Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 404
  1. #26
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    This is "real" income?

    Adjusted for inflation, right?

    EVERY quintile has risen; with the top quintile, obviously, tied directly to investment income (look at the boom Clinton years). So, the people who stand to gain the most from investments, do so.

    What is not demonstrated is all of the money people have made and invested that DOES NOT show up on this graph. All of my employees (all in the 99%) have 401K accounts - and all are vested; well over a million dollars tied up in those accounts, none of which has EVER been reported as "income". It will be, eventually; but only after those people retire, and it becomes either primary, or secondary to their SS - but, nevertheless, never enough to cause a blip on the chart. There are trillions of dollars tied up in 401K's around this country; only those in ROTH accounts (a great minority) are represented in your chart. BTW, why is 1979 significant? It's the year 401K accounts were born. They've been reducing taxable income (the measured statistic on the chart) ever since. Will it make up all of the difference? Probably not, but it would certainly make for a better representation of what is going on; the 99% are benefiting from, and paying for, the performance in the market, but it is in, largely, unreported income.

  2. #27
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    That said, I have no sympathy for people that are manipulating our systems, and making money taking ridiculous risks, all the while getting bailed out with MY tax money. The problem with the chart is that is painting with too broad a brush; what has wrecked our economy is not the successful, hard working entrepreneurs out there - they ARE the engine of our economy, and if we are going to pull out of us, they will have to do it. Unfortunately, the lure of great sums of easy money are attracting too many of the best, brightest and hardest working into professions that's entire goal is seemingly to game the system, and generate "income" with other people's money (and then, even THAT income is only taxed at 15%). WE HAVE to make working on Wal Street less lucrative, and more risky, if not for any other reason to attract some of those minds back into the "real" working world. Investment bankers don't create jobs.

  3. #28
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "what has wrecked our economy is not the successful, hard working entrepreneurs out there"

    you mean like Magnetar? Fabulous Fabrice? and all your other heroes?

  4. #29
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I happen to work for one of these evil 1% guys (if he is, it's just barely). Many of these people come up with the idea, write the business plan, invest their own money, get venture capital, work their ass off (often at the expense of their personal lives), and, yes, create jobs. If my company tanks, I lose my job (and whatever my stock may have been worth), but my CEO loses a lot more. He's taken more risk and has much more "skin in the game". I suppose he could divide up the company equally amongst the employees, but that doesn't make much sense to me.
    That's all good, but it doesn't address inequality. When the downturn comes, your CEO either "reorganizes" (aka a good wipe of jobs) or he gets replaced for somebody that does. Nothing wrong with that, company has to make a buck. When that happens, he's a job killer though. But what's been happening for the past few decades is that when the economy/company is actually doing good, salaries (outside of a few exceptions, normally tied to the top management) have just not been growing accordingly. Now, it didn't used to be like that. It always has been the management, those with more skin in the game reaping bigger benefits, but not the degree you see today. Which is what the CBO numbers bear out.

  5. #30
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    "what has wrecked our economy is not the successful, hard working entrepreneurs out there"

    you mean like Magnetar? Fabulous Fabrice? and all your other heroes?
    I don't have any idea who the you are talking about.

    I'm talking about me, and people like me, you blind .

  6. #31
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    This is "real" income?

    Adjusted for inflation, right?

    EVERY quintile has risen; with the top quintile, obviously, tied directly to investment income (look at the boom Clinton years). So, the people who stand to gain the most from investments, do so.

    What is not demonstrated is all of the money people have made and invested that DOES NOT show up on this graph. All of my employees (all in the 99%) have 401K accounts - and all are vested; well over a million dollars tied up in those accounts, none of which has EVER been reported as "income". It will be, eventually; but only after those people retire, and it becomes either primary, or secondary to their SS - but, nevertheless, never enough to cause a blip on the chart. There are trillions of dollars tied up in 401K's around this country; only those in ROTH accounts (a great minority) are represented in your chart. BTW, why is 1979 significant? It's the year 401K accounts were born. They've been reducing taxable income (the measured statistic on the chart) ever since. Will it make up all of the difference? Probably not, but it would certainly make for a better representation of what is going on; the 99% are benefiting from, and paying for, the performance in the market, but it is in, largely, unreported income.
    The markets will require a major reorganization if you don't want to see those 401k's wiped though. I wouldn't just count them as money in the bank. Cuban said it best: the market used to be a place where people would go invest money to help companies grow and flourish, but it has turned into a platform. Over 60% of stocks are algorithmically traded, and with all the computerized micro-trading going on, half of the people don't know what's going on. Add global exposure of the economy and the information overload that entails, and if you have people gaming the system you wouldn't even know. Right now the market is a dangerous place (remember the flash crash?). It's downright scary that so much retirement money is tied there.

  7. #32
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    0f course, you don't. No surprise. Try to keep up.

    The VRWC has plugged your ears and eyes with their spurious, distracting propaganda and lies, while they loot the 99% into poverty and hopeless future.

    Here's a great summary

    Cheat Sheet: What’s Happened to the Big Players in the Financial Crisis

    http://www.propublica.org/article/ch...nancial-crisis

  8. #33
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    That's all good, but it doesn't address inequality. When the downturn comes, your CEO either "reorganizes" (aka a good wipe of jobs) or he gets replaced for somebody that does. Nothing wrong with that, company has to make a buck. When that happens, he's a job killer though. But what's been happening for the past few decades is that when the economy/company is actually doing good, salaries (outside of a few exceptions, normally tied to the top management) have just not been growing accordingly. Now, it didn't used to be like that. It always has been the management, those with more skin in the game reaping bigger benefits, but not the degree you see today. Which is what the CBO numbers bear out.

    I don't think upper management are usually 1%'s.

    Doctors, lawyers, business owners and investment guys, I think, make up most in the 1% - and, by number, "doctor" is BOUND to be the largest specific profession.

    Doctors are, btw, famously cheap and disrespectful as bosses (been told their whole lives they are the best and brightest; they believe it). I'll try to find a graph of Doc's salaries over that same time period....

  9. #34
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    0f course, you don't. No surprise. Try to keep up.

    The VRWC has plugged your ears and eyes with their spurious, distracting propaganda and lies, while they loot the 99% into poverty and hopeless future.

    Here's a great summary

    Cheat Sheet: What’s Happened to the Big Players in the Financial Crisis

    http://www.propublica.org/article/ch...nancial-crisis
    You need to go back and re-read my second post (as the bottom of page one - before you jumped in. You aren't keeping up.

    Apology accepted.

  10. #35
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I don't think upper management are usually 1%'s.

    Doctors, lawyers, business owners and investment guys, I think, make up most in the 1% - and, by number, "doctor" is BOUND to be the largest specific profession.

    Doctors are, btw, famously cheap and disrespectful as bosses (been told their whole lives they are the best and brightest; they believe it). I'll try to find a graph of Doc's salaries over that same time period....
    A good amount of management from the cheaters (bankers, hedge funds, multinationals) are. Lawyers are a completely different beast, and I think it has much more to do with their ties to power (lobbying, etc).

    I would actually be surprised to find that many doctors in the 1%, tbh. Outside of, say, plastic surgery and the like.

  11. #36
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    A good amount of management from the cheaters (bankers, hedge funds, multinationals) are. Lawyers are a completely different beast, and I think it has much more to do with their ties to power (lobbying, etc).

    I would actually be surprised to find that many doctors in the 1%, tbh. Outside of, say, plastic surgery and the like.
    This is FIRST YEAR (by specialty):

    A lot of these BRAND NEW docs are 1%'s

  12. #37
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    I don't think upper management are usually 1%'s.

    Doctors, lawyers, business owners and investment guys, I think, make up most in the 1% - and, by number, "doctor" is BOUND to be the largest specific profession.

    Doctors are, btw, famously cheap and disrespectful as bosses (been told their whole lives they are the best and brightest; they believe it). I'll try to find a graph of Doc's salaries over that same time period....
    Incorrect. I'll look for the link to site this but, it looks something like this:

    Percentage of Tax Payers in the top 1% including capital gains, 2004

    40.8% - Executives, managers, supervisors (non finance)
    18.4% - Financial professionals including managers
    6.3% - Not working or deceased
    6.2% - Lawyers
    4.7% - Real Estate
    4.4% - Medical
    3.6% - Entrepreneur (not classified elsewhere)
    3.1% - Arts, Media Sport
    3.0% - Computer, Math, Engineering
    2.2% - Business Ops
    1.9% - Skilled sales
    1.1% - Professors and scientists
    1.0% - Farmers and Ranchers

    Edit: Can't get the link, but here is the source: Jon Bakija and Bradley T. Helm "Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from US Tax Data," Working paper, Williams College, Office of Tax Analysis (March 2009), Table 1.

  13. #38
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    This is FIRST YEAR (by specialty):

    A lot of these BRAND NEW docs are 1%'s
    Uh? That doesn't look like 1% to me... Doctors have always been fairly well paid, but you haven't seen their pay skyrocket by over 200% or so in the last 30 years... I mean, not that I recall.

  14. #39
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Uh? That doesn't look like 1% to me... Doctors have always been fairly well paid, but you haven't seen their pay skyrocket by over 200% or so in the last 30 years... I mean, not that I recall.
    I thought 1% started at $250,000?

    Regardless, looks like the post above yours disproves my "doctor" theory, anyway; although by that Docs and Lawyers do make up 10%.

    Would like to know where all of these $300,000 managers work; I have some of the largest companies in SA as clients, and, because of what my company does, I know the salaries at those companies; of the 10,000+ salaries listed in my database, VERY few break into the 1% (fewer than 1%, ironically). I'd like to see a chart that shows, by geographic location, WHERE the 1% actually live. (I guess Washington, Manhattan won't be that big of a surprise).

