Where? The plot from Wiki is by household and the text of the Amer Prospect article states the Figure 1 numbers you quoted are by family.DivingMullah said:I've already included the distribution of income gain per capita and sectioned by percentile, which only reaffirms my point.
AP said:Figure 1
The income distribution is measured in percentiles. For example, the first set of bars shows the rate of growth of income of the family at the 20th percentile [...]
mheslep said:From the Amer. Prospect 1992 article by Krugman you cited references studies showing that every ten years about half of the bottom quintile move out:
CRGreathouse said:Thanks for the reference; that roughly matches my intuition. Do you know of similar data for individual rather than household income? I imagine that takes longer to escape -- you can't change the income just by changing your family size.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/compare1.htmlCensus said:The definition of income used in the SIPP [Census income data collection] is basically the same as in the CPS. It reflects money income before taxes and does not include the value of noncash benefits such as employer-provided health insurance, food stamps, or medicaid.
mheslep said:I can't quickly locate it in quentiles which is what you likely wanted, but here is per capita income aggregated:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01AR.xls
which shows per capita US income in 2008 dollars about doubling from 1967 ($13.8k) until 2008 ($27k), a 95% increase. By comparison, household income over the same period shows:
1967 to 2008, in 2008 dollars
Bottom fifth: $9k to $11k (22%)
Top fifth: $100.4k to $171k (70%)
Top 5%: $158.4k to $294k (86%)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03AR.xls
mheslep said:The Census income figures cited in this thread largely do not include government transfer payments:
Maybe a non-trivial exercise. The census questionnaire (SIPP) includes questions about that, but how many people are going to know, given the docs bill Medicaid/Medicare directly, i.e. 'oh yes Medicaid paid $20k this year to my doc and hospital'.CRGreathouse said:Maybe I should find a rough estimate of the current amount, add that in, and compare.
mheslep said:Maybe a non-trivial exercise.
Sounds low. SSA reports 2006 total number of recipients 57.7 million, total 2006 payments as $268.5 billion*, and average yearly payout as $4,651.CRGreathouse said:Surely.
First, though, an order-of-magnitude calculation on Medicaid. 2008 expenditures were $191.5 billion. If the benefits were evenly shared amongst the lower-earning half, the lowest quintile's share is 2/5, or $76.6 billion. The US population in 2008 was 304.4 million, or $250 each. If the bottom quintile received all of Medicaid benefits (probably closer to the truth, though certainly an overestimate by some amount) it would be $630 each...
mheslep said:I can't quickly locate it in quentiles which is what you likely wanted, but here is per capita income aggregated:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01AR.xls
which shows per capita US income in 2008 dollars about doubling from 1967 ($13.8k) until 2008 ($27k), a 95% increase. By comparison, household income over the same period shows:
1967 to 2008, in 2008 dollars
Bottom fifth: $9k to $11k (22%)
Top fifth: $100.4k to $171k (70%)
Top 5%: $158.4k to $294k (86%)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03AR.xls
mheslep said:Sounds low. SSA reports 2006 total number of recipients 57.7 million, total 2006 payments as $268.5 billion*, and average yearly payout as $4,651.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2008/8e.html
The next question is does the census' bottom fifth capture all of that income.
*Which BTW has been doubling every ten years.
mheslep said:Sounds low. SSA reports 2006 total number of recipients 57.7 million, total 2006 payments as $268.5 billion*, and average yearly payout as $4,651.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2008/8e.html
The next question is does the census' bottom fifth capture all of that income.
*Which BTW has been doubling every ten years.
DivingMullah said:One thing census doesn't include is the capital Gain, which actually makes the top 5% income increase much more disproportionate than rest of the group, tax cuts for them aggravated the situation even more.
CRGreathouse said:Also there's an issue here of equality of outcome vs. opportunity. Even if you look at individual income (household income being even more skewed, naturally), the top quintile works many more hours than the bottom. So in one sense it's not as unfair as it would otherwise seem. But many/most of those in the lowest quintile are not working as many hours as they would like to work: they are unemployed or working part-time when they want to work full-time.
How do people here feel about that?
Agreed. If someone is 30 and has an 11th grade education, how are they any better than a 16-year old in 11th grade? Why give them any better a job than an $8 an hour part time job ad McD's? Yeah, they want a full time job and medical benefits, but they are competing against 16 year-olds who don't need either at a job where an $8 an hour pay rate doesn't justify a $4 an hour medical benefit. It is neither reasonable nor realistic for those in that 30% who haven't finished high school to expect that they can make enough money to get out of the bottom income bracket. And when the government pays to support such people, they are essentially paying out a reward for a poor life choice. Beyond just softening the sting of the failure, they are actually rewarding people for it.Zantra said:It all goes back to education. Lowest quintile have the lowest education and skillsets, thus have the highest levels of unemployment and lowest incomes. Those in the top quintiles are among the most highly educated, or with skilsets in enough demad as to make them extremely valuable from an earnings perspective. I'm sure this must have been stated elsewhere in this thread.
russ_watters said:Agreed. If someone is 30 and has an 11th grade education, how are they any better than a 16-year old in 11th grade? Why give them any better a job than an $8 an hour part time job ad McD's? Yeah, they want a full time job and medical benefits, but they are competing against 16 year-olds who don't need either at a job where an $8 an hour pay rate doesn't justify a $4 an hour medical benefit. It is neither reasonable nor realistic for those in that 30% who haven't finished high school to expect that they can make enough money to get out of the bottom income bracket. And when the government pays to support such people, they are essentially paying out a reward for a poor life choice. Beyond just softening the sting of the failure, they are actually rewarding people for it.
