Mind-blowing income-inequality statistic
Liberals Are Cool
“Let me give you a stunning number I reported the other day. From 1966 – when Lyndon Johnson was president — to 2011, 45 years later, the bottom 90 percent of Americans’ average income, as reported on tax returns, went up by a stunning $59 — almost no change at all. If you measure that $59 increase for the vast majority of Americans as one inch, then on the same scale, the incomes of those in the top 10 percent went up by 168 feet. The top one percent, 888 feet. The plutocrats — the Mitt Romney crowd, the top one percent of the top one percent? Their incomes rose by almost five miles relative to that one inch.”
- David Cay Johnston Explains How Big Corporations Withhold Your Taxes and Then Pocket Them
FIVE MILES! Let that sink in. And Republicans' first and only goal is to give the Top .01% more help.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/04/2013|
Can this injustice be remedied in my lifetime?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/27/2013|
Not at the rate we're going... unless you're very, very young.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/27/2013|
OP, back in the 60's most households were headed by one person who worked (usually the man/dad). Now both husband and wife have to work to have that same standard of living. Women entering the workforce has had a huge impact on cost of living.....for everyone. Primarily, it drove up the cost of housing because two earners could afford more.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/27/2013|
I'm not sure how you can say that is a Republican only phenomenon. The current president sure seems to court the wealthy any and every chance he gets. All politicians do.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/27/2013|
That's also what the latest push for amnesty of some 20-30 million illegals is about; don't be fooled by the "coming out of the shadows" rhetoric, this is all about what helps big corporations. They'll legalize these people, bring in even more on chain migration, and leave the border wide open just as Reagan did.
No doubt they'll slip in language that pushes more legal immigration as well, especially H1Bs for tech companies.
Combine that with outsourcing and....yeah. America has one hell of a future.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/27/2013|
R4, you don't get the difference between the parties? Really?
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/27/2013|
I completely get the difference. If you think one part is solely responsible for income disparity you should do a wee bit of research. More than enough blame to go around for that one.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/27/2013|
R7, as with the national debt and other issues... the GOP is responsible for around 80% of the problem, Democrats maybe 20%.
Nobody is saying Democrats are perfect or blameless. Just that heaping the blame on them ignores the real culprits.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/27/2013|
Yes both parties are responsible- but I would put about 80% on the Repubs and 20% on the Dems. All legislation that has reduced the top marginal Federal tax rate has been instigated and carried through by Repubs, ditto corporate tax breaks- starting with Ronald Reagan.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/27/2013|
So much for trickle-down economics.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/27/2013|
Trickle-Down economics has always been a fraud (a century before, they tried to peddle it as "Horse & Sparrow" economics)
It's a con game... a way of concentrating great wealth in the top 2%. It's never "worked" the way they promised. It's an utter failure as an economic philosophy.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/27/2013|
It's rare extremes, not often. Even most of those are stuck in the 200s, not the millions.
The problem is the regular Joe schmoe, the USA has decimated their livelihood, and this is where the problem is.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/27/2013|
Anyone watch the HBO documentary: American Winter?
Christ, what a depressing look at today's economy.
Do you think we'll continue to spiral down?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/27/2013|
R13, you're wrong. It's very rare these days. Far less often than it was 30 years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/27/2013|
R17, you commit the fallacy of generalizing from personal experience.
And going from lower middle class to upper middle class isn't like going from middle-class to wealthy. That sort of social mobility almost never happens any more.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/27/2013|
R19, it's not the media, moron. Stop being an idiot in denial, seriously. These are basic statistics, from CBO and others. Studies. You're wrong. Objectively. Give it up.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/27/2013|
Okay, R20, clearly you don't understand the topic. Thanks for making that clear.
I mean, I went from a paper-route to a six figure income, that must mean I'm completely socially mobile, right?!? You're a fucking idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/27/2013|
Sorry, should have been none of us started with a pot to piss in. I hate this iPad sometimes.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/27/2013|
Yeah, R13. Except when it doesn't. Which happens even more often.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/27/2013|
No, R25. You're wrong.
