Income Inequality "issue" - utter nonsense

[Terryray]

First, income inequality is rising all over the world in rich countries. Not just US. It is a global problem, (and I have my theories and redistribution schemes to fix it), but realize that France, Sweden and the rest of Nordic countries - they have similar problems and haven't been able to do much about it. In terms of top 10% income since late 80s, Sweden heads the list, followed by Britain, Germany, New Zealand, US, Norway, Finland and Holland.

the US middle class has been holding it's own the last 40 years, with many of them moving up...but still too many folks at the low end of the range.... http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/soci...y-ends-inequality-reeves#.VZ7TqGrFL14.twitter

The CBO stats show the low and middle classes doing better since 2000, compared to the sinking upper income folks.... http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/06-income-gains-and-inequality-burtless


So forget inequality, the focus should be on fighting poverty, lifting the folks at the bottom end of the scale. Subsidies for working folks, education benefits, and more - Singapore has most of the low-tax, free economic, universal health care schemes I like....we have improved the poverty rate substantially in recent decades (looking at after-tax and transfer data, consumption data, rather than income), but there is much more to do....(warning pdf file): http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall 2012/2012b_Meyer.pdf


but really, most these statistics are fairly useless, consist of a backward way of looking at the whole picture... http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=7215

 

[Duff Miver]

First, income inequality is rising all over the world in rich countries. Not just US. It is a global problem, (and I have my theories and redistribution schemes to fix it), but realize that France, Sweden and the rest of Nordic countries - they have similar problems and haven't been able to do much about it. In terms of top 10% income since late 80s, Sweden heads the list, followed by Britain, Germany, New Zealand, US, Norway, Finland and Holland.

the US middle class has been holding it's own the last 40 years, with many of them moving up...but still too many folks at the low end of the range.... http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/soci...y-ends-inequality-reeves#.VZ7TqGrFL14.twitter

The CBO stats show the low and middle classes doing better since 2000, compared to the sinking upper income folks.... http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/06-income-gains-and-inequality-burtless


So forget inequality, the focus should be on fighting poverty, lifting the folks at the bottom end of the scale. Subsidies for working folks, education benefits, and more - Singapore has most of the low-tax, free economic, universal health care schemes I like....we have improved the poverty rate substantially in recent decades (looking at after-tax and transfer data, consumption data, rather than income), but there is much more to do....(warning pdf file): http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall 2012/2012b_Meyer.pdf


but really, most these statistics are fairly useless, consist of a backward way of looking at the whole picture... http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=7215

Nothing wrong with the Brookings Institution, but...

Their graph of income increases from 2000-2010 :

can be misleading.

Let's take, for example Joe the Plumber, who is right in the middle, with an income of $43,000, an increase of 12% ($4600) over those ten years.

Then take Jerry the Wall Street lawyer who is in the 97th percentile and now makes $1,000,000, an increase of 8% ($74,000) over the same time frame.

What Brookings is saying, essentially, is that Joe and Jerry have both increased their incomes and Joe has done better than Jerry.

But that's not really true. Joe now has $4600 more to spend, and Jerry now has $74,000 more to spend.

Who has benefited the most over ten years, or, put another way, how, other than some bizarre irrational logic, can you say that $4600 is a better income increase than $74,000?

Their logic reminds me of a game of Three Card Monte.

 

[hammer1]

Nothing wrong with the Brookings Institution, but...

Their graph of income increases from 2000-2010 :

can be misleading.

Let's take, for example Joe the Plumber, who is right in the middle, with an income of $43,000, an increase of 12% ($4600) over those ten years.

Then take Jerry the Wall Street lawyer who is in the 97th percentile and now makes $1,000,000, an increase of 8% ($74,000) over the same time frame.

What Brookings is saying, essentially, is that Joe and Jerry have both increased their incomes and Joe has done better than Jerry.

But that's not really true. Joe now has $4600 more to spend, and Jerry now has $74,000 more to spend.

Who has benefited the most over ten years, or, put another way, how, other than some bizarre irrational logic, can you say that $4600 is a better income increase than $74,000?

Their logic reminds me of a game of Three Card Monte.

Exactly !!! Incomes have stayed flat or dropped for 30 years . Gm now pays $15/hr ..used to be $28.