Paul Krugman is a jackass (1 Viewer)

[Slapdash]

Darn good <> The World's best

So this was all just quibbling. Thanks.

 

[dickey moe]

The tea party stands for a series of propositions that don't meet the reality test: that deficits matter more than jobs, that cutting deficits and tightening credit will accelerate economic growth, that high taxes and over-regulation are the most important reasons that growth has not revived, and that America still offers the world's best opportunity for the poor to rise. Tea party plans call for a radical shift in the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor -- and promise big reductions in government spending without touching any of the benefits of current retirees.

The green is at least arguable, and the blue seems pretty close to the mark. Poor people the world over often vote with their feet — or try to — on the latter.

Not at all among developed nations.

An awful lot of poor immigrants try to come to the U.S. Isn't it because they think it offers a darn good opportunity to rise?

In a 2006 survey, 30 percent of people without a high school degree said that playing the lottery was a wealth-building strategy.

All this shows is that 30% of people without a high school degree are really, really stupid.

 

[pantagrapher]

Millionaire For A DayI see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

 

[RCon]

In a 2006 survey, 30 percent of people without a high school degree said that playing the lottery was a wealth-building strategy.

All this shows is that 30% of people without a high school degree are really, really stupid.

Ironically, for those stupid enough to believe this, their most likely wealth building strategy may in fact be to win the lottery.

 

[adonis]

Krugman's been on fire lately for, perhaps, the past several years.

 

[guderian]

Millionaire For A DayI see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

 

[adonis]

Millionaire For A DayI see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

I haven't seen him change his arguments, and I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[guderian]

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

And i'll add that it's not an "income mobility defense"--it merely highlights the hugely misleading "the incomes of the top 1% grew x%" argument that Krugman and the OWS crowd has been pushing. After all, if the top 1% is comprised of an entirely different group of people than in a prior period, it's data that we need to consider before we can learn if there's any advantage to tilting the system to your own advantage. According to treasury data:

Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.

Also interesting:-Average income growth from 1996 to 2005 was 24.8%

-If you were in the top 1%, you saw you're income decline 25.8%.

-If you were in the top 5%, you saw your income decline by 6.8%.

-If you were in the bottom 90%, you saw your income rise 90.5%.

Link

Glad we have Krugman starting to talk about the proper statistics and recognize that incomes for those in the top 1% actually declined.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Krugman's been on fire lately for, perhaps, the past several years.

Absolutely. It's like he's in a zone. Man, I bet the other jackasses are pissed he's so good at it (being a jackass, that is).

 

[pantagrapher]

Millionaire For A DayI see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

Again, you're missing the point. He's illustrating the CBO's point that those who do fall out of the top bracket barely do. This is not the same as arguing that the entire Top 1% has seen a slight decline in income.

 

[guderian]

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."

So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.

As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

I haven't seen him change his arguments, and I don't understand what you're saying.

He's used the statistics about growth in incomes of the top 1% in the past to justify some of his positions. Here he's acknowledging that if you consider that individuals in the top 1% in any time period are different than the individuals in the top 1% in a subsequent time period, you get a different picture. By saying "many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class." Acknowledging that their incomes actually fell is a huge discrepancy from what he's said in the past, but he tries to spin it by tossing in a strawman "not because they went back to being middle class" to make it look like he was right.

 

[adonis]

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

And i'll add that it's not an "income mobility defense"--it merely highlights the hugely misleading "the incomes of the top 1% grew x%" argument that Krugman and the OWS crowd has been pushing. After all, if the top 1% is comprised of an entirely different group of people than in a prior period, it's data that we need to consider before we can learn if there's any advantage to tilting the system to your own advantage. According to treasury data:

Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.

Also interesting:-Average income growth from 1996 to 2005 was 24.8%

-If you were in the top 1%, you saw you're income decline 25.8%.

-If you were in the top 5%, you saw your income decline by 6.8%.

-If you were in the bottom 90%, you saw your income rise 90.5%.

Link

Glad we have Krugman starting to talk about the proper statistics and recognize that incomes for those in the top 1% actually declined.

BS

 

[guderian]

Millionaire For A DayI see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

Again, you're missing the point. He's illustrating the CBO's point that those who do fall out of the top bracket barely do. This is not the same as arguing that the entire Top 1% has seen a slight decline in income.

He's using an example that he's made up and doesn't offer any proof. Regardless, this is his response to the data that I posted above that shows a decline in income and his response is an example that says "well they just fell a little--they didn't fall all the way to middle class!"

 

[pantagrapher]

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."

So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.

As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

I haven't seen him change his arguments, and I don't understand what you're saying.

He's used the statistics about growth in incomes of the top 1% in the past to justify some of his positions. Here he's acknowledging that if you consider that individuals in the top 1% in any time period are different than the individuals in the top 1% in a subsequent time period, you get a different picture. By saying "many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class." Acknowledging that their incomes actually fell is a huge discrepancy from what he's said in the past, but he tries to spin it by tossing in a strawman "not because they went back to being middle class" to make it look like he was right.

Would love to see evidence of Krugman arguing that nobody ever falls out of the top 1%.

