American Wealth Inequality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So has CEO compensation changed that greatly since 1994? 1994 seems to be a clear delineation marker as far as CEO pay ramping upward greatly.

And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.

Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.

---

.dot com distortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

1994 was the year the tech boom started, and that pulled the entire stock market higher. Executives who have compensation that depends in large part on what happens in the stock market will benefit disproportionately during such times. If you look at 2000-2002 though, executive compensation fell drastically when worker compensation did not. Again, it's all about one group's income being incredibly volatile, for better or worse, because it's tied to the stock market, and one group's income not being volatile, for better or worse, because it's based strictly on wages.



Look at what the high end tax rates were back then. As late as 1963 there was a 91% income tax bracket. Now that tax rate is 35%. It's become a lot easier for the rich to make money. Personally, I'm okay with it, a 91% tax bracket is 100% absurd IMHO. But everyone's free to make up their own mind as to whether or not that's been a good thing.



No worries.

---

Well said, CG.

The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.

As for the charts and other metrics....they mean jack shit if I can't see the underlying data. Honestly, just because something is represented in a graph don't make it so. Manny, if you want to make a point, then make it. Posting a chart of compensation, (compensation being the key word) and passing it off as a comparison of payroll is disingenuous as all hell...not that I think you did this deliberately. It's just an easy pit to fall into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Well said, CG.

The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.

---

Excellent point. Whether we want to call it "trickle down" or not, the fact is that we're a consumer driven economy and that depends on people having disposable income and buying stuff they don't really need. This should be especially apparent to residents of a city like San Antonio where so much of the local economy is dependent on tourism.

"residents of a city like San Antonio where so much of the local economy is dependent on ..."

... huge federal civil service and military construction and payrolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Wow, lots of strawmen, moving goalposts and the like here.

Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important. Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.

Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.

And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?

As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.

Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.

---

Nice strawman.

Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.

Income means shit, and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.

The rich get rich by acquiring more assets, not income.

Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.

What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Well said, CG.

The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.

---

Overseas trickle down is not what is being sold to the American public. What is being sold is that if we make things easier for the top 1% then the rest of us will see benefits. I'm asking where these benefits are.

If they are overseas then there's a problem.

Quote:

---

As for the charts and other metrics....they mean jack shit if I can't see the underlying data. Honestly, just because something is represented in a graph don't make it so.

---

The underlying data is there for those willing to make the huge effort of clicking a few links. If you have proof something in those charts is wrong via that data by all means post it.

Quote:

---

Maybe you should follow Manny, if you want to make a point, then make it. Posting a chart of compensation, (compensation being the key word) and passing it off as a comparison of payroll is disingenuous as all hell...not that I think you did this deliberately. It's just an easy pit to fall into.

---

Why is it disingenuous? What is payroll if not compensation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Nice strawman.

Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.

Income means shit, and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.

The rich get rich by acquiring more assets, not income.

Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.

What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

---

Edit: My post wasn't fair. I'll reply in a bit but actually upon further thought I don't disagree as much with Gtown as I initially thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Its the poor peoples fault. Got it.

---

WHy do you suck at summarization?


The blame for wealth disparity was not solely pinned on the poor, you didn't read anything i had to say.

I've just demonstrated why the ideas of your camp mean shit.

You could raise the minimum wage, enforce income caps on CEO's and you would still have the same ol' shit every friday after next. Corps acquiring more wealth, the poor getting poorer, because income is always a slave to inflation while wealth isn't. You are trying to stomp the wrong mole.

Out of wealth and income, one of them is affected by inflation way more, i'll let you guess.

None of the shit you will propose will solve the problem. People moving up into class categories were helped because of the creation of new job markets and reductions in capital gains tax, this was evident in the 90's. There was your example of trickle down, even thought it was a superficial bubble, we all saw what "new markets" brought to society.

Oh my.. i read your edit..

i await your oppinion shortly but i have to run.. be back later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lol

Really? Then explain the above information please.

---

There are so many factors to consider. Correlation does not equal causation, especially when several factors are involved.

I told you. I'm not writing a book.

If you insist on keeping things that simple, then remember that our recession didn't start until after the democrats controlled congress.

Accept that, or be more considerate of all forces involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jekka

Can you just do me a favor and point out when the trickle down is going to start? These figures all point to a trickle up, not tricke down, effect.

Can you explain that please?

---

Yes, please explain when this trickle down bailout is going to start working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

What's your point?

Because these are mine:

1.With this wealth inequality we have, it means bullshit. If we have such a huge wealth gap but a high standard of living, then fuck it. Beats having wealth parity and a shit standard of living (ex Cuba).

2. Wealth does not equal income. Wealth is assets, and if the middle class can't acquire assets then it can never accrue wealth. Instead the poor and middle class are buying liabilities like expensive houses, cars, gadgets, instead of bonds, real estate, or starting a buisiness.

3. Your solutions for this problem are going to be shit. First you bitch about wealth inequality, but then want to pass more buisiness regulation like the provision in the Obamacare that makes small up and coming buisiness who have over a certain amount of chains to pay lab fees to have a nutrition menu. So That's going to hinder small buisinesses from acquiring and creating new wealth.

4. If the problem is that the poor and middle class has no access to creating wealth, your solution is not wealth distrubution but income distrubution while still maintaining the regulation that benefit big corporations and hinder small buisiness and or enterprise. So at most Cheryl and Don will get 4000 dollars in tax refunds at the end of the year from the rich, only to pay off debt to acquire more debt because 4000 dollars isn't gonna do much shit to start a buisiness to comply with govt reg.