CRGreathouse said:You want people to take responsibility for their actions; I understand that (radical as that would be as a policy, in general). But what if the person wants to work 40 hours at McD's, but can only work 18? Or they work as a landscaper, but business is down and they can only work a few hours a week... etc.
They have experience and hopefully a track record of reliable work habits with good references if nothing else. They are also capable of working flexible full time schedules. Would you prefer to hire a teen who only wants to work after school and may grudgingly take weekends over an adult with experience who can provide evidence of their work habits?russ_watters said:Agreed. If someone is 30 and has an 11th grade education, how are they any better than a 16-year old in 11th grade? Why give them any better a job than an $8 an hour part time job ad McD's? Yeah, they want a full time job and medical benefits, but they are competing against 16 year-olds who don't need either at a job where an $8 an hour pay rate doesn't justify a $4 an hour medical benefit. It is neither reasonable nor realistic for those in that 30% who haven't finished high school to expect that they can make enough money to get out of the bottom income bracket. And when the government pays to support such people, they are essentially paying out a reward for a poor life choice. Beyond just softening the sting of the failure, they are actually rewarding people for it.
Not so much. Far fewer teens take jobs now a days* and most young adults that are going to get a college education don't want jobs working at Mickey Dees, they work in the library or labs at school. Most kids who are going to college are going to college because of the stigma attached to having a job asking people "do you want fries with that".Zantra said:Responsibility for your own actions. Great idea. if you need 40 hours and you work at mcdonalds-why? You're obviously not a teen. Those kinds of jobs are targeted at young adults, teens, and retirees, not 40 year olds with families and homes, right?
Mcd's is not obligated to give people whatever hours they want. And I suspect that if they did, the legal requirements on benefits change.CRGreathouse said:But what if the person wants to work 40 hours at McD's, but can only work 18?
Not if they are applying for an $8 an hour job at Mcd's they don't.TheStatutoryApe said:They have experience and hopefully a track record of reliable work habits with good references if nothing else.
I'd hire adults to work when the teens are in school and teens to work other hours. But if an adult has experience and evidence of good work habits, they shouldn't be applying for that $8 an hour job.They are also capable of working flexible full time schedules. Would you prefer to hire a teen who only wants to work after school and may grudgingly take weekends over an adult with experience who can provide evidence of their work habits?
A person over 16 certainly can have more value than a 16 year old without a diploma, but you can't assume they do. What you suggest is sometimes true and it sometimes isn't. It is also very likely that the diploma is a reflection of those other traits: someone who would have demonstrated reliability wouldn't have quit high school in the first place.Certainly they should at least make sure to get a high school diploma but to say that they have no value as workers over 16 year olds is pretty ridiculous.
That was not stipulated by your argument...russ_watters said:Not if they are applying for an $8 an hour job at Mcd's they don't.
You simply make the assumption that they are not worth giving any better a job than that.Russ said:If someone is 30 and has an 11th grade education, how are they any better than a 16-year old in 11th grade? Why give them any better a job than an $8 an hour part time job ad McD's?
russ_watters said:Mcd's is not obligated to give people whatever hours they want.
CRGreathouse said:Of course. The point was that there are low-skill employees who are willing but not able to work a desired number of hours. A person can make ends meet at a low-skill, low-paying job working 50 hours a week, but not so much working 28 hours a week. Can nothing be done?
A person who brings home little money because of low skill and unwillingness to work long hours has no sympathy from me. But when they want to work and just can't find any/enough... that seems a real problem to me.
Some would say so, but the argument with a long history is that although those services (maintaining law and order, fire protection, and national security) are not explicitly asked for by everyone, they are in fact provided to everyone, so the taxes are owed. The argument is similar to a hospital bill for a heart attack victim who never explicitly asked for medical care, but was provided the care anyway, and billed accordingly. Even if you disagree about whether they should be billed, it doesn't fit the definition of theft.Gokul43201 said:Okay, I understand better now. How about some of the other "other examples"? Taxes provide for a police force, fire departments and a military. If I recuse myself from those services, should I be exempt from paying taxes to support them? Isn't it inherently wrong to extort money from me for a service I do not ask for?
Al68 said:Those services, law and order and national defense, are the only reason to even tolerate the "necessary evil" of government. At least in the minds of post-Enlightenment classical liberals, or libertarians, like me.
