Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,489

    Median income versus per capita income.

    Last year median incomes fell for men (-1.8%) and women (-1.3%). Median income is the amount where half of people make more and half make less.

    Last year per capita income rose 1.5%. That is a 100 billion dollar increase in the total amount of income in the nation.

    The middle class lost, but total income went up. Where do you think that money went?

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._08/009415.php
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  2. #2
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,799

    Well

    Quote Originally Posted by dr hoo
    Last year median incomes fell for men (-1.8%) and women (-1.3%). Median income is the amount where half of people make more and half make less.

    Last year per capita income rose 1.5%. That is a 100 billion dollar increase in the total amount of income in the nation.

    The middle class lost, but total income went up. Where do you think that money went?

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._08/009415.php

    just a guess, but I would say that the incomes of the upper middle class and the wealthy went up...which is good. Historically, these populations are more likely to invest their monies in business and markets HELPING the economy which will eventually trickle down to everyone else.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    RIP Funny Penguin
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    15,898
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    just a guess, but I would say that the incomes of the upper middle class and the wealthy went up...which is good. Historically, these populations are more likely to invest their monies in business and markets HELPING the economy which will eventually trickle down to everyone else.
    Now I admit that I don't know jack about economics...but this trickle down thing seems to be about as bogus as a three dollar bill. Seems to me that the explosion of the middle class is what fueled our economy...because they buy things. When the investment in the middle class was the priority after WWII...our economy was really something to behold...now...that the focus is on investment income and Wall Street...the middle class is suffering and most people sitting around looking like they are playing russian roulette with their futures.

    Investment in the Middle Class is what brung us to this dance...I just don't understand enough about this economics things to feel the need to switch partners.

    /cues Mr. Moneyman for economics verbal assault.
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  4. #4
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,489
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    .... which will eventually trickle down to everyone else.
    Yeah, the stats are showing they are helping a great deal. Oh wait, they don't!

    If you look at the numbers, it is not the top 20, or even the top 5% that get the goods. The tip top 1% get the vast majority, and they get it by moving jobs overseas, busting unions, etc. In fact, if I had more time I would pull data to show it was really the top 0.1%.


    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/0...ttern_of_.html

    (BTW, delong is an economist at berkeley)

    The big rise in inequality in the U.S. since 1980 has been overwhelmingly concentrated among the top 1% of income earners: their share has risen from 8% in 1980 to 16% in 2004. By contrast, the share of the next 4% of income earners has only risen from 13% to 15%, and the share of the next 5% of income earners has stuck at 12%. The top 1% have gone from 8 to 16 times average income, the next 4% have gone from 3.2 to 3.7 times average income, and the next 5% have been stuck at 3 times average income.

    And if you want to compare republican government (typically pro business/trickle down ideas) with democratic ones (working class/middle class support emphasis....)

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006282.php


    The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.


    And as for the effect on inequality...

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006286.php

    Democratic presidents tend to promote policies that either keep income inequality in check or lower it a bit (Jimmy Carter is the exception), while Republican presidents pursue policies that make income inequality worse.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  5. #5
    Quiet, daddy's drinking
    Reputation: Turtleherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,085
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    just a guess, but I would say that the incomes of the upper middle class and the wealthy went up...which is good. Historically, these populations are more likely to invest their monies in business and markets HELPING the economy which will eventually trickle down to everyone else.
    Trickle down economics or voodoo economics as it has been called is total B.S. The best investment is in the lower to middle class because it does not have to trickle down. The money gets spent right away and through the multiplier effect gets passed around about seven times. If you give it to the wealthy they will invest a greater share, which effectively locks it up and what does trickle down gets smaller with each level it drops. The argument is always that the rich will invest in business opportunity, but that is far from the case. If the middle class gets it they will encourage more business start ups and growth because they have money to spend and business opportunities then arise. The entrepreneur or corporations see the opportunity and then meet it. The money eventually gets to the rich either way but if you start with the middle class it gets passed around more on the way there.
    Just because you won't listen to reason does not mean I have to listen to idiocy.