Now answer the question: How much do your parents make? What class are they? Are they poor paupers, and you grew up in a one bedroom slum apartment, on food stamps and welfare, living paycheck to paycheck or worse? What was your life like in childhood, and what do your parents do for a living?
I await your answers. And if you don't understand why this is important information, then again, you just prove that you don't understand the topic and that you're an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/27/2013|
[quote]What my parents make is not important since they cut me off at 18. I am what I built. People can do it.
God you're dense. And wrong. Jesus, how did you get so stupid?
Yes, it's important. It's completely irrelevant if they cut you off at 18. You don't understand anything, do you? You selfish self-absorbed twat...
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/27/2013|
R29, no one could have been more "motivated" than I. And according to what people told me, I had all the talent in the world and more. But ultimately, nothing.
I noticed as I was looking how many people had gone to Ivy League schools, which I hadn't. How many otherwise seemed to come from rich families. I didn't.
All kinds of factors out there besides "motivation."
Why post, though, if "that's not (your) or our problem"?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/27/2013|
So, R31... you went from upper middle class ... to upper middle class. You're not socially mobile at all.
Learn what the fucking statistic means before shooting off your ignorant mouth.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/27/2013|
R33, please try to have a brain, to use it, and to not be so fucking stupid and dense.
Your parents are loaded (you have all the best upbringing and opportunities and connections), and now you are. Lateral move. You climbed no ladder. You're at the same socio-economic status as your parents. You're in the same class. You didn't move at all.
Do you get it yet?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/27/2013|
R17 / R31 (and all the rest) = Born on Third Base, thinks he hit a triple.
Let me guess: Libertarian??
Libertarians are almost always privileged white guys who think they're self-made and who are completely ignorant of their own level of privilege.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/27/2013|
R39, so? Why aren't you getting that that's irrelevant?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/27/2013|
"Social Mobility" is about bettering your station in life, generation to generation.
Everyone starts out small and increases their income over time. I was a starving college student, now I own a home and make six figures and have pretty much everything I want or need (materially anyway). But I'm still in the same basic class as my parents. I grew up middle/upper-middle class, and that's where I am now.
This isn't rocket-science. How is it you're finding this so difficult to grasp? That you were poor at 18-21 is utterly irrelevant. Your advantages were already set by then.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||03/27/2013|
[quote] Can't believe we are that special.
the stats say otherwise, dearie. The US is now sadly for a western country a place where you are far lease likely to join a class higher than the one you were born in, Denmark and FInland are better places believe it or not. The whole land of opportunity thing is a lie through and through.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||03/27/2013|
Give it up, R43... the guy is living in his own tightly woven fantasy of being a self-made man. He won't listen to any facts or accept any reality that challenges his self-delusion.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||03/27/2013|
No, R45. Why would you even say that? It makes no sense given anything else I've posted. Clearly you're just being a dick/troll, adding nothing of value to this thread... simply demonstrating you're an idiot with no ability to reason or debate or argue.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||03/27/2013|
R47? Here's a shocker: You're wrong. Categorically and objectively. Because you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't understand what the phrase "social mobility" means. Even though it's been explained to you over and over and over again.
You're closed minded, ignorant (willfully so, apparently), and wrong.
Have you EVER admitted you were wrong in your life? Is that something you're even capable of? Especially when it's as clear as it is in this thread?
It's not "only me that's right" (I've noticed this is a common right-wing tactic when they're losing because the facts don't support their "opinions"). It's the facts that dictate that you're wrong, not me.
Now, stop being so pig-headed and arrogant. Admit you're wrong, because you didn't understand what was being talked about. What YOU'RE talking about and arguing is completely irrelevant and off topic. It's not all about you. That's not what "social mobility" means. It's a societal statistic. It's generational. Every story you've told is irrelevant. It's like the rest of us saying "2+2=4" and you saying "Not really, because grapes are green!" You're completely off topic.
And no matter how many times it's spelled out to you, no matter how simply, you still can't seem to grasp this very simple, obvious fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||03/27/2013|
R49? You're completely wrong again. I know I have a choice in my destiny. To a point. Everyone does. To a point.
