interesting study on us wealth distribution

[birdog1960]

wealth, how does the us slice the pie?. so, who picked the right pie?

[KD in CA]

"The US" doesn't "slice the pie" at all. People create, work and earn according to their skills and effort. The chips fall where they may.

 

But it's always enlightening to yet again compare the US to a) a fictional fantasyland and b) a remote country with vast natural resources and a tiny, homogeneous population.

 

 

 

 

 

How do they 'slice the pie' in China?

Edited August 17, 2011 by KD in CT

[birdog1960]

"The US" doesn't "slice the pie" at all. People create, work and earn according to their skills and effort. The chips fall where they may.

 

if only that were true. wealth begets wealth in our system. it becomes easier to obtain more as you obtain or inherit more. the chips are falling decidedly more on those with more money recently. do you really believe that's coincidence or due just differences in work ethic? no way.

[KD in CA]

if only that were true. wealth begets wealth in our system. it becomes easier to obtain more as you obtain or inherit more. the chips are falling decidedly more on those with more money recently. do you really believe that's coincidence or due just differences in work ethic? no way.

 

Of course it does and I'm not advocating abolishing the tax system or all forms of social assistance. But people like you continue to imply that hard work has nothing to do wtih success. You're wrong.

 

And I was really just questioning why you'd post such a stupid and pointless article, and the larger question of why people with an axe to grind about so called 'wealth distribution' never compare the US to anyone but Sweden (and even more stupidly in this case, a country made up by the Marx Brothers).

[birdog1960]

Of course it does and I'm not advocating abolishing the tax system or all forms of social assistance. But people like you continue to imply that hard work has nothing to do wtih success. You're wrong.

 

And I was really just questioning why you'd post such a stupid and pointless article, and the larger question of why people with an axe to grind about so called 'wealth distribution' never compare the US to anyone but Sweden (and even more stupidly in this case, a country made up by the Marx Brothers).

no, hard work has plenty to do with it but so does chance and a self perpetuating system. there are plenty of hardworking people in the bottom three quintiles that hold 5% of the wealth.

 

the point is ,as one of the commenters mentioned, we are rapidly approaching the point where "fiefdom" accurately describes our economic system.... and many americans are oblivious to this.

[....lybob]

I think it's more telling to compare the wealth and income distribution now in America to other times in history, do that and you find the last time we've had income and wealth inequality at levels like this was in the 1920s before the great depression.

 

Most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States

is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top

1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth, topping even

the levels seen just before the Great Depression in the 1920s

(Davies, Sandstrom, Shorrocks, & Wolff, 2009; Keister,

2000; Wolff, 2002).

[KD in CA]

no, hard work has plenty to do with it but so does chance and a self perpetuating system. there are plenty of hardworking people in the bottom three quintiles that hold 5% of the wealth.

 

the point is ,as one of the commenters mentioned, we are rapidly approaching the point where "fiefdom" accurately describes our economic system.... and many americans are oblivious to this.

 

 

Bullsh--. The 'disappearing middle class' myth has been running since the days of Astor, Rockefeller and Carnegie. Never before have people in the US had as many opportunities to improve their economic standing (and no I'm not talking about the immediacy of the current recession). The middle class doesn't have less, the difference in the 'plight' of the middle/lower class vs. prior generations is that we have completely abdicated personal accountability and responsibility. When you were a kid, did your parents have multiple color/big screen TVs, satellite TV, a new iphone and every other conceivable gadget, take expensive vacations, own two or more gas guzzling cars, etc., etc., etc.?? Mine sure didn't. Blame the politicians or Madison Avenue if you want, but the bottom line is what we used to call 'middle class' was the people who worked hard, living frugally and responsibly and saving a little at a time and that seemed to work fine. But now we have a generation of lazy idiots who thinks they are doing their employer a favor by showing up to work. And when they squander their paycheck eating out 3 nights a week and buying new car and thus have no saving and then has their house foreclosed because its twice the size they could afford, suddenly the villain can be identified by pointing to their lack of 'wealth' compared to some internet moguls.

[finknottle]

Shame on PBS for running another agenda-driven piece using research that had already been debunked.