 

[guderian]

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

And i'll add that it's not an "income mobility defense"--it merely highlights the hugely misleading "the incomes of the top 1% grew x%" argument that Krugman and the OWS crowd has been pushing. After all, if the top 1% is comprised of an entirely different group of people than in a prior period, it's data that we need to consider before we can learn if there's any advantage to tilting the system to your own advantage. According to treasury data:

Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.

Also interesting:-Average income growth from 1996 to 2005 was 24.8%

-If you were in the top 1%, you saw you're income decline 25.8%.

-If you were in the top 5%, you saw your income decline by 6.8%.

-If you were in the bottom 90%, you saw your income rise 90.5%.

Link

Glad we have Krugman starting to talk about the proper statistics and recognize that incomes for those in the top 1% actually declined.

BS

Page 10, table 3 in the link to the Treasury study I provided. All the way on the right under the column "percent change in median income". Actually, I erred. It's not the bottom 90%, it's the bottom quintile. I was thinking 'decile'. Regardless, the growth in income is higher the lower you're beginning quintile is, so I'd be surprised if the same doesn't hold true for deciles.

 

[guderian]

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."

So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.

As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

I haven't seen him change his arguments, and I don't understand what you're saying.

He's used the statistics about growth in incomes of the top 1% in the past to justify some of his positions. Here he's acknowledging that if you consider that individuals in the top 1% in any time period are different than the individuals in the top 1% in a subsequent time period, you get a different picture. By saying "many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class." Acknowledging that their incomes actually fell is a huge discrepancy from what he's said in the past, but he tries to spin it by tossing in a strawman "not because they went back to being middle class" to make it look like he was right.

Would love to see evidence of Krugman arguing that nobody ever falls out of the top 1%.

I see that you're as good at strawmen as he is. "Acknowledging that their incomes actually fell" <> "arguing that nobody ever falls out of the top 1%"

 

[pantagrapher]

He's using an example that he's made up and doesn't offer any proof. Regardless, this is his response to the data that I posted above that shows a decline in income and his response is an example that says "well they just fell a little--they didn't fall all the way to middle class!"

It's a hypothetical. As for offering proof, here's the CBO report he links to. He also links to an article he wrote on this subject back in 2001. I should have included the links in the original post.

 

[adonis]

Millionaire For A DayI see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

\Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.

I'll copy what I posted regarding this in the other thread:It's funny that he never dove into the details when he and the OWS crowd was touting that "the top 1% saw their incomes grow x%". Now he's throwing up a strawman that their incomes 'only' fell slightly--"not because they went back to being middle class."So which is it? Did the top 1% see huge gains in incomes from tilting the system in their favor as he's argued in the past? Or did they only see slight declines versus the growth of the rest of the populace? If we're going to debate this, let's get the facts out there because this is a huge change from what he's argued in the past.As usual he does a solid job of misleading and backpedaling.

Again, you're missing the point. He's illustrating the CBO's point that those who do fall out of the top bracket barely do. This is not the same as arguing that the entire Top 1% has seen a slight decline in income.

He's using an example that he's made up and doesn't offer any proof. Regardless, this is his response to the data that I posted above that shows a decline in income and his response is an example that says "well they just fell a little--they didn't fall all the way to middle class!"

In the very link you provide on page 11, it seems to support what Krugman is saying in that those in the very top percentiles, tend to stay in the very top percentiles, although if you look at sub-percentiles and movements between them, you see a lot of volatility, likely due to small sample size and the fluctuating nature of those incomes.What that table tells me is that if you were in the top 0.01%, 80% of them were still in at least the top 1% nearly 10 years later. About that same is true for the top 0.1% staying in at least that position 10 years later. Those on the cusp were more likely to move down from previous 1% or above, with about 71% of those in the top .1%-1% in 1996 staying in the top 5% by 2005.Edit to fix decimal place errors and better approximate sums i did in my head.

 

[guderian]

He's using an example that he's made up and doesn't offer any proof. Regardless, this is his response to the data that I posted above that shows a decline in income and his response is an example that says "well they just fell a little--they didn't fall all the way to middle class!"

It's a hypothetical. As for offering proof, here's the CBO report he links to. He also links to an article he wrote on this subject back in 2001. I should have included the links in the original post.

Here are 3 Kruman articles from just this month where he points out growth in the income/wealth of the top 1% without acknowledging that it's a different set of folks and leaving people with a misrepresentation. They largely match you CBO link. Link

Link

Lilnk

The point is that for a long time he's been saying things such as "So income inequality in America really is about oligarchs versus everyone else" or "Just about all of the redistribution has taken place from the bottom 80 to the top 1." ALL of the data and the "oligarchs" discussion would mislead one to conclude that it's the same group of people who are seeing the gains. In fact, the original group of people is, on average, seeing a decline and they're being replaced by people from the "99%" who are seeing huge gains and pushing the averages up.

 

[guderian]

In the very link you provide on page 11, it seems to support what Krugman is saying in that those in the very top percentiles, tend to stay in the very top percentiles, although if you look at sub-percentiles and movements between them, you see a lot of volatility, likely due to small sample size and the fluctuating nature of those incomes.

What that table tells me is that if you were in the top 0.01%, 75% of them were still in at least the top 0.1% nearly 10 years later. About that same is true for the top 0.1% staying in at least that position 10 years later. Those on the cusp were more likely to move down from previous 1% or above, with about 71% of those in the top .1%-1% in 1996 staying in the top 5% by 2005.

It says the exact opposite: "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period."Seventy-five percent of the people in the top 0.01% were different after only 10 years. That's a lot of turnover for an Oligarchy.

 

[adonis]

In the very link you provide on page 11, it seems to support what Krugman is saying in that those in the very top percentiles, tend to stay in the very top percentiles, although if you look at sub-percentiles and movements between them, you see a lot of volatility, likely due to small sample size and the fluctuating nature of those incomes.

What that table tells me is that if you were in the top 0.01%, 75% of them were still in at least the top 0.1% nearly 10 years later. About that same is true for the top 0.1% staying in at least that position 10 years later. Those on the cusp were more likely to move down from previous 1% or above, with about 71% of those in the top .1%-1% in 1996 staying in the top 5% by 2005.

It says the exact opposite: "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period."Seventy-five percent of the people in the top 0.01% were different after only 10 years. That's a lot of turnover for an Oligarchy.

You've already shown that reading these graphs/tables aren't your forte. While there is a huge turnover in the top 0.01%, over EIGHTY PERCENT of those in the top 0.01% in 1996 were STILL IN THE TOP 1% by 2005.

In fact, if you want to break down by percentages, where the top 0.01% in 1996 fell in 2005:

- 6% fell into the bottom 80%

- 1.1% fell between 80-90%

- 1.6% fell between the 90-95%

So at this point, only about 9% of everyone in the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the TOP FIVE PERCENT IN THE COUNTRY in ten years. To continue:

- 9.1% fell between 95-99%

So at this point, less than 20% of all peopl ein the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the top 1% ten years later. And you suggest that these numbers don't show that there is a ruling class at the top of our social ladder that's not largely stable? Let's go further:

- 24.2% fell between 99%-99.9%

- 32.9% fell between 99.9-99.99%

- 25.3% REMAINED in the top 0.01% or >99.99% of population.

So sure, there was some turnover at the 99.99% rate with 75% falling out of the top 0.01% of the population, but those guys didn't fall far, with over 80% of them STAYING in the top 1%. This is Krugmans point that you continue to fail to appreciate.

Oh, and if we were looking at numbers from between 1996 and 2010, the numbers likely would be more interesting.

 

[guderian]

In the very link you provide on page 11, it seems to support what Krugman is saying in that those in the very top percentiles, tend to stay in the very top percentiles, although if you look at sub-percentiles and movements between them, you see a lot of volatility, likely due to small sample size and the fluctuating nature of those incomes.

What that table tells me is that if you were in the top 0.01%, 75% of them were still in at least the top 0.1% nearly 10 years later. About that same is true for the top 0.1% staying in at least that position 10 years later. Those on the cusp were more likely to move down from previous 1% or above, with about 71% of those in the top .1%-1% in 1996 staying in the top 5% by 2005.

It says the exact opposite: "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period."Seventy-five percent of the people in the top 0.01% were different after only 10 years. That's a lot of turnover for an Oligarchy.

You've already shown that reading these graphs/tables aren't your forte. While there is a huge turnover in the top 0.01%, over EIGHTY PERCENT of those in the top 0.01% in 1996 were STILL IN THE TOP 1% by 2005.

In fact, if you want to break down by percentages, where the top 0.01% in 1996 fell in 2005:

- 6% fell into the bottom 80%

- 1.1% fell between 80-90%

- 1.6% fell between the 90-95%

So at this point, only about 9% of everyone in the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the TOP FIVE PERCENT IN THE COUNTRY in ten years. To continue:

- 9.1% fell between 95-99%

So at this point, less than 20% of all peopl ein the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the top 1% ten years later. And you suggest that these numbers don't show that there is a ruling class at the top of our social ladder that's not largely stable? Let's go further:

- 24.2% fell between 99%-99.9%

- 32.9% fell between 99.9-99.99%

- 25.3% REMAINED in the top 0.01% or >99.99% of population.

So sure, there was some turnover at the 99.99% rate with 75% falling out of the top 0.01% of the population, but those guys didn't fall far, with over 80% of them STAYING in the top 1%. This is Krugmans point that you continue to fail to appreciate.

Oh, and if we were looking at numbers from between 1996 and 2010, the numbers likely would be more interesting.

Krugman's original point? About an oligarchy that's seen huge income growth that he's been writing about for weeks? Or his most recent back-tracking point that "they only fell a little"? And the income cut-off for a fall from top 1% to top 5% in 2005 was $463k to $171k. They don't list what income level you had to have to be 0.01%, but it's probably even bigger. So you're statistics about only falling a little only highlights that THEY ACTUALLY FELL WHICH IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT KRUGMAN'S BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE PAST FEW WEEKS AND VALIDATES THE ARGUMENTS THAT A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN MAKING.

 

[guderian]

Regardless, I'm just glad this has the OWS supporters finally digging into the statistics they've been parroting for weeks.