    I'm outdoorsy in that I like getting drunk on patios.

    Legal Notice: General disclosure of non offensive intent.

    The above internet forum poster, by and through the act of posting and participating in said forum, does hereby disclaim and disavow any offensive intent by way of written word, gesture, or emoticon and none should thus be inferred or taken.

  6. #6
    Unlabeled
    Reputation: Reynolds531's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,734

    I see economic justice improving

    Quote Originally Posted by dr hoo
    Last year median incomes fell for men (-1.8%) and women (-1.3%). Median income is the amount where half of people make more and half make less.

    Last year per capita income rose 1.5%. That is a 100 billion dollar increase in the total amount of income in the nation.

    The middle class lost, but total income went up. Where do you think that money went?

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._08/009415.php
    U.S. profits and wealth have driven huge investments in China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries. These investments have improved the lives of millions of workers

    Where did the money go? One place is the state of Bahia in Brazil. Billions of dollars of U.S. profits have been invested over the last decade. The parents of illiterate malnourished children with worms now can provide food, health care, and education. There have been dramatic and heartwarming improvements in life around the world because of the cold profit motive of rich capitalists. In cases where regulation and controls are in place, rich U.S. investors do more good than a Million Mother Theresa's could.

    I think that the story here should be about how well the U.S. middle class has fared while the middle poor in the developing world have begun to prosper.

    The trickle of capital from the rich is bringing a flood of opportunity. You only can't see it if you are confined by a Nationalistic viewpoint.
    Lugged Steel Treks

  7. #7
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    61,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dr hoo

    The middle class lost, but total income went up. Where do you think that money went?

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._08/009415.php
    Halliburton?

    //ducks....
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  8. #8
    If You See Kay
    Reputation: DeaconBlues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by Reynolds531
    U.S. profits and wealth have driven huge investments in China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries. These investments have improved the lives of millions of workers

    Where did the money go? One place is the state of Bahia in Brazil. Billions of dollars of U.S. profits have been invested over the last decade. The parents of illiterate malnourished children with worms now can provide food, health care, and education. There have been dramatic and heartwarming improvements in life around the world because of the cold profit motive of rich capitalists. In cases where regulation and controls are in place, rich U.S. investors do more good than a Million Mother Theresa's could.

    I think that the story here should be about how well the U.S. middle class has fared while the middle poor in the developing world have begun to prosper.

    The trickle of capital from the rich is bringing a flood of opportunity. You only can't see it if you are confined by a Nationalistic viewpoint.
    R531 makes a good point. While I'm not doing as well as years past, my standard of living still far exceeds the quality of life for literally billions of people on this planet. On the other hand---

    If the middle class has more discretionary income to spend on consumer goods, many of which are foreign made, then that consumption can help bolster the economic growth of underdeveloped nations.

    Finding a 'balance" is the tricky part, IMO.

    Deek
    "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"--unknown

  9. #9
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,799

    I

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleherder
    Trickle down economics or voodoo economics as it has been called is total B.S. The best investment is in the lower to middle class because it does not have to trickle down. The money gets spent right away and through the multiplier effect gets passed around about seven times. If you give it to the wealthy they will invest a greater share, which effectively locks it up and what does trickle down gets smaller with each level it drops. The argument is always that the rich will invest in business opportunity, but that is far from the case. If the middle class gets it they will encourage more business start ups and growth because they have money to spend and business opportunities then arise. The entrepreneur or corporations see the opportunity and then meet it. The money eventually gets to the rich either way but if you start with the middle class it gets passed around more on the way there.

    was referring to a trickle down effect to keep it simple, we can have a discussion on the merits of supply side economics if you wish. Which, BTW, is the correct terminology. Say's Law clearly states....."Supply creates it's own demand". This has been argued for decades, yet the results have been good....I'm working, so here's a couple of links. Discussion?

