US income inequality continues to grow

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 07:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm a Millennial. My adult jobs have lasted 4 years (layoffs) and my current one is at 6. My income isn't much higher than that median shown.



I have no idea if the numbers are accurate; never really claimed they were. The overall point is damaged if the numbers are inaccurate (I say if because the information being thrown around here doesn't show it to be), but the overall point that the current economic situation for Millennials is worse than the previous two generations at our age and it isn't getting any better.

The overall point would be that 25-34 year olds are doing exactly as well as they were 40 years ago. That may not be fantastic news but it’s not horrible and it’s nowhere near the point he was trying to make. It’s horribly inaccurate. I mean I don’t think anyone believes that age group was making the equivalent of $139,000 in 1977.

[Beaker]

(07-25-2018, 04:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is absurd.

Tell me exactly what each individual person has to do in order to help the wages of the middle class that have been stagnate for 40 years.  I want details.  

I fall squarely in the middle class at my current salary. If my salary increases, my salary level was factored in when the avg wage was calculated. If my salary is now higher, then the calculation for avg goes up by a fraction of a percentage. If enough individuals are improving their positions, then those calculations go up by larger increments. 

(07-25-2018, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

Quote:How a person spends their money has nothing to do with how much they are getting paid.

Really? I would say it directly affects what you can spend. And if you are not making smart decisions with that finite amount, then you are likely accruing debt.

Quote:If workers become more productive and create greater profits for the owner then they should get a share.  If they don't then they are being exploited.

That was my question, what is the number you are satisfied with to not consider it exploitation?

If some child works for .50 an hour but is able to survive by eating garbage from a dumpster that does not mean he is not getting exploited.

I was actually going to compliment you on how well you had been doing in this discussion by not making wild leaps and assumptions....until this. Nobody would consider eating out of a dumpster a comfortable living.

(07-25-2018, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again this is absurd.  

Do you think that blacks in the Jim Crow south could have fixed their situation without government assistance?

The only people who believe this BS are people who never really had any obstacles in life.

[quote]How are blacks in the Jim Crow south even relevant to this discussion? The circumstances they survived under were much different than today.  And then you top it off by making another inane statement assuming you know what other people face in their lives.

Let me say this fred. It is almost a certainty that your income is more than mine. Again, I am squarely in the middle class. Yet amazingly I am living comfortably. I have very little debt, I don't feel like I am exploited by my employer, and I really could care less what percentage of profits the 1% decide to keep from their businesses.

The moment we tell people what they are allowed to earn, how much they are allowed to keep, or how their wealth should be distributed we are killing all incentive. 

[fredtoast]

(07-25-2018, 08:18 PM)Beaker Wrote: I fall squarely in the middle class at my current salary. If my salary increases, my salary level was factored in when the avg wage was calculated. If my salary is now higher, then the calculation for avg goes up by a fraction of a percentage. If enough individuals are improving their positions, then those calculations go up by larger increments. 

Too bad you were not around in the 1930's when everyone suddenly got lazy and refused to improve their condition.  I guess they did not know that the only way to improve the economy was just for everyone to get a better job.

Who knew economics was so simple?

[fredtoast]

(07-25-2018, 08:18 PM)Beaker Wrote:

Quote:I am squarely in the middle class. Yet amazingly I am living comfortably. I have very little debt, I don't feel like I am exploited by my employer, and I really could care less what percentage of profits the 1% decide to keep from their businesses.

You are like the slave that was "lucky" enough to work in the house instead of the field.  You don't see anything wrong with the owners taking all the increased profits that the workers generate because you are a little better off than the field slaves. You love the massa who takes all the money because you get a few more scraps and can look down on the "dirty lazy" field hands.

When labor becomes more productive then they deserve a share of that increased production.  The wealthy do not deserve to take all pf the increase in wealth just because they had more money to start with.

[fredtoast]

(07-25-2018, 08:18 PM)Beaker Wrote:

Quote:The moment we tell people what they are allowed to earn, how much they are allowed to keep, or how their wealth should be distributed we are killing all incentive. 

Again you need to open a history book sometime.  Why did the US experience the greatest growth at the same time we had the highest top tax bracket in history?
People who want to make money will not just stop making money because they pay more taxes.  That is ridiculous.  Would you rather make a million dollars and pay 50% tax or make nothing?

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who knew economics was so simple?

Who knew math wasn't?

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again you need to open a history book sometime.  Why did the US experience the greatest growth at the same time we had the highest top tax bracket in history?
People who want to make money will not just stop making money because they pay more taxes.  That is ridiculous.  Would you rather make a million dollars and pay 50% tax or make nothing?