 

[adonis]

Further info about how much movement there has been in the top income levels:

If you were in the top 1% in 1996, here are your odds that you'll still be in the top 1%, divided by percentile in 1996:

1996 in Top .01% - ~82% you're in top 1% 10 years later; ~91% you're in top 5% ten years later

1996 in top .1%-.01% - ~67% you're in top 1% 10 years later; 84% you're in top 5% tyl

1996 in top .1%-1% - ~40% you're in top 1% 10 years later; ~74% you're in top 5% tyl

Looks like a pretty stable upper tier to me.

 

[adonis]

In the very link you provide on page 11, it seems to support what Krugman is saying in that those in the very top percentiles, tend to stay in the very top percentiles, although if you look at sub-percentiles and movements between them, you see a lot of volatility, likely due to small sample size and the fluctuating nature of those incomes.

What that table tells me is that if you were in the top 0.01%, 75% of them were still in at least the top 0.1% nearly 10 years later. About that same is true for the top 0.1% staying in at least that position 10 years later. Those on the cusp were more likely to move down from previous 1% or above, with about 71% of those in the top .1%-1% in 1996 staying in the top 5% by 2005.

It says the exact opposite: "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period."Seventy-five percent of the people in the top 0.01% were different after only 10 years. That's a lot of turnover for an Oligarchy.

You've already shown that reading these graphs/tables aren't your forte. While there is a huge turnover in the top 0.01%, over EIGHTY PERCENT of those in the top 0.01% in 1996 were STILL IN THE TOP 1% by 2005.

In fact, if you want to break down by percentages, where the top 0.01% in 1996 fell in 2005:

- 6% fell into the bottom 80%

- 1.1% fell between 80-90%

- 1.6% fell between the 90-95%

So at this point, only about 9% of everyone in the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the TOP FIVE PERCENT IN THE COUNTRY in ten years. To continue:

- 9.1% fell between 95-99%

So at this point, less than 20% of all peopl ein the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the top 1% ten years later. And you suggest that these numbers don't show that there is a ruling class at the top of our social ladder that's not largely stable? Let's go further:

- 24.2% fell between 99%-99.9%

- 32.9% fell between 99.9-99.99%

- 25.3% REMAINED in the top 0.01% or >99.99% of population.

So sure, there was some turnover at the 99.99% rate with 75% falling out of the top 0.01% of the population, but those guys didn't fall far, with over 80% of them STAYING in the top 1%. This is Krugmans point that you continue to fail to appreciate.

Oh, and if we were looking at numbers from between 1996 and 2010, the numbers likely would be more interesting.

Krugman's original point? About an oligarchy that's seen huge income growth that he's been writing about for weeks? Or his most recent back-tracking point that "they only fell a little"? And the income cut-off for a fall from top 1% to top 5% in 2005 was $463k to $171k. They don't list what income level you had to have to be 0.01%, but it's probably even bigger. So you're statistics about only falling a little only highlights that THEY ACTUALLY FELL WHICH IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT KRUGMAN'S BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE PAST FEW WEEKS AND VALIDATES THE ARGUMENTS THAT A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN MAKING.

These numbers show that the top 1% of the country, over a 10 year period, OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN in the top 1%, and that this segment of people have had huge gains in income vs the rest of the 99%. How hard is this to understand?

 

[pantagrapher]

In the very link you provide on page 11, it seems to support what Krugman is saying in that those in the very top percentiles, tend to stay in the very top percentiles, although if you look at sub-percentiles and movements between them, you see a lot of volatility, likely due to small sample size and the fluctuating nature of those incomes.

What that table tells me is that if you were in the top 0.01%, 75% of them were still in at least the top 0.1% nearly 10 years later. About that same is true for the top 0.1% staying in at least that position 10 years later. Those on the cusp were more likely to move down from previous 1% or above, with about 71% of those in the top .1%-1% in 1996 staying in the top 5% by 2005.

It says the exact opposite: "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period."Seventy-five percent of the people in the top 0.01% were different after only 10 years. That's a lot of turnover for an Oligarchy.

You've already shown that reading these graphs/tables aren't your forte. While there is a huge turnover in the top 0.01%, over EIGHTY PERCENT of those in the top 0.01% in 1996 were STILL IN THE TOP 1% by 2005.

In fact, if you want to break down by percentages, where the top 0.01% in 1996 fell in 2005:

- 6% fell into the bottom 80%

- 1.1% fell between 80-90%

- 1.6% fell between the 90-95%

So at this point, only about 9% of everyone in the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the TOP FIVE PERCENT IN THE COUNTRY in ten years. To continue:

- 9.1% fell between 95-99%

So at this point, less than 20% of all peopl ein the top 0.01% in 1996 fell out of the top 1% ten years later. And you suggest that these numbers don't show that there is a ruling class at the top of our social ladder that's not largely stable? Let's go further:

- 24.2% fell between 99%-99.9%

- 32.9% fell between 99.9-99.99%

- 25.3% REMAINED in the top 0.01% or >99.99% of population.

So sure, there was some turnover at the 99.99% rate with 75% falling out of the top 0.01% of the population, but those guys didn't fall far, with over 80% of them STAYING in the top 1%. This is Krugmans point that you continue to fail to appreciate.

Oh, and if we were looking at numbers from between 1996 and 2010, the numbers likely would be more interesting.