WhoWee said:Often the "working poor" hold mulltiple part time jobs.
You appear to be varying the requirements for morality on a case-by-case basis. How is it not immoral to demand payment for a "service" that I insist that I do not want provided to me (and threaten me with imprisonment if I fail to pay up for something I don't want)? How is that any different from a protection racket?Al68 said:Some would say so, but the argument with a long history is that although those services (maintaining law and order, fire protection, and national security) are not explicitly asked for by everyone, they are in fact provided to everyone, so the taxes are owed. The argument is similar to a hospital bill for a heart attack victim who never explicitly asked for medical care, but was provided the care anyway, and billed accordingly. Even if you disagree about whether they should be billed, it doesn't fit the definition of theft.
While one might argue that those services aren't requested by each individual, at least the services are actually provided to everyone. This is very different from taking money from someone by force without even a pretense that it is in return for services rendered.
Those services, law and order and national defense, are the only reason to even tolerate the "necessary evil" of government. At least in the minds of post-Enlightenment classical liberals, or libertarians, like me.
Al68 said:Yes, but it's how Democrats describe "trickle down economics" that is fraudulent and nothing like Reagonomics. The name "trickle down" itself was coined for the purpose of such fraud.
And yes, I'm sure the wiki page doesn't say that.
Al68 said:Some would say so, but the argument with a long history is that although those services (maintaining law and order, fire protection, and national security) are not explicitly asked for by everyone, they are in fact provided to everyone, so the taxes are owed. The argument is similar to a hospital bill for a heart attack victim who never explicitly asked for medical care, but was provided the care anyway, and billed accordingly. Even if you disagree about whether they should be billed, it doesn't fit the definition of theft.
While one might argue that those services aren't requested by each individual, at least the services are actually provided to everyone. This is very different from taking money from someone by force without even a pretense that it is in return for services rendered.
Those services, law and order and national defense, are the only reason to even tolerate the "necessary evil" of government. At least in the minds of post-Enlightenment classical liberals, or libertarians, like me.
That was my point, that government providing those services by using force to obtain payment was considered to be an "evil" by the U.S. founders, but a necessary evil.Gokul43201 said:You appear to be varying the requirements for morality on a case-by-case basis. How is it not immoral to demand payment for a "service" that I insist that I do not want provided to me (and threaten me with imprisonment if I fail to pay up for something I don't want)? How is that any different from a protection racket?
As far as garbage collection, water, etc: In many places, those are done by private companies rather than government, anyway. Even when done by government, they are authorized by local city charters, and no one is forced to pay for them. Local governments are doing nothing that any private company wouldn't otherwise be perfectly free to do, providing a service for a voluntary price. That hardly has anything to do with my post.Ivan Seeking said:Do you support abolishing public education; garbage collection; water and sewer services; the national highway system; government-funded dams and power plants; national parks; protection for endangered species like the Bald Eagle [which has recovered]? Should we abolish the EPA, labor laws, OSHA, the FDA, and the USDA?
When the pro-nuclear power people want to build a plant, the first thing they do is to ask the government for a loan. Should we nix Obama's plan to build nuclear plants - let the effort die because of a lack of funding?
Yes, he said: "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."Ivan Seeking said:In fact, the wiki page gives a reference attributing the expression to Will Rogers, from the time of the Great Depression. This is supported by other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/publications/impact-newsletter/archives/autumn-2009/trickle-down-economics-revisited
I thought your point was based on a moral argument, not on "because the founders said so".Al68 said:That was my point, that government providing those services by using force to obtain payment was considered to be an "evil" by the U.S. founders, but a necessary evil.
So it is not that one is morally evil and the other not, but only that one is more evil than the other, and you draw your personal line of tolerance somewhere between them?In other words, necessity required tolerating the necessary evil of government for the protection of liberty. Of course their means of collection was much less an invasion of privacy and oppressive than an income tax, but it did use force.
Al68 said:As far as garbage collection, water, etc: In many places, those are done by private companies rather than government, anyway. Even when done by government, they are authorized by local city charters, and no one is forced to pay for them. Local governments are doing nothing that any private company wouldn't otherwise be perfectly free to do, providing a service for a voluntary price. That hardly has anything to do with my post.
For the rest, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, so I agree with the "necessary evil of government" argument for those services that cannot reasonably be done without government, like national defense and maintaining law and order, and other things authorized by the constitution.
As far as privately owned nuclear power plants, I think the federal government should only cover the cost of federal regulation involved. Which for nuclear plants would be a large part of the total cost of operation, since in addition to environmental and public safety concerns, there is a national defense concern with the fissionable material.
Well not quickly. He consistently says in response questions about the EPA: http://www.grist.org/article/paul1/"Ivan Seeking said:...Firstly, Ron Paul does want to abolish the EPA, so this might easily be considered a libertarian position. ...
[Q:]So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
[A:]No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats