steeler said:
What's wrong with the idea that every person should try to make the best of their own situation?  That's a far more empowering message than complaining about the tax system.
Click to expand...
It's not about the tax system. It's about the ability to participate in the economy when the available job pool will be shrinking in relation to population going forward. Educate yourself all you like, you can't force jobs to exist. Increasingly you'll either own stuff and have some modicum of independence, or you'll be one of billions searching for ever fewer jobs. Work for pay will have to come into question in the not too distant future, simply because we're entering a phase where there will be an ever decreasing demand for human labor and a continuously growing population.

 
Gr00vus said:
What's the graph of the median of that metric? Also, the subject is household, not individuals. Household income levels could have risen because people got compensation increases for a given job, or they may have taken on more jobs, or more people in the household took on jobs. Is there any measurement of that accompanying this data? If my household income went up because I got raises, that's great. If it went up because I had to take on an additional job and my wife needs to work full time too, that's not so great.
Click to expand...
Household incomes are influenced by all sorts of variables, including demographic shifts. Some data

My earlier post wasn't meant to negate the observation that a portion of the US population has been essentially left behind economically. It's true. But to really understand the scope and nature of that problem, I think we need to really understand the numbers. I don't think Pikkety does a good job of presenting all of the facts, because he has an ideological position that he is advancing.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Agree with your example, but it goes so far beyond that too in others. 

Over half of this country is just a cog in a machine, as I get older and mature it is pretty sad to think about. 
Click to expand...
Dude, we're all cogs in the machine. Some are just working harder than others and some are more comfortable than others. The hard work doesn't always correlate with the level of comfort.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
My earlier post wasn't meant to negate the observation that a portion of the US population has been essentially left behind economically. It's true. But to really understand the scope and nature of that problem, I think we need to really understand the numbers. I don't think Pikkety does a good job of presenting all of the facts, because he has an ideological position that he is advancing.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's what I was asking for.

 
Steeler said:
What's wrong with the idea that every person should try to make the best of their own situation?  That's a far more empowering message than complaining about the tax system.
Click to expand...
For one it's completely unrealistic in the environment some of the kids have to deal with. 

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Pikkety is an idealogue. His work reflects his ideology.

The middle class has shrunk significantly over the past 40-50 years, but most of that shrinkage is due to upward income mobility. In fact, the same could be said, to a lesser degree of the lower class. Take a look at this chart, which is in constant 2014 dollars, and then reevaluate the thesis of the article in light of what you have learned.
Click to expand...
You can skew income however you want.   Now take housing costs, healthcare costs, food costs, education costs, credit card interest and utilities costs and how much disposal income you have now compared to then.     

I will say it again.   No way my dad could provide for a family of 6 on a post office salary today like he did from 1965 until 1975.  I was the youngest and 5 then and when I went to school my mom went to work because she wanted too.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
It's not about the tax system. It's about the ability to participate in the economy when the available job pool will be shrinking in relation to population going forward. Educate yourself all you like, you can't force jobs to exist. Increasingly you'll either own stuff and have some modicum of independence, or you'll be one of billions searching for ever fewer jobs. Work for pay will have to come into question in the not too distant future, simply because we're entering a phase where there will be an ever decreasing demand for human labor and a continuously growing population.
Click to expand...
The article references the tax system quite a bit which is why I mentioned it.  No matter the obstacles in place each person has far more control over their own lives than anyone else...but maybe this thought isn't really relevant in this macro conversation.

 
That Pikkety is passed off as a neutral source is a joke. 

Thomas Pikkety? The guy who wrote the Marxian capital book two years ago or something?

Yow.  

eta* The media is doubling down on their own idiocy in getting Trump elected, huh?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella said:
For one it's completely unrealistic in the environment some of the kids have to deal with. 
Click to expand...
This is something I fully agree with...until the issue of unfit parents is addressed head-on this will plague our society...right now there are too many excuses made for some of these pieces of trash who treat their kids like they wipe their butt...anyone who has spent time around teenage boys will tell you a kid that has no supervision and is allowed to run wild is a potential time-bomb...I'd have zero issues locking-up people who abandon their kids because it's criminal what they are doing... 

 
Steeler said:
No matter the obstacles in place each person has far more control over their own lives than anyone else.
Click to expand...
In many areas of life this is true. I think it's becoming less true when it comes to forecasting success in the workforce. There are many forces much larger than any one individual at play which are beginning to limit degrees of self determination in this area.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
You can skew income however you want.   Now take housing costs, healthcare costs, food costs, education costs, credit card interest and utilities costs and how much disposal income you have now compared to then.     

I will say it again.   No way my dad could provide for a family of 6 on a post office salary today like he did from 1965 until 1975.  I was the youngest and 5 then and when I went to school my mom went to work because she wanted too.  
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting my intent was to "skew income"?

I was simply presenting some additional data to helpfully balance out the skewed information in that article.

 
So last week I started the tread about how people are able to raise multiple kids on the average American income today.  In it, I assumed the family paying an effective tax rate of just over 10% and everyone yelled at me saying that was too high.  So this article says....

"In 1950, the top 1 percent of earners paid about 40 to 45 percent of their pre-tax incomes in taxes; today they pay 30 to 35 percent of pre-tax incomes to the tax man. The reverse is true for the bottom 50 percent, the researchers note. In the 1950s, the bottom half paid no more than 20 percent, while today are paying about 25 percent of their income in taxes."

So which is it?

 
Capella said:
For one it's completely unrealistic in the environment some of the kids have to deal with. 
Click to expand...
I'm not saying this is the only option they have, or that we can't/shouldn't do more to help them.  But no matter how bad the situation is, people can improve themselves over time.  I would argue people in some of the worst situations need this message the most.  It's empowering.  What's the alternative message?  