Krugman's original point? About an oligarchy that's seen huge income growth that he's been writing about for weeks? Or his most recent back-tracking point that "they only fell a little"? And the income cut-off for a fall from top 1% to top 5% in 2005 was $463k to $171k. They don't list what income level you had to have to be 0.01%, but it's probably even bigger. So you're statistics about only falling a little only highlights that THEY ACTUALLY FELL WHICH IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT KRUGMAN'S BEEN WRITING ABOUT THE PAST FEW WEEKS AND VALIDATES THE ARGUMENTS THAT A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN MAKING.

You're just doing this intentionally now.

 

[guderian]

Note to self: facts, reason and data just don't mix with Krugman's army.

 

[guderian]

These numbers show that the top 1% of the country, over a 10 year period, OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN in the top 1%, and that this segment of people have had huge gains in income vs the rest of the 99%. How hard is this to understand?

"Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005."How hard is it to ####### understand that "less than half" is not "OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN"?!?!?

 

[adonis]

Note to self: facts, reason and data just don't mix with Krugman's army.

The facts:The overwhelming majority of people in the top 1% in 1996 were in the top 1% 10 years later.Those in the top 1% have seen their incomes rise at levels grossly disproportionate to the rest of the 99%.While there may be fluctuations in grades of filthy rich, there is very clearly a group of people at the top of the economic ladder who largely remain at the top of the economic ladder, and use their wealth and influence to curry political favors to keep them atop the ladder, to the detriment of the lower 99%, but mostly, those below 50%.

 

[humpback]

These numbers show that the top 1% of the country, over a 10 year period, OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN in the top 1%, and that this segment of people have had huge gains in income vs the rest of the 99%. How hard is this to understand?

I don't want to get too involved in this pissing match, but NO THEY DON'T.

 

[guderian]

The median income of those in the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers in 1996 fell by 64.6 percent from $11.6 million to $4.1 million. The pattern was similar, if less dramatic, for the other subgroups of the top 1 percent in 1996.

"Congratulations, your evil scheme to lobby the government to protect your Oligarchy resulted in a 65% decline in your income while the rest of the nation's rose by 24%."

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Those in the top 1% have seen their incomes rise at levels grossly disproportionate to the rest of the 99%.

All of it through gladhanding and not enterprising, of course.

 

[guderian]

Note to self: facts, reason and data just don't mix with Krugman's army.

The facts:The overwhelming majority of people in the top 1% in 1996 were in the top 1% 10 years later.

Those in the top 1% have seen their incomes rise at levels grossly disproportionate to the rest of the 99%.

While there may be fluctuations in grades of filthy rich, there is very clearly a group of people at the top of the economic ladder who largely remain at the top of the economic ladder, and use their wealth and influence to curry political favors to keep them atop the ladder, to the detriment of the lower 99%, but mostly, those below 50%.

How many times to I have to quote the link that completely refutes this?!?!?!

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Is it so surprising that there's not a huge turnover in the top 1%?

If you know how to get there in the first place, it's not like you forget and can't get there again if you find yourself out of it.

 

[adonis]

These numbers show that the top 1% of the country, over a 10 year period, OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN in the top 1%, and that this segment of people have had huge gains in income vs the rest of the 99%. How hard is this to understand?

"Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005."How hard is it to ####### understand that "less than half" is not "OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN"?!?!?

You're getting confused between percentages and raw number of people. There are far more people in the .1-1% category than the 0.01-1% or >0.01% categories, which means the numbers are going to be dramatically skewed towards those nearer the 1% than the .01%.However, taking a look at Table 7 should show you that in the top 1%, the total income distribution is largely focused on those near the top of the 1%, which I've shown in previous numbers, OVERWHELMINGLY stay within the top 1% ten years later.When you lump everyone in the top 1% together, and say that 40-43% of them are out of the top 1%, it doesn't say where they fall to, most likely residing in the top 5%. Additionally, due to the higher population of those in the 0.1-1% range vs the 0.01-.1% and >.01% range, lumping the three groups together and saying that 40-43% of them remain in the top 1% doesn't say much about the 0.01-.1% and >0.01% groups, who hold the MAJORITY of the money in the top 1%. My percentages broken down earlier SHOW convincingly that those two groups, the top .01% and .01-.1% groups PREDOMINANTLY stay within the top 1% 10 years later, and those are the groups with the most money.

 

[guderian]

Is it so surprising that there's not a huge turnover in the top 1%?If you know how to get there in the first place, it's not like you forget and can't get there again if you find yourself out of it.

At 60% turnover over 10 years, that's 6% per year implying that you're in the top 1% for only 17 years. That is actually less time than I'd think considering it's probably full of doctors, lawyers and business owners. I think they need to hire better lobbyists.

 

[guderian]

These numbers show that the top 1% of the country, over a 10 year period, OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN in the top 1%, and that this segment of people have had huge gains in income vs the rest of the 99%. How hard is this to understand?

"Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005."How hard is it to ####### understand that "less than half" is not "OVERWHELMINGLY REMAIN"?!?!?

You're getting confused between percentages and raw number of people. There are far more people in the .1-1% category than the 0.01-1% or >0.01% categories, which means the numbers are going to be dramatically skewed towards those nearer the 1% than the .01%.However, taking a look at Table 7 should show you that in the top 1%, the total income distribution is largely focused on those near the top of the 1%, which I've shown in previous numbers, OVERWHELMINGLY stay within the top 1% ten years later.When you lump everyone in the top 1% together, and say that 40-43% of them are out of the top 1%, it doesn't say where they fall to, most likely residing in the top 5%. Additionally, due to the higher population of those in the 0.1-1% range vs the 0.01-.1% and >.01% range, lumping the three groups together and saying that 40-43% of them remain in the top 1% doesn't say much about the 0.01-.1% and >0.01% groups, who hold the MAJORITY of the money in the top 1%. My percentages broken down earlier SHOW convincingly that those two groups, the top .01% and .01-.1% groups PREDOMINANTLY stay within the top 1% 10 years later, and those are the groups with the most money.

I'm not getting confused at all. You're making assertions that are directly contradictory to exact quotes from the study.And, yet again, the data shows that those in the top 0.01% saw their incomes fall 65%--proving that this oligarchy sucks at lobbying since they lose two-thirds of their income over 10 years.

 

[adonis]

Note to self: facts, reason and data just don't mix with Krugman's army.

The facts:The overwhelming majority of people in the top 1% in 1996 were in the top 1% 10 years later.

Those in the top 1% have seen their incomes rise at levels grossly disproportionate to the rest of the 99%.

While there may be fluctuations in grades of filthy rich, there is very clearly a group of people at the top of the economic ladder who largely remain at the top of the economic ladder, and use their wealth and influence to curry political favors to keep them atop the ladder, to the detriment of the lower 99%, but mostly, those below 50%.

How many times to I have to quote the link that completely refutes this?!?!?!

I should've said the majority of the people with the most money in the top 1% remain in the top 1% 10 years later. Maybe that'd be easier to understand.But you're right, my comment was based on three groups:

.1%-1% - it's hard to say that the overwhelming majority of this group stay in the top 1%, and due to its much larger sample size, what happens to this group largely controls what happens to the "top 1%" when you speak of it as a whole. As you say, there is about a 40% chance for this group to stay in the top 1%, which is remarkably close to your 40-43% chance quoted for the entire top 1%. but again, grouping the .01%-1% and >0.01% in with the .1-1% basically drowns out what happens to those two subgroups, because population sizes are so different.

If you're in the .01-.1% group, there's about a 2/3rds chance you'll still be in top 1% 10 years later.

If you're in the top 0.01% group, there's about an 82% chance you'll be in the top 1% ten years later.

So for those who hold the most money in the top 1%, which are those in the top .1% or higher, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them stay in the top 1% 10 years later.

 

[guderian]

Circling back to the original point, Krugman's been posting articles about an "oligarchy" and putting up charts that show income growth of the top 1% that are, in my opinion, misleading. I'm glad people are finally digging into the statistics and learning that this "top 1%" is a highly dynamic group and that, unlike the rest of the population, they saw declines in their income in recent years.

 

[adonis]

And, yet again, the data shows that those in the top 0.01% saw their incomes fall 65%--proving that this oligarchy sucks at lobbying since they lose two-thirds of their income over 10 years.

The mean income for the top 0.01% dropped from about 17.5 million to about 14.5 million, a drop of about 18%. Yeah, they must really suck.

 

[guderian]

So for those who hold the most money in the top 1%, which are those in the top .1% or higher, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them stay in the top 1% 10 years later.

Average income for those in the top 0.01% was $11.6 million in 1996. It would have to have fallen more than 96% to not make the $483k cutoff in 2005.

 

[guderian]

And, yet again, the data shows that those in the top 0.01% saw their incomes fall 65%--proving that this oligarchy sucks at lobbying since they lose two-thirds of their income over 10 years.

The mean income for the top 0.01% dropped from about 17.5 million to about 14.5 million, a drop of about 18%. Yeah, they must really suck.

"Thus, the median income of those in the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers in 1996 fell by 64.6 percent from $11.6 million to $4.1 million."

EVEN if you're talking about just the top 0.01% and ignore the changes in composition they saw an 18% decline compared to an increase of 24% for the rest of the population.

 

[adonis]

Circling back to the original point, Krugman's been posting articles about an "oligarchy" and putting up charts that show income growth of the top 1% that are, in my opinion, misleading. I'm glad people are finally digging into the statistics and learning that this "top 1%" is a highly dynamic group and that, unlike the rest of the population, they saw declines in their income in recent years.

Those at the top of the income ladder stay at the very top of the income ladder, in overwhelming numbers.What we need is the number of people in the entire sample.How many people are in the top 1%? How many people are in the .1%-1%, 0.01%-.1%, and > 0.01%?Until you answer this, there's really no point throwing around more percentages. Let's get some solid numbers.

 

[adonis]

And, yet again, the data shows that those in the top 0.01% saw their incomes fall 65%--proving that this oligarchy sucks at lobbying since they lose two-thirds of their income over 10 years.

The mean income for the top 0.01% dropped from about 17.5 million to about 14.5 million, a drop of about 18%. Yeah, they must really suck.

"Thus, the median income of those in the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers in 1996 fell by 64.6 percent from $11.6 million to $4.1 million."

EVEN if you're talking about just the top 0.01% and ignore the changes in composition they saw an 18% decline compared to an increase of 24% for the rest of the population.