  15. #40
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I think this is where people gets confused. What you make is irrelevant. If you make a great salary, that's great. The reality though is that for the vast majority of people, the income increase has been fairly stagnant. Whereas the top 1% is the only group whose growth has been phenomenal. I mean, good for them. It just didn't used to be like that at all.

  16. #41
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I thought 1% started at $250,000?

    Regardless, looks like the post above yours disproves my "doctor" theory, anyway; although by that Docs and Lawyers do make up 10%.

    Would like to know where all of these $300,000 managers work; I have some of the largest companies in SA as clients, and, because of what my company does, I know the salaries at those companies; of the 10,000+ salaries listed in my database, VERY few break into the 1% (fewer than 1%, ironically). I'd like to see a chart that shows, by geographic location, WHERE the 1% actually live. (I guess Washington, Manhattan won't be that big of a surprise).
    Given the list provided previously, some probably in financial centers. Other in multinationals. And it's not just salaries (those are easily taxed). A lot of these guys are handed heavy stock options as an incentive to boost the stock by shareholders. Toss in a golden parachute if they walk, and it's a win-win for them.

  17. #42
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Also, if and when my company breaks me into the 1%, I guess I'll be included in the "executives/management/supervisors" group? NOT what I consider myself, FWIW - actually managing employees is a VERY small percentage of my day (compared to posting here). I wonder what percentage of those would be included in the group "small business owner"? Or would I be "Entrepeneur (not classified elsewhere)" because I don't think of myself as THAT anymore, either; maybe in the first few years of my company....

  18. #43
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I thought 1% started at $250,000?
    Up to an extent, I don't think salary number matters, tbh. I think you're looking at the wrong thing.

  19. #44
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I think this is where people gets confused. What you make is irrelevant. If you make a great salary, that's great. The reality though is that for the vast majority of people, the income increase has been fairly stagnant. Whereas the top 1% is the only group whose growth has been phenomenal. I mean, good for them. It just didn't used to be like that at all.
    Did you see my post about 401K's?

    Also, is the rise that great for the entire top 1%?

    I would suspect not. A couple of guys making $250,000,000 can make an average of ANY group jump significantly. In fact, if you, instead of breaking it down like this, included those totals with either the top 10, or even 20%, I suspect the graph would make them appear to be the ones growing at great clip.

    Could it be the top .5, or even .1% that is showing extremely dramatic growth?

  20. #45
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Also, if and when my company breaks me into the 1%, I guess I'll be included in the "executives/management/supervisors" group? NOT what I consider myself, FWIW - actually managing employees is a VERY small percentage of my day (compared to posting here). I wonder what percentage of those would be included in the group "small business owner"? Or would I be "Entrepeneur (not classified elsewhere)" because I don't think of myself as THAT anymore, either; maybe in the first few years of my company....
    Look, if only 3% of Arts, Sports people are included, and we know what pro players make, in order to be there, you probably have to break the multi-million a year income. If your company pushes you there, I'll buy you a beer.

  21. #46
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Up to an extent, I don't think salary number matters, tbh. I think you're looking at the wrong thing.
    ALL salaries have risen; just not as much as the top 1%.

    Other than just being pissed about this, what can we do about it?

    If all salaries had fallen, including the top 1%, would we be better off?

  22. #47
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Look, if only 3% of Arts, Sports people are included, and we know what pro players make, in order to be there, you probably have to break the multi-million a year income. If your company pushes you there, I'll buy you a beer.
    It doesn't take nearly a million to get there; like I said a quarter million will do it. We are putting a face on the top 1% that, in reality, doesn't exist. The vast majority of the top 1% are NOT ultra, or even VERY, rich. Two 55 year old married professors could easily be in the group.

  23. #48
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Did you see my post about 401K's?
    I did. I don't know that people have multi-million income year over year there though.

    Also, is the rise that great for the entire top 1%?
    It would look to me like it is.

    I would suspect not. A couple of guys making $250,000,000 can make an average of ANY group jump significantly. In fact, if you, instead of breaking it down like this, included those totals with either the top 10, or even 20%, I suspect the graph would make them appear to be the ones growing at great clip.

    Could it be the top .5, or even .1% that is showing extremely dramatic growth?
    Maybe. Then again, it doesn't stray from the fact that everybody else has seen their growth to be pretty stagnant. Our progressive tax system was supposed to smooth some of that out, but it's pretty obvious those guys know how to get around it.

  24. #49
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    ...But what's been happening for the past few decades is that when the economy/company is actually doing good, salaries (outside of a few exceptions, normally tied to the top management) have just not been growing accordingly.
    This has not been my experience.

  25. #50
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    ALL salaries have risen; just not as much as the top 1%.

    Other than just being pissed about this, what can we do about it?

    If all salaries had fallen, including the top 1%, would we be better off?
    Never said they didn't raise. I actually said they did, just nowhere near as much.

    Well, I don't know there's much to do about it when things like collective bargaining seem to be so frowned upon these days.

    Some people are out there protesting about it though. Not sure they're going to change anything, tbh.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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