So are you saying you are for other people determining how much you are allowed to make, or keep?

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 12:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You were raised in a posh neighborhood and then you married into more money.  You travel all over the world.  

The only thing you got right in this was that I travel.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 03:43 PM)Beaker Wrote: The only thing you got right in this was that I travel.

To be fair, I think fred was not speaking of YOU, but rather was referring to a hypothetical "you".

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, I think fred was not speaking of YOU, but rather was referring to a hypothetical "you".

No hypothetical in that post....it was directed at me. 

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 03:41 PM)Beaker Wrote: So are you saying you are for other people determining how much you are allowed to make, or keep?

I am in favor of this country having a tax code and minimum wage laws.

Are you?

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 03:41 PM)Beaker Wrote: So are you saying you are for other people determining how much you are allowed to make, or keep?

So are you saying you are nnot going to answer this question?

(07-26-2018, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  Would you rather make a million dollars and pay 50% tax or make nothing?

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 03:38 PM)Beaker Wrote: Who knew math wasn't?

Math has nothing to do with your claim.

So explain to me again why "Individuals" didn't end the great depression in the early 30's by just getting better jobs or multiple jobs.

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am in favor of this country having a tax code and minimum wage laws.

Are you?

We already have a tax code and minimum wage.

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Math has nothing to do with your claim.

So explain to me again why "Individuals" didn't end the great depression in the early 30's by just getting better jobs or multiple jobs.

Improving your economic position doesn't always require a better job or multiple jobs. An example being doing an outstanding job at your current job and getting a pay increase...or taking on more responsibility at your current job with the same result.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2018, 11:34 PM)Beaker Wrote: Improving your economic position doesn't always require a better job or multiple jobs. An example being doing an outstanding job at your current job and getting a pay increase...or taking on more responsibility at your current job with the same result.

Or just seeing worker productivity climb steadily and no raise in pay.

Like it's been for years if not decades now.

[Beaker]

(07-27-2018, 12:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Or just seeing worker productivity climb steadily and no raise in pay.

Like it's been for years if not decades now.

Throughout my life I don't know anyone who hasn't gotten pay raises if they were a decent employee and stayed on the job for a reasonable amount of time.

[GMDino]

(07-27-2018, 09:52 AM)Beaker Wrote: Throughout my life I don't know anyone who hasn't gotten pay raises if they were a decent employee and stayed on the job for a reasonable amount of time.

I worked two jobs, three years each, that never gave raises.  They gave "promotions".  More work...same money.

Yes, I moved on.  But I've been at my current place for 20 years.  The owner gives raises like they have to take one of his fingers every time he does it.  I can think of 4 of the last 10 years.  Two of them were to cover the increased cost of the health insurance.  And he's a good guy...but he's a "bottom line" guy.  They'd rather hire another manager and another salesman and ignore that without the guys on the shop floor they'd have no one to manage and not to sell.

When you can START at Walmart for more than we start a factory worker you can see the problem.  And their lack of handling that problem will bite them in the arse eventually.  The employees are older and they aren't going anywhere because of that.  But you have to replace them sooner or later.  And the ways of 15 years ago aren't going to work then.

See where you can say "good places don't do that"  there just as many bad places that do.  And when you can look at worker productivity versus wage growth over the past few decades you can see there are more people, working harder and making less money.

Climate change isn't about the weather in your backyard on one day.

The economy is not about just the places you or I worked.  I'm using my experience to compare yours.  But in the end its the OVERALL numbers that tell the story.  

[Benton]

(07-27-2018, 09:52 AM)Beaker Wrote: Throughout my life I don't know anyone who hasn't gotten pay raises if they were a decent employee and stayed on the job for a reasonable amount of time.

(07-27-2018, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: I worked two jobs, three years each, that never gave raises.  They gave "promotions".  More work...same money.

Similar. My last company, I was with almost 18 years. They don't give anyone a raise. They will give you more duties and increase your salary, though. About every two years there would be layoffs and they would divvy up some duties, then take that $100-150,000 they shaved off and give it back between the 3-5 people doing extra work in a $5-6,000 bump.  I didn't really realize the kind of savings until the last 5 years or so when I was a manager.

Of course, that's anecdotal. One or two stories about stingy companies isn't all encompassing. On the other hand, there's no shortage of stories from the Rust Belt about places that do the same thing.

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 11:34 PM)Beaker Wrote: Improving your economic position doesn't always require a better job or multiple jobs. An example being doing an outstanding job at your current job and getting a pay increase...or taking on more responsibility at your current job with the same result.

Okay then explain to me why people in the 30's just didn't end the depression by getting raises or taking on more responsibility at their job.

Why were they so lazy back then?