But your ignorance of how "the other half lives", as well as what the statistic of "Social Mobility" measures is profound and rather stunning. Your inability to allow yourself to be educated even more so.
Yup. You're definitely a Republican/Libertarian: immune to logic, reason, or facts... arrogant, privileged, stridently ignorant, and beyond stubborn in your clinging to your personal fantasies. You deny reality, statistics, studies, because you don't want to believe them. Selfish and self-absorbed. Born on third, think you hit a triple.
I have comprehended every word you've posted. You've been very clear in fact. The problem is: You haven't comoprehended a single word I've posted. You've basically ignored everything I've said.
It's hard for you to "not engage any more" when you've never actually engaged to begin with. You just talk right past me, completely ignoring what I'm ACTUALLY saying, hearing only what you want to hear.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||03/27/2013|
Well, now that the idiot silver-spoon moron has 'disengaged', let's get back on topic here...
|by Anonymous||reply 51||03/28/2013|
And yet most broke middle class fools support more tax cuts for the rich.... as if pandering to them will earn them special points.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||03/28/2013|
R54, yeah, true... falling is far easier now than ever before. But I think the original topic was "upward mobility".
|by Anonymous||reply 56||03/28/2013|
[quote]You did not comprehend what I posted
We comprehended exactly what you posted and you are still utterly, totally, completely, and objectively wrong. The data do not support your views. What you posted on this thread so far has not only been entirely irrelevant, it's been stupid. Is any of this sinking in?
[quote]and I will no longer engage.
Yes, you will. People like you can't help it. See, for example, your reply at R54, which is also irrelevant and warrants a big "duh!"
[quote]I hope feeling you are liberal buys your dinner tonight. So sad for you - you have been convinced you have no choice in your destiny.
ROFL.... Yup, you *really* don't get it. You just don't have the foggiest idea what this thread is about or what you're talking about. You can start with Wikipedia, if you like, but I doubt you'll bother or that you are even capable of learning from it, given your rhetoric thus far.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||03/28/2013|
The notion of upward mobility is relatively recent. Americans once prided themselves on living in a country where people could freely exercise their intelligence as citizens of a republic. The Lincoln Douglas debates are examples of the political sophistication of candidates and voters in the 1900s. Alas, those days are long gone. Acquisitive individualism is the ideal now, hence the current apathy, widespread worship of money, and blind adulation of vulgar know-nothings like Donald Trump, the Real Housewives, and the Kardashians.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||03/28/2013|
[quote]Here is a shocker. We have different opinions. Both are shaped on our experience and both are valid.
Wrong. Your view is obviously pure opinion based on nothing but sentiment. The other guy's is solid fact based on well-known research.
This binary concept that both "opinions" of an issue are equally valid is pure codswallop propagated by the right to give their minority position far greater weight than it deserves....bitch.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||03/28/2013|
R60? Interesting twisting of what's actually going on. Fascinating how you have to tell yourself it's people hating success. It's a lie that Libertarians and Republicans love to tell (and apparently NEED to believe).
Of course, that's not what's happening in this thread at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||03/28/2013|
R58? Again, you show your utter lack of reading comprehension.
You did not fall. You didn't not rise up again.
How can you be so clueless? You were raised upper middle class, and you are still there.
What part of this aren't you getting? It's about generation to generation... that's what social mobility measures: Do the children rise higher than the parents were. Nearly ALL kids start out at the bottom. I mean, DUH. You're NOT SPECIAL.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||03/28/2013|
R63, face it: You're as ignorant as you are arrogant.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||03/28/2013|
R63 = Anne Coulter's even uglier stepsister.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||03/28/2013|
[quote]And yet most broke middle class fools support more tax cuts for the rich.... as if pandering to them will earn them special points.
I think the goal of Fox news and Rush, et al to to do exactly that. Con them into voting to help the rich by spewing emotional topics to fire them up and make them paranoid.