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/S...Economics.html

    This second one is even better, as he describes, as I have, that GW's policy is not true supply side economics and is not helpful. But the theory when applied correctly is true.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02252006.html
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,799

    Just

    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    was referring to a trickle down effect to keep it simple, we can have a discussion on the merits of supply side economics if you wish. Which, BTW, is the correct terminology. Say's Law clearly states....."Supply creates it's own demand". This has been argued for decades, yet the results have been good....I'm working, so here's a couple of links. Discussion?

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/S...Economics.html

    This second one is even better, as he describes, as I have, that GW's policy is not true supply side economics and is not helpful. But the theory when applied correctly is true.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02252006.html

    in our paper today...median income in our county, Olmsted County, Minnesota increase by 12.4% between 1999 and 2005. So, it's not bad everywhere.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  11. #11
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    61,135
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    in our paper today...median income in our county, Olmsted County, Minnesota increase by 12.4% between 1999 and 2005. So, it's not bad everywhere.
    well bully for Olmsted County!
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  12. #12
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,799

    Excellent

    Quote Originally Posted by Bocephus Jones II
    well bully for Olmsted County!

    you're getting it.....Congrats...and using a favorite phrase of a republican president...OUTSTANDING I SAY.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  13. #13
    Quiet, daddy's drinking
    Reputation: Turtleherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,085
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    was referring to a trickle down effect to keep it simple, we can have a discussion on the merits of supply side economics if you wish. Which, BTW, is the correct terminology. Say's Law clearly states....."Supply creates it's own demand". This has been argued for decades, yet the results have been good....I'm working, so here's a couple of links. Discussion?

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/S...Economics.html

    This second one is even better, as he describes, as I have, that GW's policy is not true supply side economics and is not helpful. But the theory when applied correctly is true.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02252006.html
    The articles you cited refer to the use of tax cuts as economic stimulus, which I still doubt have the impact that is asserted. First, supply siders like to point to the Reagan cuts as lifting the economy. I'm not so sure that was the cause as much as new technology that I believe would have occurred regardless of the tax cuts. And of course, there are many economists that don't believe in supply side and I probably can find some articles if I look.

    But what I was really referring to was if there is going to be a tax cut who should get it? Bush greatly favored the top 10% which I assert is not the group that should get it if you really want to build the economy.
    Just because you won't listen to reason does not mean I have to listen to idiocy.

    I'm outdoorsy in that I like getting drunk on patios.

    Legal Notice: General disclosure of non offensive intent.

    The above internet forum poster, by and through the act of posting and participating in said forum, does hereby disclaim and disavow any offensive intent by way of written word, gesture, or emoticon and none should thus be inferred or taken.

  14. #14
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    41,119

    Easy Hoo Check the %'s of GDP breakdown

    Salaries and bennies fell to a record or near record low % of GDP

    Corporate profit % of GDP went to an all time high

    Numbers of people joining the ranks of Poverty are up

    Oil CEO pay for 05 average $32.7 Million, 518 times what their base employees earn.
    a 50% pay hike from 04. 3X the average big company CEO. Nice to have friends in the WH I guess.

    from CNN.com
    The report lists the highest-paid oil executive as Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) Chairman William Greehey, who made $95.2 million in 2005.

    Ray Irani of Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY) followed close behind with $84 million, and former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO (XOM) Lee Raymond was paid $69.7 million in 2005.

    In contrast, leaders of giant oil companies based outside of the U.S., such as Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and BP PLC (BP), received more modest pay last year. BP CEO Lord Browne, for instance, pulled in $5.6 million in 2005, while Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer made $4.1 million

    oh and BTW Lee Raymond of Exxon earned $51 Million (has a 400 million golden parachute waiting) that is $6,000 and hour @ 24 hrs a day 365 days a year rate

    From the St. Petersburg Times

    Rumor has it that chief executive officers still put their pants on one leg at a time. But that sounds positively quaint now that CEOs at larger U.S. corporations on average earn $430 for every $1 earned by the average U.S. worker.

    Twenty-six years ago, CEOs received an average of $10 for every $1 earned by a U.S. worker
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook