Class warfare is failed recycled politics

[Rob's House]

You are a totally brainwashed tool. You are told what to think and then you repeat what you are told to say.

Sounds like you know a thing or two about that.

[birdog1960]

does anybody here really think that the average american knows that if they're born into a family making $54,300 or less (in 2006) that their chances of making it into the top 5% (much less the top 1%, which is a quantum leap from the top 5) is less than 1:50? walk into any public school classroom in an average or below average income area and look at the students. odds are that not a single student you see will "make it". do you really think that's what is understood to be the american dream by the majority of citizens? pretty long odds but that's what the wannabes are betting on. but hey, look at how well lotto tickets sell.

Edited December 9, 2010 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

You are a totally brainwashed tool. You are told what to think and then you repeat what you are told to say.

 

Then this must be you.

[finknottle]

ah, but a closer analysis of cbo numbers reveals methodology flaws that propagates the myth that so many desperately cling to krugman this came almost immediately up on a cursory search but i'm fairly certain more recent analyses are available. i'll post when i get a chance. this is a long standing and contentious debate that will not be settled here...but what does a nobel winning economist know?

 

These are not CBO numbers. They are factual numbers taken from IRS returns, from a 96,700 sample of those who filed at both ends of the time interval. With respect to the transition matrix provided, there is no methodology to dispute. People earned what they earned.

 

The only room to quibble lies with what relation filers have to society as a whole (since there are filers dropping in and out); and how you define mobility and what you conclude about it from the numbers.

 

Your "Krugman debunk" link doesn't work. He can rant all he likes, but it doesn't change the numbers in Treasury's transition matrix.

[birdog1960]

These are not CBO numbers. They are factual numbers taken from IRS returns, from a 96,700 sample of those who filed at both ends of the time interval. With respect to the transition matrix provided, there is no methodology to dispute. People earned what they earned.

 

The only room to quibble lies with what relation filers have to society as a whole (since there are filers dropping in and out); and how you define mobility and what you conclude about it from the numbers.

 

Your "Krugman debunk" link doesn't work. He can rant all he likes, but it doesn't change the numbers in Treasury's transition matrix.

economists view gives several learned interpretations including krugmans and the wsj's on the data. seems not everyone reaches the same conclusions....see the comments as well...very interesting

 

krugman shows how downward mobility data on the very rich can be deceiving..it also includes a link to my original broken citation which tangentially addresses the subject but not the treasury dept study.

[Magox]

does anybody here really think that the average american knows that if they're born into a family making $54,300 or less (in 2006) that their chances of making it into the top 5% (much less the top 1%, which is a quantum leap from the top 5) is less than 1:50? walk into any public school classroom in an average or below average income area and look at the students. odds are that not a single student you see will "make it". do you really think that's what is understood to be the american dream by the majority of citizens? pretty long odds but that's what the wannabes are betting on. but hey, look at how well lotto tickets sell.

Count me as one of them... My father was a master gunny sg. in the marines, making less than $50,000.

 

I made that sort of income by the time I was 30.

 

I guess I had one of those lotto tickets.

[Rob's House]

economists view gives several learned interpretations including krugmans and the wsj's on the data. seems not everyone reaches the same conclusions....see the comments as well...very interesting

 

krugman shows how downward mobility data on the very rich can be deceiving..it also includes a link to my original broken citation which tangentially addresses the subject but not the treasury dept study.

When I saw the original Krugman Nobel lauriet comment I thought it was sarcasm (didn't realize who was posting) since the Nobel prize has turned into the Grammy's for nerds. Friedman (or was it Hayek?) had reservations after himself winning the prize for fear that such an award could assign undue faith in one man's word for simply making one worthwhile contribution in his field.

 

If you don't get the Grammy reference think back a few years when the Dixie Chicks swept all major catagories, for a record no one bought, after making lefty political waves.

 

As to the theory about poor people reaching the top 5%, that's a fairly arbitrary measure, unless you favor envy as a motivating factor for policy over a more utilitarian goal of maximizing prosperity for the most people and minimizing suffering. Looking at quintiles gives a clearer picture of the shifting of standards of living. By your own philosophy anyone in the top quintile should be quite satisfied with his station in life (and be willing to pay more taxes, I'm sure.) Of course if we look at mobility from the bottom two quintiles to the top two and vice versa it doesn't produce those sexy stats that fuel class warfare.

 

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/movin-up-and-down-income-quintiles.html

Nothing groundbreaking here, just a few interesting stats on the topic.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Rob's House

[birdog1960]

When I saw the original Krugman Nobel lauriet comment I thought it was sarcasm (didn't realize who was posting) since the Nobel prize has turned into the Grammy's for nerds. Friedman (or was it Hayek?) had reservations after himself winning the prize for fear that such an award could assign undue faith in one man's word for simply making one worthwhile contribution in his field.

 

If you don't get the Grammy reference think back a few years when the Dixie Chicks swept all major catagories, for a record no one bought, after making lefty political waves.

 

As to the theory about poor people reaching the top 5%, that's a fairly arbitrary measure, unless you favor envy as a motivating factor for policy over a more utilitarian goal of maximizing prosperity for the most people and minimizing suffering. Looking at quintiles gives a clearer picture of the shifting of standards of living. By your own philosophy anyone in the top quintile should be quite satisfied with his station in life (and be willing to pay more taxes, I'm sure.) Of course if we look at mobility from the bottom two quintiles to the top two and vice versa it doesn't produce those sexy stats that fuel class warfare.

 

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/movin-up-and-down-income-quintiles.html

Nothing groundbreaking here, just a few interesting stats on the topic.

as the editorial you linked states, looking at quartiles is not the same a looking at individual lives. most people make more as they advance through a career, especially advancing from an entry level position or compared to what they make in training or college. this accounts for a significant portion of "upward mobility", conversly, a million dollar per year earner that retires on $100000 a year drops his standing significantly in one fell swoop. but the odds of a top 5% earner dropping to a bottom quartile earner and a bottom quartile earner becoming a top 5% earner are not even close. i think most envision "the american dream" to be just what i described (which in my example included middle income people).those odds are 1:55, magox' success notwithstanding. perhaps we disagree on what "the american dream" conveys.

 

btw, the dixie chicks rock!

Edited December 10, 2010 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

Count me as one of them... My father was a master gunny sg. in the marines, making less than $50,000.

 

I made that sort of income by the time I was 30.

 

I guess I had one of those lotto tickets.

 

I hit it with a scratcher.

 

I scratched my head one day and said: "!@#$ it......I can do a LOT better than this."

[whateverdude]

You are a totally brainwashed tool. You are told what to think and then you repeat what you are told to say.

LOL thank you, You have made my day. Very funny stuff! Maybe I struck a nerve with you.

[birdog1960]

I hit it with a scratcher.

 

I scratched my head one day and said: "!@#$ it......I can do a LOT better than this."

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

[whateverdude]

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

My god, someone has done a number on you! If you would allow yourself to be deprogramed you'll realize that rich people are not the boogie men. Wealth is fluid in this country. Come up with an idea, product or service that people think they can not do without and watch the wealth transfer into your pocket.

[birdog1960]

My god, someone has done a number on you! If you would allow yourself to be deprogramed you'll realize that rich people are not the boogie men. Wealth is fluid in this country. Come up with an idea, product or service that people think they can not do without and watch the wealth transfer into your pocket.

and then live in a gated community watching vigilantly for people who never came up with an idea that still want what you have.

 

how bout this instead? produce things people really do need (wholesome foods, shelter, health care) at a fair, affordable price and have a little less in excess for yourself?

[Rob's House]

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

I reject your definition of success wholly. As mentioned before, people who move from the bottom two quintiles into the top two don't likely feel this angry unrest from the burden of knowing someone else has it better, despite themselves now having enough money to lead a comfortable and happy life.