Well by God, I wouldn't want to be in the top 0.01%!

 

[adonis]

So for those who hold the most money in the top 1%, which are those in the top .1% or higher, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them stay in the top 1% 10 years later.

Average income for those in the top 0.01% was $11.6 million in 1996. It would have to have fallen more than 96% to not make the $483k cutoff in 2005.

So it sounds like you're agreeing with me that those in the top tier of incomes in america have a hard time falling OUT of the top tier of incomes in america. This is even more true when you get up to the .1% or higher income levels. THey're OVERWHELMINGLY likely to remain in the top 1% after 10 years.So yeah, those with the MOST money stay on top, year after year. Oligarchs indeed.

 

[Road Warriors]

Note to self: facts, reason and data just don't mix with Krugman's army.

The facts:The overwhelming majority of people in the top 1% in 1996 were in the top 1% 10 years later.

Those in the top 1% have seen their incomes rise at levels grossly disproportionate to the rest of the 99%.

While there may be fluctuations in grades of filthy rich, there is very clearly a group of people at the top of the economic ladder who largely remain at the top of the economic ladder, and use their wealth and influence to curry political favors to keep them atop the ladder, to the detriment of the lower 99%, but mostly, those below 50%.

How many times to I have to quote the link that completely refutes this?!?!?!

I should've said the majority of the people with the most money in the top 1% remain in the top 1% 10 years later. Maybe that'd be easier to understand.But you're right, my comment was based on three groups:

.1%-1% - it's hard to say that the overwhelming majority of this group stay in the top 1%, and due to its much larger sample size, what happens to this group largely controls what happens to the "top 1%" when you speak of it as a whole. As you say, there is about a 40% chance for this group to stay in the top 1%, which is remarkably close to your 40-43% chance quoted for the entire top 1%. but again, grouping the .01%-1% and >0.01% in with the .1-1% basically drowns out what happens to those two subgroups, because population sizes are so different.

If you're in the .01-.1% group, there's about a 2/3rds chance you'll still be in top 1% 10 years later.

If you're in the top 0.01% group, there's about an 82% chance you'll be in the top 1% ten years later.

So for those who hold the most money in the top 1%, which are those in the top .1% or higher, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them stay in the top 1% 10 years later.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true of nearly any grouping? The top 10% of any group has a higher likelihood of staying above the bottom boundary of the defined group? Say, the top 10 in class rank in year 1 of HS have a higher % of staying in the top 100 when graduating than the bottom 90, for example.

 

[adonis]

Note to self: facts, reason and data just don't mix with Krugman's army.

The facts:The overwhelming majority of people in the top 1% in 1996 were in the top 1% 10 years later.

Those in the top 1% have seen their incomes rise at levels grossly disproportionate to the rest of the 99%.

While there may be fluctuations in grades of filthy rich, there is very clearly a group of people at the top of the economic ladder who largely remain at the top of the economic ladder, and use their wealth and influence to curry political favors to keep them atop the ladder, to the detriment of the lower 99%, but mostly, those below 50%.

How many times to I have to quote the link that completely refutes this?!?!?!

I should've said the majority of the people with the most money in the top 1% remain in the top 1% 10 years later. Maybe that'd be easier to understand.But you're right, my comment was based on three groups:

.1%-1% - it's hard to say that the overwhelming majority of this group stay in the top 1%, and due to its much larger sample size, what happens to this group largely controls what happens to the "top 1%" when you speak of it as a whole. As you say, there is about a 40% chance for this group to stay in the top 1%, which is remarkably close to your 40-43% chance quoted for the entire top 1%. but again, grouping the .01%-1% and >0.01% in with the .1-1% basically drowns out what happens to those two subgroups, because population sizes are so different.

If you're in the .01-.1% group, there's about a 2/3rds chance you'll still be in top 1% 10 years later.

If you're in the top 0.01% group, there's about an 82% chance you'll be in the top 1% ten years later.

So for those who hold the most money in the top 1%, which are those in the top .1% or higher, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them stay in the top 1% 10 years later.

Sure, but wouldn't that be true of nearly any grouping? The top 10% of any group has a higher likelihood of staying above the bottom boundary of the defined group? Say, the top 10 in class rank in year 1 of HS have a higher % of staying in the top 100 when graduating than the bottom 90, for example.

It's more important to note the weighting in this case though, because the top .1% has a lot more wealth than the .1-1% range above it.I'll post more in my next post where I'll add actual numbers of people, using an estimate.

 

[humpback]

I'll post more in my next post where I'll add actual numbers of people, using an estimate.

Please don't.

 

[adonis]

So this would likely play better with numbers.

Assume 117,000,000 people with incomes or taxed:

top 1% = 1,170,000 people

top .1% = 117,000 people

top .01% = 11,700 people

.1-1%=1,053,000 people

.01-.1%=105,300 people

top .01%=11,700 people

Out of everyone in the top 1% in 1996:

0.8% were in the top 0.01% in 2005

7% were in the top .1% in 2005

42.5% of them were in top 1% in 2005.