I have a childhood friend who has been listening to Rush and Fox. They divorced now. He has just declared bankrupcy and she is about to. Meanwhile they used to bitch about all the people sucking the system dry by using food stamps and being on disability and welfare. I hope they are both feeling a bit humbled.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||03/28/2013|
R5, the Senate committee that is working on an immigration bill is, in fact, planning to double the number of H1B visas allowed in the US annually. Double the number of H1B visas.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||03/28/2013|
The problem is not that the USA does not provide people with the opportunity to become rich.
This is not about becoming rich.
The problem is that tens of millions who work full time jobs can no longer afford to even get by. The concept of a "living wage' is vanishing.
We do NOT need more millionaires. We need millions more lower-tier jobs that pay a living wage.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||03/28/2013|
[quote]Face it. People that "cannot" move up are either lazy or bitter,
Told you that you'd be back. And, like your every other pronouncement on this thread, what you wrote in R63 is both stupid and wrong.
Here's a free clue: when you're already in a deep hole, stop digging.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||03/28/2013|
No CEO should be making 300+ times the salary of their average workers. Unless you're doing something like curing cancer or discovering a renewable replacement for fossil fuels there's no justification for such unnecessary greed.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||03/29/2013|
... and we're gonna offer you: EIGHT dollars an hour- how 'bout that, hmm?
|by Anonymous||reply 73||03/29/2013|
True, R72, we might not need to raise the minimum wage if we could impose a "maximum earnings limit" before which a 90% taxation rate kicks in.
We should not be protecting the right and power of millionaires to make even more millions while the overwhelming majority cannot afford life's essentials.
It is sick that most of the nation's billionaires work in financial services, creating pots of wealth for themselves by jacking up the cost of everything under the sun.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||03/29/2013|
That's why they keep creating these fake "crises" like the bank failures, the foreclosure fiasco and the neverending "wars" against Taliban/Al Qaeda/whomever- to keep the peasants poor and desperate.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||03/29/2013|
R74, those ultra-wealthy don't get rich by creating, they get rich by syphoning off wealth from the work of others.
Idiots like R17 - R63 worship these parasites as if they added value to society. They do not. They drain vitality from society like vampires.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||03/29/2013|
Historic welfare benefit cuts leave millions in poverty in the UK
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/02/2013|
[quote]but I don't see them doing anything to get ahead.
There's not a lot people CAN do to get ahead, and most people realize this. The game is rigged.
It's not the gap between the ambitious and complacent is widening. It's that the game is rigged, and the gap between the haves ( who rig the game ) and the have-nots (who have no power or wealth to do so) is widening rapidly.
More than 90% of all income gains in the last decade have gone to the top 1%.
Adjusted for inflation, the average/median wage has actually stagnated or declined, while the average income of the top 1% has TRIPLED.
It's not about people being 'lazy' for chrisakes. That's the propaganda that the 1% are feeding you. STOP EATING IT UP LIKE A GULLIBLE MORON.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/03/2013|
Yes, Liberals are cool. Almost by definition.
Conservatives are uncool, again almost by definition.
[quote]but voluntary charity is dominated by non-Liberals.
A common myth that conservatives cling to.
[quote]some Liberal preaching about programs that help the poor, while NOT paying taxes.
No, it's mostly conservatives avoiding paying taxes.
You're an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/03/2013|
R63, etc., let me ask you something -- you're a white male, aren't you?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/03/2013|
[quote]Does anyone disagree that people seem to be less ambitious than in the past?
Yup, mostly because every time someone is challenged on silly statements like that, they are wholly unable to provide even one shred of actual data to support them.
[quote]I'm not surprised that the gap between the ambitious and the complacent is widening.
Speaking of silly statements....
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/04/2013|
[quote]A bunch of bitter losers who want to blame everyone else because their lives haven't amounted to a pile of shit. Get over it.
ROFL.... Wow, you really told us, didn't you? Don't you just love the way the conservative morons who post here are unable to deal with actual data and reality?
|by Anonymous||reply 85||04/04/2013|
[quote]We're having our asses taxed off, Bitches.
Tax rates & revenues are at 60 year lows, moron.
What the fuck is wrong with conservatives that makes them so fervently believe the exact opposite of what is true?
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/04/2013|