 

Do you have better examples of economic mobility (and please don't use this ridiculous top 5% as the measure of that)? Do you have a solution that has any track record of success? Or do you just have cherry picked stats of extremes to make income levels look artificially static?

 

as the editorial you linked states, looking at quartiles is not the same a looking at individual lives.

How is looking at your under $55k to top 5% more applicable to individual lives than their movement through income quintiles? I try to be civil because despite your starry eyed idealism you seem like a friendly old hippie, but that line was just dumb.

 

how bout this instead? produce things people really do need (wholesome foods, shelter, health care) at a fair, affordable price and have a little less in excess for yourself?

 

I just vomited.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Rob's House

[Magox]

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

Wow! What happened to you? Just get your laptop, lie on a couch and spill the beans.

[Gary M]

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

 

The point here is it is possible, but not EASY, and nobody can do it FOR you.

 

Success takes hard work and some sacrifice.

[IDBillzFan]

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

Yikes. Having a bad day or what? I'm also one of those people you equate to "hitting the lottery" despite whatever impossible odds you have already given in to. As simple as it sounds, it starts with a choice. You choose to succeed by first establishing a goal, or you don't. Success, mind you, is relative, but for you to suggest that those who have succeeded are simply the very rare exception and not the rule, and that for everyone else success is "an unobtainable objection," suggests pretty clearly that the biggest hindrance to your personal success is your head.

 

You can change your fortune, but if you instead continue to believe that success for most is unobtainable, many of us in the "exception" category would ask that you sit in the back, keep quiet, and stay out of the way.

[birdog1960]

I try to be civil because despite your starry eyed idealism you seem like a friendly old hippie, but that line was just dumb.

 

 

 

 

yup. the hart, shafner and marx sportcoat i'm wearing this week just screams "old hippie".

[Magox]

I believe just in this thread alone, this represents a perfect microcosmic dichotomy of the liberal and conservative mentality. The liberal mentality is "People who begin without money, have virtually no chance (lottery ticket), to succeed and become one of the higher income earners of this society, so it is up to the government to even the playing field". The conservative mentality is "We believe that we can succeed no matter what the circumstances, and we will blame no one but ourselves if we can't get there".

 

Just in this thread alone, we have found that three of the conservatives of PPP have achieved this and I'm sure there are a few others as well. So according to Birdog's logic, this represents either a statistical virtually impossible anomaly or that the conservatives on PPP are some of the luckiest men in the world.

 

Before I even knew I was a "conservative", I was a conservative. Maybe that came from my father, maybe it was something more naturally internal, maybe it just always seemed logical to me or maybe a combination of the three. For me, it was always about self-accountability, holding yourself accountable for your own actions, no matter what the circumstances. The "woe is me" mentality never jived with me, It is an oppressive mentality that holds people prisoners to themselves. Which unfortunately for Birdog and many others is a practice that is espoused by many people and is all too common in this world, and what makes it worse is that there is a faction of the our society and government that enables this mentality through subsidization and demonization of those who champion self-accountability.

 

I'm just very thankful that I never had this sort of victim mentality.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Magox

[finknottle]

i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?

 

Is it any sadder than the millions of children who train and work hard, and yet fail to grow up to be professional athletes? Or musicians? Or film stars? Are they being deprived of their dreams?

 

Btw, the intergenerational statistics are shocking: children whose relatives are professional athletes, musicians, or film stars are more likely to have careers in those fields than children without that good fortune. Perhaps the government should set up some kind of tennis camp for disadvantaged youths, and offer subsidized cosmetic surgery.

 

The point here is it is possible, but not EASY, and nobody can do it FOR you.

 

Success takes hard work and some sacrifice.

 

And some luck. That's why it is called the American Dream, not the American Entitlement.

 

Like sports and life in general, it's about working hard and staying prepared so that you can take advantage if luck comes your way. And if luck doesn't come? You won't reach the Dream, but you'll do all right.