Sunday, September 16, 2012
Stacking the Decades 2
It's true. The income of the top 1% went up markedly between 1979 and 2007 (some 277%). And, yes, so, too, did the discrepancy between the top 1% and the rest of us. But what is frequently not mentioned (and, gee, I wounder why) is that the income of all groups went up during this time period and even the bottom quintile's income went up 18-25% (depending on whether you use the CPI or the PCE Deflator ). To say that the poor are continuously getting poorer is factually inaccurate....................................................................................Still not convinced? Try taking a look at consumption levels. Consumption as a percentage of income in the bottom quintile (according to the CBO) has grown from 112% in 1961 to 198% in 2007 (data from the Department of Labor - http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/123566). Clearly (and undoubtedly due to such things as transfer payments, the underground economy, etc.), between the increases in income and consumption levels, the debate seems to be more one of bringing the rich down at this point......................................................................................Speaking of which, after the stock market crash of 2008, the top 1%'s after-tax share of the country's total income went from 17.3% in 2007 to 11.5% in 2009 (according to the CBO - http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-cbo-on-falling-incomes-and-rising-tax-shares-of-the-top-1/) . Happy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Forced unionization has a lot to do with a good chunk of the income stagnation. In the rust belt, the type of situation like auto workers being paid $65 an hour to do shoddy work was pretty common.... totally unsustainable, causing the auto industry collapse and forcing the companies to shed hundreds of thousands of jobs. The union completely prevented any sort of adjustment to something more sustainable and fair.
This happened in many other sectors as well.
The unions were able to kick the workers out of the factories, to become unemployed or minimum wage, but they were unable to do this to those at the top.
Big wage stagnation there, and thus a big discrepancy. I saw it happen 'live' in Michigan.
I'd say the poor certainly got poorer relative to the rich. The rich income went up tens times more than the poor according to your numbers.
That's never been the argument that the left has made, Jerry (relative as opposed to real terms).......And I ask you again to look at the consumption numbers. A family with a reported income of $20,000 in 2007 spent on average $39,600. That isn't too shabby.
dmarks, I would add that automation, a breakdown of the nuclear family, globalization, and an influx of low-wage workers from Mexico have also hurt the poor and unskilled workers.
Will said: "...and an influx of low-wage workers from Mexico have also hurt the poor and unskilled workers."
The minimum wage situation also compounds the problem. There are some jobs of low value that are still nonetheless worth more than $12,000 a year. Which is a hell of a lot more than $0. But the minimum wage laws make it a crime for employers to employ people at these jobs. So the jobs either go unfilled, are automated (look at the automated gas pumps with credit cards and all now).... or they go to illegal aliens.
Since the illegal aliens are illegal anyway, this ends up encouraging employers paying these illegal aliens the fair wage for these jobs that earn just under the government-mandated minimum wage level. Something all illegal.
The African-American teen male unemployment rate is currently hovering around 50%. The minimum-wage doesn't seem to be helping them all that much, now does it?
It harms them a lot, especially youth. With the min wage, distant arrogant ignorant government officials are giving this message:
$16,000 a year is low and next to nothing, so it hurts no one if we eliminate jobs that earn such wages and zero them out. To $0.
Of course a well-to-do bureaucrat or US representative who is a millionaire on the public dime can say that.... I guess.... but to those on the lower end of the economic scale, $16,000 is real money.
I imagine the bottom percentile is overjoyed..0.5% per year gain. So should those that blame unions..there are none left. The bizarre inverse relationship between productivity and pay makes no sense and I am left feeling that
we are 'oligarching' right into a third world country...
BB Idaho, a) the productivity has everything to do with automation and precious little to do with an improvement in the work force and b) the composition of those groups has in fact changed markedly over the years. For example, 58% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 were out of it by 2005 (a large chunk of them having moved up several quintiles) and the progressive argument thoroughly ignores this.
I would also add that that .5% increase per year does not include transfer payments; the fact that consumption as a percentage of income has grown to a meaty 198%, etc..
None left? Do you want me to list the many unions in the US? They are large here. In fact, way too large, since roughly half of union members are in the unions against their will. And the unions are quite strong and able to force companies to fire Americans and offshore/outsource.
Upward mobility is the American dream, and it has been shown that unionization increases upward mobility.
Unionization produces mixed effects, Jerry. Some of them are good. Some of them, not so good.
I'm going to disagree. Mfg. in the US has declined significantly and the picture is far from rosy ..
IMO, when mfg. agriculture, trade and transportation shrink while
'services' greatly expands, our
economy tanks. It is an old and growing problem ...
Want biggy fries with that?
Post a Comment