75% were in top 5% in 2005

82.6% were in top 10% in 2005

Out of everyone in the top .1% in 1996:

5.7% were in the top 0.01% in 2005

31.1% were still in the top .1% in 2005

68.9% were in the top 1% in 2005

85% were in the top 5% in 2005

89% were in the top 10% in 2005

Out of everyone in the top 0.01% in 1996:

25.3% of those in the top 0.01% in 1996 were in top 0.01% in 2005

58% were in top .1% in 2005

82.2% were in top 1% in 2005

Now the weighting using money:

0.1%-1% - about 1,053,000 people make $801,672/person.

0.01-.1% - about 105300 people make $3,150,686/person

top .01% - about 11,700 people make $14,391,130/person

That means that out of the top 1% the money is distributed like this:

1%-.1% - 62.8% of the money with 90% of the people

0.1%-.01% - 24.7% of the money with 9% of the people

top .01% - 12.5% of the money with 1% of the people

So, the top 10% makes roughly 37.2% of the money while the other 90% makes roughly 62.8% of the money.

So to summarize, the 1% at the top of the income ladder contains a group of people where the income is not distributed even relatively evenly through the 1%, so throwing a statistic out like 42.5% of the top 1% aren't in the top 1% in 10 years, doesn't mean much when talking about the uber-rich, because I'd say about half of the top 1% aren't millionares, give or take .1%.

But when you get up to the multi-millionare status, you're clearly in the 0.1% and higher category, and the retention rates there are SIGNIFICANT, at roughly 70% at the .1% level staying within the top 1% 10 years later, and roughly 80% of those at the .01% level staying within the top 1% 10 years later.

So as someone pointed out, yes, being close to the top of the top 1% makes it more likely they're going to remain in the top 1% in the coming years, this becomes ESPECIALLY true when the data is so skewed towards the 99.99 percentile in terms of income.

So the 42.5% statistic doesn't tell the whole story. If it did, no matter where you fell within the top 1%, your chance of falling out of the top 1% would be 42.5%, but any common sense tells you that it's not true. The higher up you go, the higher your odds of staying in the top 1%, ESPECIALLY when the slope of incomes is much higher, the higher you go, as it is in the top 1%.

 

[MasterofOrion]

So this would likely play better with numbers.Assume 117,000,000 people with incomes or taxed:top 1% = 1,170,000 peopletop .1% = 117,000 peopletop .01% = 11,700 people.1-1%=1,053,000 people.01-.1%=105,300 peopletop .01%=11,700 peopleOut of everyone in the top 1% in 1996:0.8% were in the top 0.01% in 20057% were in the top .1% in 200542.5% of them were in top 1% in 2005.75% were in top 5% in 200582.6% were in top 10% in 2005Out of everyone in the top .1% in 1996:5.7% were in the top 0.01% in 200531.1% were still in the top .1% in 200568.9% were in the top 1% in 200585% were in the top 5% in 200589% were in the top 10% in 2005Out of everyone in the top 0.01% in 1996:25.3% of those in the top 0.01% in 1996 were in top 0.01% in 200558% were in top .1% in 200582.2% were in top 1% in 2005Now the weighting using money:0.1%-1% - about 1,053,000 people make $801,672/person.0.01-.1% - about 105300 people make $3,150,686/persontop .01% - about 11,700 people make $14,391,130/personThat means that out of the top 1% the money is distributed like this:1%-.1% - 62.8% of the money with 90% of the people0.1%-.01% - 24.7% of the money with 9% of the peopletop .01% - 12.5% of the money with 1% of the peopleSo, the top 10% makes roughly 37.2% of the money while the other 90% makes roughly 62.8% of the money.So to summarize, the 1% at the top of the income ladder contains a group of people where the income is not distributed even relatively evenly through the 1%, so throwing a statistic out like 42.5% of the top 1% aren't in the top 1% in 10 years, doesn't mean much when talking about the uber-rich, because I'd say about half of the top 1% aren't millionares, give or take .1%.But when you get up to the multi-millionare status, you're clearly in the 0.1% and higher category, and the retention rates there are SIGNIFICANT, at roughly 70% at the .1% level staying within the top 1% 10 years later, and roughly 80% of those at the .01% level staying within the top 1% 10 years later.So as someone pointed out, yes, being close to the top of the top 1% makes it more likely they're going to remain in the top 1% in the coming years, this becomes ESPECIALLY true when the data is so skewed towards the 99.99 percentile in terms of income.So the 42.5% statistic doesn't tell the whole story. If it did, no matter where you fell within the top 1%, your chance of falling out of the top 1% would be 42.5%, but any common sense tells you that it's not true. The higher up you go, the higher your odds of staying in the top 1%, ESPECIALLY when the slope of incomes is much higher, the higher you go, as it is in the top 1%.

True, it takes a big gun to kill an Elephant. But you can build a big enough gun to kill one. After decades of the religious mantra of "tax the rich" we are building bigger and bigger guns to shoot the rich. This is the class that produces wealth, not government. So go a head. Take from the rich and give to the big fat blotted irresponsible government that does nothing but create massive bureaucracies that make it next to impossible to create wealth. Do it in the name of helping the economy because it sounds good. But know this, our economy is hurting and increasing taxes on anyone, especially the wealth producers, at this time especially will be counter productive. What we need is radically less government, less bureaucracy, tort reform and policies that strengthen the dollar.