5. You're the problem, progressives are. Corporations are running circles around you and they are willing to pay taxes to uncle sam so long as your party ensures through tough reg that it keeps competitors out of the job market.

---

You nailed it.

Spot on, 110%!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important.

---

No they aren't. Wealth isn't static. Productivity is the key, and we have too many unproductive lazy people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.

---

Their problem is they expect someone else to pull them up. They have to pull themselves up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.

---

That was just one of many problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?

---

I don't see a problem. All I see is jealousy from petty people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

---

That's not because of the rich getting richer. It's because the poor don't have the motivation and desire to do what it takes to get richer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.

---

I would agree that the trickle down as assumed is controversial. However, did you ever get a job from someone poor? The more money rich people get to keep without it being seized, they less they shelter it. They enjoy living off the fruits of their labor, and spend money. As they do this, the economy grows, creating more jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.

---

Then assign the blame in the right place. Our government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Nice strawman.

Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.

Income means shit, and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.

---

Income means shit? Yeah, you could have 2 people make the same amount and have 2 completely different outcomes as far as assest acquisition BUT the fact is that if you have 100,000 people who make twice as much as a seperate group of 100,000 people there will be a far larger percentage of the first group who end up acquiring more wealth.

Income mean a lot. Its not everything but it is probably the greatest single factor in how much wealth a person acquires.

Quote:

---

Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.

---

I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild. I agree that corporations know how to play the system better than anyone else and that they design the system to work best for them but having ineffective government regulation doesn't mean that we don't need more appropriate regulation.

Quote:

---

What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

---

We just finished a recession driven by a bubble where the rich took advantage of the poor trying to acquire assets. Meanwhile those poor who tried to acquire assets are now left with nothing in a huge amount of cases.

I hear what you're saying and I honestly agree to a certain degree. I don't think its something you can solve by just saying "here poor people have an acre of land that we took off bill gates". However, I do think there are steps we need to take a society and the only entity able to enact change on that scale is government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Overseas trickle down is not what is being sold to the American public. What is being sold is that if we make things easier for the top 1% then the rest of us will see benefits. I'm asking where these benefits are.

If they are overseas then there's a problem.

---

Agreed. I think that's a huge problem. What is being said is just a rehash of Reganomics, when it was at least feasible, that trickle down could work. Not so today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The underlying data is there for those willing to make the huge effort of clicking a few links. If you have proof something in those charts is wrong via that data by all means post it.

---

The data sourcing is somewhat lacking but I'll probably take a look at it because the subject interests me somewhat. I have a natural suspicion of statistical rendering of data...it's what I do for a living. If I found that the data was being manipulated and played, it wouldn't be the first time. When I see signs of, at least, misdirection, I get a little wary. Comparing execs pay in one chart, whilst examining the top 1%, without revealing the population of that 1% leads one to believe that the top 1% must be CEO's. But we don't know that do we? We suspect it. It might even make sense. But we don't know what we don't know. As we examine the top 1% of earners, why is the trending of the top hundreth of one percent, and the top tenth of a percent relevant? It's not, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Why is it disingenuous? What is payroll if not compensation?

---

Because, payroll is a just a component of compensation. Not all stock options are realized as they are measured at any point in time. When a company files it's SEC form 10K they declare the value of options or stock held. That's the value pinned to that stock at that moment and if you want to look at it as payroll, then that's the payroll for that exec at that moment in time. Since the stock market is far from static, it's not an accurate representation of that exec's pay.

I'm not disagreeing with the point that there is a huge disconnect between the top earners and the rest of us. There's no denying that. The effects of that are somewhat debateable. There's an almost contra-indicative disconnect between the comsumption inequality between the rich and the rest of us. Almost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild. I agree that corporations know how to play the system better than anyone else and that they design the system to work best for them but having ineffective government regulation doesn't mean that we don't need more appropriate regulation.


What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.

---

[/QUOTE]

^^^^ This ^^^^^

Bullshit.

You guys are advocating making things even harder for the rich, because they have so much, and the jealousy card is being played.

Nobody should pay a 39.6% marginal rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Bullshit.

You guys are advocating making things even harder for the rich, because they have so much, and the jealousy card is being played.

Nobody should pay a 39.6% marginal rate.

---

Dude, jealousy aint in my deck cards. Try again.

Why shouldn't anyone pay 39.6%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Why shouldn't anyone pay 39.6%?

---

Wow... Just wow...

I assume you believe they are lucky the government lets them keep that much.

I don't dispute the notion that personal responsibility is key as far as wealth-building goes, but when minimum wage doesn't provide enough income to allow for saving money, you have a problem. Raising minimum wage does little besides create inflation, welfare programs don't incentivize self-betterment, and regulation of goods and services can only control costs to a certain point before it becomes oppressive to providers or cumbersome for tax payers. The only solutions I see are trust-busting and, most of all, education. The whole public school system needs to be reformed drastically if we're going to get the most of our polity, become competitive in the world market, and start chipping away at income disparities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Wow... Just wow...

I assume you believe they are lucky the government lets them keep that much.

---

Stop assuming things about me. You're not very good at it.

I asked a question. Can you answer it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I asked a question. Can you answer it?

---

It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.

I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild.

---

Agreed. I think expecting people to be decent, or believing that the market will reward decency and bring down graft is naive Ayn Rand bullshit of the highest order. You can definitely over-do it with regulation, but we're in this largely thanks to a climate of pronounced under-regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.

I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.

---

So you think if we had a flat tax of 25% for all people, it would hurt the poor as much as it hurts the rich? That's a bit moronic and unethical, too, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.

I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.

---

or they could be just paying thier fair share.