 
And this is just going to get worse faster as the wealthy's capital increases come faster and faster through the miracle of compounding.  The rest of the country will be trying to scrape by on 3% annual COLAs (if they're lucky).

 
Steeler said:
I'm not saying this is the only option they have, or that we can't/shouldn't do more to help them.  But no matter how bad the situation is, people can improve themselves over time.  I would argue people in some of the worst situations need this message the most.  It's empowering.  What's the alternative message?  
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be one or the other?

 
matttyl said:
So last week I started the tread about how people are able to raise multiple kids on the average American income today.  In it, I assumed the family paying an effective tax rate of just over 10% and everyone yelled at me saying that was too high.  So this article says....

"In 1950, the top 1 percent of earners paid about 40 to 45 percent of their pre-tax incomes in taxes; today they pay 30 to 35 percent of pre-tax incomes to the tax man. The reverse is true for the bottom 50 percent, the researchers note. In the 1950s, the bottom half paid no more than 20 percent, while today are paying about 25 percent of their income in taxes."

So which is it?
Click to expand...
Here is some handy data: Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes

And here is a pretty thorough analysis of who pays what and who gets what in Federal transfer payments. 

And yes, Mark Perry is a conservative economist. The thing I like most about his work, even when I disagree with its conclusions, is that he provides the sources of the data he uses very clearly, which makes it pretty easy to track his numbers back to the statistics behind them.

 
SkyRattlers said:
Individuals can and do break out of their lot in life all the time...but the article is talking about an entire class of people....millions and millions of people. It is literally impossible for them all to do it.
Click to expand...
Of course it's impossible for them ALL to do it. It's a mute point anyway because not all of them would WANT to do it.

The world needs ditch diggers too...

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Are you suggesting my intent was to "skew income"?

I was simply presenting some additional data to helpfully balance out the skewed information in that article.
Click to expand...
Well it is your go to link, that is utterly useless alone so either you are trying to represent that that graph actually means something or you do not understand the situation.    

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Well it is your go to link, that is utterly useless alone so either you are trying to represent that that graph actually means something or you do not understand the situation.    
Click to expand...
The graph does mean something. As does the other data I have presented.

And I do understand that there is a problem for a segment of the population. How big a segment and the exact nature of the problem are key things to understand however.

 
Capella said:
It's unbelievable people think it's this simple. Try that while being born in the Chicago inner city and avoiding gunfire on your way to school. 
Click to expand...
Not suggesting it's just as easy for one person as it is for others, but it's possible for anyone.....even in crimeland Chicago. 

How many rags to riches stories have we seen in this country? 

How many rags to middle class stories have we seen in this country?

#### the excuses.

 
matttyl said:
So last week I started the tread about how people are able to raise multiple kids on the average American income today.  In it, I assumed the family paying an effective tax rate of just over 10% and everyone yelled at me saying that was too high.  So this article says....

"In 1950, the top 1 percent of earners paid about 40 to 45 percent of their pre-tax incomes in taxes; today they pay 30 to 35 percent of pre-tax incomes to the tax man. The reverse is true for the bottom 50 percent, the researchers note. In the 1950s, the bottom half paid no more than 20 percent, while today are paying about 25 percent of their income in taxes."

So which is it?
Click to expand...
Again like everything, depends how it is calculated.   Do you included taxes included in the price such as gasoline?  Are you including state sales taxes?  Sin taxes?  etc

 
eoMMan said:
Not suggesting it's just as easy for one person as it is for others, but it's possible for anyone.....even in crimeland Chicago. 

How many rags to riches stories have we seen in this country? 

How many rags to middle class stories have we seen in this country?

#### the excuses.
Click to expand...
They don't make movies about the people that didn't make it and tried and worked hard.

 
massraider said:
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Click to expand...
What do you mean?  I said "I'm not saying this is the only option they have, or that we can't/shouldn't do more to help them"

But Cappy seems to think it's dumb, or a waste of time, or whatever to even suggest this to people in extremely bad situations.  To me, this message is lacking in a lot of places.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Again like everything, depends how it is calculated.   Do you included taxes included in the price such as gasoline?  Are you including state sales taxes?  Sin taxes?  etc
Click to expand...
Of course it depends.  Just find it funny that people would say that my 10% in federal taxes (effective rate) was too high.  I understand the gas tax and such (had gas as a monthly expense as well).  I didn't have much money left over at the end of the month to buy anything to even have a sales tax on. 

 
eoMMan said:
Not suggesting it's just as easy for one person as it is for others, but it's possible for anyone.....even in crimeland Chicago. 

How many rags to riches stories have we seen in this country? 

How many rags to middle class stories have we seen in this country?

#### the excuses.
Click to expand...
Why do you think these stories are newsworthy?  Hint - news never reports common occurances. 

 
matttyl said:
Of course it depends.  Just find it funny that people would say that my 10% in federal taxes (effective rate) was too high.  I understand the gas tax and such (had gas as a monthly expense as well).  I didn't have much money left over at the end of the month to buy anything to even have a sales tax on. 
Click to expand...
A family with market income of 53,000 was the average for the middle quintile of households in the tax year 2013. They paid, on average, $8,900 in Federal taxes (inclusive of payroll taxes, SS, etc.). They also received, on average, $16,700 in government transfers from entitlement programs. Table 1, Page 31

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do You Believe That Effective Modern "Work / Life Balance" Is Even Possible? (19/30)
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
GordonGekko
Should The "Passport Bros" Phenomenon Be Seen As Toxic Or Merely The Exercise Of Free Will? (13/30)
Replies
8
Views
2K
El Floppo
El Floppo
GordonGekko
What Is The Worst Part Of Your Main Job/Career That No One Ever Told You About? (2/30)
Replies
23
Views
1K
MTskibum
MTskibum

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top