 

The original study had set out to show how unenlightened US wealth inequality was, and they used Sweden as a comparison. Unfortunately, Sweden's data didn't serve their purpose. So instead, they compared US wealth distribution to Sweden's income distribution to get the inflammatory pie charts they needed for the survey.

 

Had they used accurate pie charts, it would have looked something like this:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/

[birdog1960]

Shame on PBS for running another agenda-driven piece using research that had already been debunked.

 

The original study had set out to show how unenlightened US wealth inequality was, and they used Sweden as a comparison. Unfortunately, Sweden's data didn't serve their purpose. So instead, they compared US wealth distribution to Sweden's income distribution to get the inflammatory pie charts they needed for the survey.

 

Had they used accurate pie charts, it would have looked something like this:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/

wow...that's really bad scholarship. i agree, pbs should have caught it. i should have been more skeptical

[....lybob]

Bullsh--. The 'disappearing middle class' myth has been running since the days of Astor, Rockefeller and Carnegie. Never before have people in the US had as many opportunities to improve their economic standing (and no I'm not talking about the immediacy of the current recession). The middle class doesn't have less, the difference in the 'plight' of the middle/lower class vs. prior generations is that we have completely abdicated personal accountability and responsibility. When you were a kid, did your parents have multiple color/big screen TVs, satellite TV, a new iphone and every other conceivable gadget, take expensive vacations, own two or more gas guzzling cars, etc., etc., etc.?? Mine sure didn't. Blame the politicians or Madison Avenue if you want, but the bottom line is what we used to call 'middle class' was the people who worked hard, living frugally and responsibly and saving a little at a time and that seemed to work fine. But now we have a generation of lazy idiots who thinks they are doing their employer a favor by showing up to work. And when they squander their paycheck eating out 3 nights a week and buying new car and thus have no saving and then has their house foreclosed because its twice the size they could afford, suddenly the villain can be identified by pointing to their lack of 'wealth' compared to some internet moguls.

OK if you want to say increased wealth disparity is due to a moral degeneracy that has swept the bottom 99% of Americans - but what about income disparity, in 1973 the top 1% received 9% of total GDP now they receive more than 25% - income adjusted for inflation has remained stagnant for the bottom 50th percentile since the 1970s, it has declined slightly for the bottom 20th percentile, this despite large increases in worker productivity in both an hourly and total measure.

 

 

American Average Work Hours:

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.

[Magox]

Shame on PBS for running another agenda-driven piece using research that had already been debunked.

 

The original study had set out to show how unenlightened US wealth inequality was, and they used Sweden as a comparison. Unfortunately, Sweden's data didn't serve their purpose. So instead, they compared US wealth distribution to Sweden's income distribution to get the inflammatory pie charts they needed for the survey.

 

Had they used accurate pie charts, it would have looked something like this:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/

Wow! This is sort of like what Breitbart was accused of.....

[birdog1960]

Bullsh--. The 'disappearing middle class' myth has been running since the days of Astor, Rockefeller and Carnegie. Never before have people in the US had as many opportunities to improve their economic standing (and no I'm not talking about the immediacy of the current recession). The middle class doesn't have less, the difference in the 'plight' of the middle/lower class vs. prior generations is that we have completely abdicated personal accountability and responsibility. When you were a kid, did your parents have multiple color/big screen TVs, satellite TV, a new iphone and every other conceivable gadget, take expensive vacations, own two or more gas guzzling cars, etc., etc., etc.?? Mine sure didn't. Blame the politicians or Madison Avenue if you want, but the bottom line is what we used to call 'middle class' was the people who worked hard, living frugally and responsibly and saving a little at a time and that seemed to work fine. But now we have a generation of lazy idiots who thinks they are doing their employer a favor by showing up to work. And when they squander their paycheck eating out 3 nights a week and buying new car and thus have no saving and then has their house foreclosed because its twice the size they could afford, suddenly the villain can be identified by pointing to their lack of 'wealth' compared to some internet moguls.

you make some good points here. yes, my parents "survived" just fine with one car (and one income) for many years and we "managed" with one tv set. don't think it hurt me a bit. average house sizes have increased greatly in the last 50 years (to what end?)

 

but, people tried to save then and many were successful. this flawed pie chart shows how few actually save now, if it shows nothing else. to have the ipods and flat screens, people sacrifice security. and i would argue that the lowest quintile often have little in the way of even these little luxuries. i agree theyd be better served not to have them at all and concentrate on the essentials they can manage to afford.

[DC Tom]

you make some good points here. yes, my parents "survived" just fine with one car (and one income) for many years and we "managed" with one tv set. don't think it hurt me a bit. average house sizes have increased greatly in the last 50 years (to what end?)

 

but, people tried to save then and many were successful. this flawed pie chart shows how few actually save now, if it shows nothing else. to have the ipods and flat screens, people sacrifice security. and i would argue that the lowest quintile often have little in the way of even these little luxuries. i agree theyd be better served not to have them at all and concentrate on the essentials they can manage to afford.

 

My in-laws are in that lowest quintile. And, for just one example, her niece has no job, two flat-screen TVs, each of her kids (four) has a smart phone and an iPod, and a late-model car. But no electricity, because she "can't afford it". (Honestly, the only one in my wife's family with any financial sense at all is clinically brain-damaged. Literally.)

 

And I highly doubt they're atypical. I can turn on the news here to any "oh, I can't pay the bills, help us!" sob story here, and half the time there'll be some sort of indisputably luxury item in the background during the interview (I presume the other half the time, the cameraman was too dumb to frame the shoot properly).

[....lybob]

you make some good points here. yes, my parents "survived" just fine with one car (and one income) for many years and we "managed" with one tv set. don't think it hurt me a bit. average house sizes have increased greatly in the last 50 years (to what end?)

 

but, people tried to save then and many were successful. this flawed pie chart shows how few actually save now, if it shows nothing else. to have the ipods and flat screens, people sacrifice security. and i would argue that the lowest quintile often have little in the way of even these little luxuries. i agree theyd be better served not to have them at all and concentrate on the essentials they can manage to afford.

lets not go too crazy with the electronics comparisons

 

Imagine You Could Go Shopping For Electrical Goods And Appliances In The 1970'S

 

These are some of the things you may have seen advertised Below and how much electrical goods and appliances cost in the 70's

 

14 cu foot Fridge Freezer Westinghouse $288 California 1970

 

8 track record player $169 Illinois 1978

 

Atari Video Computer System $199 New York 1979

 

Automatic Phonograph $39.88 Ohio 1971

 

Car 8 Track Stereo Tape Player $38.99 California 1970

 

CB Radio $147 Nebraska 1976

 

CB radio $189.00 New Jersey 1976

 

Clock Radio $9.94 Ohio 1971

 

Clothes Dryer From $219.00 New Jersey 1976

 

Clothes Washer From $199.00 New Jersey 1976

 

Crock Pot $9.79 New York 1979

 

Dishwasher From $259.00 New Jersey 1976

 

Juice Blender 11.88 Ohio 1971

 

JVC VHS Video Cassette Recorder $695 New York 1979

 

Micro Wave Oven From $169.00 New Jersey 1976

 

Mr Coffee Coffee maker $31.88 Illinois 1978

 

Olympia adding machine $79.95 California 1970

 

Polaroid $17.99 New Jersey 1976

 

Radio with 8 track cassette $98.00 New Jersey 1976

 

RCA 23 Inch Color Television $368.88 California 1970

 

Smith Corona Electric Typewriter $199.00 New York 1979

 

Stereo system, AM/FM, 8 track play/record $299.95 New Jersey 1976

 

Tape Cassette recorder $29.88 Ohio 1971

 

Television Zenith, 25" color $599 New Jersey 1976

 

Tiffany Lamp $49.95 Illinois 1978

 

Toshiba Blackstripe 19 inch TV $338 Illinois 1978

 

Radio Shack TRS80 Computer $399 Illinois 1978

 

 

for example that "Television Zenith, 25" color $599 New Jersey 1976" in today's dollars costs $2,365.55 inflation calculator - The "CB radio $189.00 New Jersey 1976" = $746.39 today's dollars I think you could get 2 or 3 ipods for that- electronics are cheap it's food and fuel that are the killers.

[3rdnlng]

My in-laws are in that lowest quintile. And, for just one example, her niece has no job, two flat-screen TVs, each of her kids (four) has a smart phone and an iPod, and a late-model car. But no electricity, because she "can't afford it". (Honestly, the only one in my wife's family with any financial sense at all is clinically brain-damaged. Literally.)

 

And I highly doubt they're atypical. I can turn on the news here to any "oh, I can't pay the bills, help us!" sob story here, and half the time there'll be some sort of indisputably luxury item in the background during the interview (I presume the other half the time, the cameraman was too dumb to frame the shoot properly).

 

Gee, how does she power up those flat screens and charge the other stuff without electricity?

[DC Tom]

Gee, how does she power up those flat screens and charge the other stuff without electricity?

 

That's what we tell her. "I can't pay my bills, can I borrow some money." "No. Sell the !@#$ing TVs. You're obviously not watching them."

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/jon-stewart-highlights-conservative-hypocrisy-on-class-warfare-video.php?ref=fpb

 

The people at the very end, I know so many people that talk like that everyday.

 

My in-laws are in that lowest quintile. And, for just one example, her niece has no job, two flat-screen TVs, each of her kids (four) has a smart phone and an iPod, and a late-model car. But no electricity, because she "can't afford it". (Honestly, the only one in my wife's family with any financial sense at all is clinically brain-damaged. Literally.)

 

And I highly doubt they're atypical. I can turn on the news here to any "oh, I can't pay the bills, help us!" sob story here, and half the time there'll be some sort of indisputably luxury item in the background during the interview (I presume the other half the time, the cameraman was too dumb to frame the shoot properly).

Oh, Ha! +1

[OCinBuffalo]

Education, not wealth, is the #1 factor in determining a person's "success", if you want to measure it in terms of net worth. Disclaimer: yes, we all know about the masters prepared social worker who makes crap money. The problem is: they are a statistically irrelevant minority, so spare us the anecdotes.

 

It's education, dummy. And, what have we done about education? Well, both parties have seen fit to spend a hell of a lot of money. What are our results? Poor.

Is that because we aren't spending enough money? No, and we are far past proving that.

 

So if money isn't the answer, what is? The problem is kid's attitude and hustle, and no amount of money spent on the school, or magical teachers, will resolve that. Those things have to come from a choice, made by the kids. The ability to make that choice correctly comes from their parents. This is a matter of identifying the problem correctly. We are trying to solve the wrong problem(bad teachers) with the wrong solution(more money). The problem is parents. The solutions are: more taxes and/or less benefits for bad parents. If the kid doesn't turn in homework for a month, we need a court order that both child and parent attend mandatory 3 hour study hall. Make exceptions for night workers/people who don't work = they have to attend 3 hours of school with their kids See? This isn't that hard. Put this in place, and I guarantee results.

 

And, before you say "big government": The amount of intrusion by the state into a parent's life must be directly proportional to their performance as a parent. The results of bad parenting affect us all, directly. If the kid tries hard, but is an idiot, and the parent's doing their job, then the teacher will know that, and can let them off the hook. We have every right to free ourselves from the results of bad parenting, by requiring the government to take appropriate action. If parents want the state to educate their children for free, then, the taxpayers have a right to demand proper parenting.

Edited August 23, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Kevbeau]

lets not go too crazy with the electronics comparisons

 

 

 

for example that "Television Zenith, 25" color $599 New Jersey 1976" in today's dollars costs $2,365.55 inflation calculator - The "CB radio $189.00 New Jersey 1976" = $746.39 today's dollars I think you could get 2 or 3 ipods for that- electronics are cheap it's food and fuel that are the killers.

 

Your ignoring the secondary costs of owning such devices. A TV in the 70's was a one time outlay in capital (+ electricity). Now you have Direct TV/cable/HD upgrades/DVR services/etc....the same can be said for smart phones and music services. People focus on the $200 outlay for an iphone (I'm not current on prices), but don't take into account the $35/month required data plan.

 

There was an tragic case down here in GA a few years ago. I'm going off memory, so excuse me if the details aren't completely accurate. A lady wrecked her SUV (hydroplaned) and unfortunately her daughter & niece (I believe) lost their lives. She claimed she couldn't afford new tires, however the DA prosecuted her for negligent homicide because her tires were bald, noting that the said woman had no problem paying for a number of luxury items yet cited insufficient funds for tires. I did a quick search to find any articles to see how it played out, but cam eup with nothing.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Kevbeau