Rich getting Richer, the Poor getting....Richer

[Capitalist Lawyer]

http://www.nd.edu/~acyr/income.jpg

[Jazzratt]

So, you knocked that up on excel in, what 5, 10 minutes?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

EDIT: Never mind :blush:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Typed it up into a search engine and that's what I found.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So Capitalist Lawyer is saying that.....the poor are recieving more dollars than they did previously.....but fails to mention to PERMANENT shrinking value of the dollar.

If a dollar is worth one slice of bread then a loaf of bread is going to cost $20. And you might be paid $100 an hour you would be able to buy fuck all.

[Jazzratt]

I'm still highly suspicious of the data. For the most part because it looks intenesly unproffessional and came with no link to the raw data.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The image is from http://www.nd.edu. I'm not sure how credibale this site is, but if you suspect the data in question you should check it out.

[RevSouth]

Rate of inflation has vastly increased. Is this U.S.? If so, its understandable, as well, becuase cheap manufacturing has been allocated to foreign countries with less labor laws.

[RevSouth]

Anyone can post a graph. (http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg)

But other factors may be at work.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You guys can poke fun all you want, it doesn't change the fact that our standard of living continues to increase.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2006, 10:38 PM
You guys can poke fun all you want, it doesn't change the fact that our standard of living continues to increase.
None of us were really 'poking fun' I was raising a legitimate concern about how verifiable the source was, whilst BCS and RedSouth were pointing out flaws in the logic that the data meant an increase in actual, overall, wealth.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well i read somewhere, that "middle class" american families can purchase LESS these days with two wages than they could with just one way in the 1950's.

Also people have way more debts and all that kinda shit.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Also people have way more debts and all that kinda shit.
That's true. Cash flow problems are common amongst middle-class families in capitalist nations.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2006, 05:38 PM
You guys can poke fun all you want, it doesn't change the fact that our standard of living continues to increase.
Inflation outpaces wage increases, therefore people are poorer than they used to be in the whole scheme of things.

[rouchambeau]

So?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2006, 09:14 PM
http://www.nd.edu/~acyr/income.jpg
hmm well this probably has no effect at all but 75,000 dollars a year isn't exactly 'rich' perse in many places where he cost of living is high.

[Demogorgon]

The graph is probably true, I have no reason for presuming it isn't, but it's a good example of lies, damn lies and statistics.

Firstly it fails to mention increased cost of living, namely inflation. Indeed given inflation if income wasn't rising like that you would have a lot of unhappy people. This is the graphs achiiles heal that renders it about as pointless as if they'd just drawn a nice smiley face on it.

Secondly seventy five thousand dollars isn't particularly rich. If you have two people in a household that's the sort of loevel that should be coming in and when you factor in all the costs of living they won't be left with a lot of pocket money to play with.

On top of that thirty thousand is really pretty low and given inflation of course the number of people earning below that would fall, there would be trouble if not for that fact.

And it is rather telling the graphs offer no figures for those earning anywhere between thirty and seventy five thousand dollars. How very useful...

[VonClausewitz]

Secondly seventy five thousand dollars isn't particularly rich. If you have two people in a household that's the sort of loevel that should be coming in and when you factor in all the costs of living they won't be left with a lot of pocket money to play with.

Do you have to be someone with money already to speak such nonesense ? At current exchange rates, $75,000 is around £40,000. That my friend, is a lot of money. Families are raised perfectly healthily on less than half of that !. Who cares if there isn't a lot of 'pocket money' ? As long as one has food, water, a roof and power, one can survive.

Interesting graph though - People will be earning more at the basic level, simply because of all kinds of legislation and complaining that has been done to improve the standard of life for those at the breadline. Even your basic ammount in this graph - just under £14,000; a perfectly adequate ammount of money to live on.


hmm well this probably has no effect at all but 75,000 dollars a year isn't exactly 'rich' perse in many places where he cost of living is high.

Then do what the steppe peoples have been doing for a thousand years - move !.

[kaaos_af]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2006, 10:38 PM
You guys can poke fun all you want, it doesn't change the fact that our standard of living continues to increase.
Who are 'we'? And at whose expense do 'our' standards of living continue to rise? And even if you are correct, how much longer is 'our' lifestyle sustainable?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2006, 10:38 PM
You guys can poke fun all you want, it doesn't change the fact that our standard of living continues to increase.
So what? the gap is still getting wider. Infact, the gap between rich and poor is wider now in the UK, than it was in the victorian era. People are still exploited, people still go hungry, people are still wage slaves and still wonder if they'll be able to feed themselves all year, or even if they are elligable for the dole.

So you can take your stupid figures, and ram them up your ass. They prove absolutely fuck all.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:23 AM
Do you have to be someone with money already to speak such nonesense ? At current exchange rates, $75,000 is around £40,000. That my friend, is a lot of money. Families are raised perfectly healthily on less than half of that !. Who cares if there isn't a lot of 'pocket money' ? As long as one has food, water, a roof and power, one can survive.

Interesting graph though - People will be earning more at the basic level, simply because of all kinds of legislation and complaining that has been done to improve the standard of life for those at the breadline. Even your basic ammount in this graph - just under £14,000; a perfectly adequate ammount of money to live on.

This is income per household, not per individual. If you have two earning adults in a household fourty thousand pounds is not a lot. Factor in food, rent/ mortgage, costs of raising children etc etc and it is not a lot of money at all.

The graph is very dishonest, ecause it's so called criteria for being rich is to have two adults earning under the average scottish workers wage (which will be lower than it is in America incidentally). Just because it backs your point doesn't mean you should leap ahold of it. Surely you can do better than this tripe?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Another problem with all this is that, as LU stated, the gap between rich and poor is getting progressively bigger. This creates more economic inequality, and by extension more social instability.

[BreadBros]

Then do what the steppe peoples have been doing for a thousand years - move !.

What a ridiculous statement, as if the average person had the ability to move on a whim. Theres a reason why people live in the city (where cost of living tends to be higher) which is that jobs are more readily available, not too mention plenty of other factors that go into this.

Anyway, besides the inflation point someone brought up, I read a news report on something similar recently. Apparently for new economic data in the US, the average household income went UP. Yet it did so by very little, and the only reason it did was because inflation and lower wages are forcing more and more families to have two working parents. So while the raw household income may gone up, the standard of living certainly has not, and there is increased strain on middle and working class families, at least in the US, not sure what the picture is like in Europe.

[JazzRemington]

My reservation about this whole argument is that it's a fact that a growing economy will benefit everyone. Hell, even a Russian worker in the 1950s under Stalin was better off than a Russian peasant in the early 1900s. What matters is the relative standing of the poor and rich and how we define "poor" and "rich."

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Graph that could've been forged. Reason to suspect personal bias. Lack of source. No evidence of an understanding of economics. Many possible explanations for the occurence. Does not show evidence of a quality of life increase. Proves nothing that is implied it proves.

This thread didn't deserve my response. I hope you are grateful.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Finally, despite wage and income stagnation at the macro level, people continue to move up out of the working class into the middle and upper classes. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of all households with an income below $25,000 per year (in 2005 dollars) fell to 27.1 percent last year, from 27.6 percent in 2004. In 1995, 28.9 percent fell into this income class. In 1985, the percentage was 30.5 percent. In 1975m it was 33.1 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of households that are considered well-to-do -- those with an income above $75,000 (in 2005 dollars) -- rose to 28.3 percent last year, from 27.9 percent in 2004. In 1995, only 24.4 percent of households had that much income, up from 20.2 percent in 1985 and 14 percent in 1975.

In short, despite all the talk about the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor, the fact is that the percentage of households with low incomes has fallen and the percentage of those with high incomes has risen.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BruceBa...s_of_stagnation (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BruceBartlett/2006/09/26/wages_of_stagnation)

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2006, 07:04 PM

Finally, despite wage and income stagnation at the macro level, people continue to move up out of the working class into the middle and upper classes. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of all households with an income below $25,000 per year (in 2005 dollars) fell to 27.1 percent last year, from 27.6 percent in 2004. In 1995, 28.9 percent fell into this income class. In 1985, the percentage was 30.5 percent. In 1975m it was 33.1 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of households that are considered well-to-do -- those with an income above $75,000 (in 2005 dollars) -- rose to 28.3 percent last year, from 27.9 percent in 2004. In 1995, only 24.4 percent of households had that much income, up from 20.2 percent in 1985 and 14 percent in 1975.

In short, despite all the talk about the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor, the fact is that the percentage of households with low incomes has fallen and the percentage of those with high incomes has risen.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BruceBa...s_of_stagnation (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BruceBartlett/2006/09/26/wages_of_stagnation)
It still doesn't mean anything. The value of the dollar is not static, you have to factor in inflation. I haven't got a calculator handy, but what you posted indicates real wages actually fell in the time period you note. Certainly between 1990 and 2000 they did according to the US governments own figures.

[Sabocat]

Even your basic ammount in this graph - just under £14,000; a perfectly adequate ammount of money to live on.

:lol:

You've got to be kidding. Try having a modest apartment in a major metropolitan area, provide, food, insurance, transportation on 28,000 U.S. After taxes, you'd only have about 18-19000 to play with.

What's the name of the fucking dreamworld you live in again?