Between 1947 and 1973, the typical American family’s income roughly doubled

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Social mobility and inequality: Upper bound | The Economist

Between 1947 and 1973, the typical American family’s income roughly doubled in real terms. Between 1973 and 2007, however, it grew by only 22%—and this thanks to the rise of two-worker households.
In a new poll for The Economist by YouGov, 36% of respondents said they had less opportunity than their parents did, compared with 39% who thought they had more. Half thought the next generation would have a lower standard of living, double the share that thought living standards would rise. As the country recovers, two problems cloud its future. Rates of social mobility are unlikely to grow. Inequality, however, may widen even further.
In 2004 men in their 30s earned 12% less in real terms than their fathers did at a similar age, according to Pew’s Economic Mobility Project.
Parental income is a better predictor of a child’s future in America than in much of Europe, implying that social mobility is less powerful.
Between 1970 and 2008 the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, grew from 0.39 to 0.47. In mid-2008 the typical family’s income was lower than it had been in 2000. The richest 10% earned nearly half of all income, surpassing even their share in 1928, the year before the Great Crash.
:eusa_think:
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
64,953
Reaction score
23,686
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Between 1973 and 2007, however, it grew by only 22%—and this thanks to the rise of two-worker households.
What was the tax burden, at all levels, in relation?

The richest 10% earned nearly half of all income, surpassing even their share in 1928, the year before the Great Crash.
Why did I just know that somehow the "those evil rich people are hogging up all the money" template would be squeezed into this? :rolleyes:
 
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Between 1973 and 2007, however, it grew by only 22%—and this thanks to the rise of two-worker households.
What was the tax burden, at all levels, in relation?
The rich had a much lower tax burden. Obviously the marginal tax rates for the top % by 1980 had taken a dive to the lowest ever at 28% thanks to Reagan. Now, the rich earn more than half the income.

Trickle down economics turned out to be trickle up economics.
 
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Why did I just know that somehow the "those evil rich people are hogging up all the money" template would be squeezed into this? :rolleyes:
You don't like the facts, why is that?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
64,953
Reaction score
23,686
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Between 1973 and 2007, however, it grew by only 22%—and this thanks to the rise of two-worker households.
What was the tax burden, at all levels, in relation?
The rich had a much lower tax burden. Obviously the marginal tax rates for the top % by 1980 had taken a dive to the lowest ever at 28% thanks to Reagan. Now, the rich earn more than half the income.

Trickle down economics turned out to be trickle up economics.
I said at all levels, as in federal state and local, sales taxes, fuel taxes, etcetera.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,026
Reaction score
15,682
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Social mobility and inequality: Upper bound | The Economist

Between 1947 and 1973, the typical American family’s income roughly doubled in real terms. Between 1973 and 2007, however, it grew by only 22%—and this thanks to the rise of two-worker households.
In a new poll for The Economist by YouGov, 36% of respondents said they had less opportunity than their parents did, compared with 39% who thought they had more. Half thought the next generation would have a lower standard of living, double the share that thought living standards would rise. As the country recovers, two problems cloud its future. Rates of social mobility are unlikely to grow. Inequality, however, may widen even further.


Parental income is a better predictor of a child’s future in America than in much of Europe, implying that social mobility is less powerful.
Between 1970 and 2008 the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, grew from 0.39 to 0.47. In mid-2008 the typical family’s income was lower than it had been in 2000. The richest 10% earned nearly half of all income, surpassing even their share in 1928, the year before the Great Crash.
:eusa_think:

that's because prior to 1980, the laws protecting the middle class were honored and unions were strong. CEO's earned what? 12 times what workers earned? now 1% of the population holds 95% of the wealth and artificially inflates market prices. health costs increase at absurd percentages and the price of energy has been inflated at a rate which would have been considered unthinkable prior to the 1970's.

to be fair, at least one of the reasons for this is not governmentally related. quite simply, the baby boomers grew up. their are too many of them and they are too expensive to maintain. one of my co-workers calls them the pig in the snake. if it doesn't kill the snake while passing through, we'll be all right.
 
Last edited:
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Because you're a knee-jerk class warrior, that's how I knew.
Class warrior? No. You are, however.

I'm merely pointing out the facts, you're using your emotions.
 
OP
Modbert

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
33,178
Reaction score
3,050
Points
48
Not at all...I'm not jealous of wealthy people, as you obviously are.

Que lastima.
I'm not jealous of wealthy people at all. However, you are jealous of something most certainly for you to be acting like a child at the moment. I am merely using facts, you are using your emotions and lashing out at me because I'm not laying down.

Go back to the environment section of the board Dude, least there you can use your emotions with your buddies in the right wing echo chamber while your competition at best is Old Rocks and Chris. :thup:
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
5,554
Reaction score
898
Points
245
Why did I just know that somehow the "those evil rich people are hogging up all the money" template would be squeezed into this? :rolleyes:
You don't like the facts, why is that?
Because you're a knee-jerk class warrior, that's how I knew.
What a load of crap!

The wealthiest people in the world are always in a constant state of class warfare against the workers. Their limitless greed drives the workers towards poverty and slavery - it is unyeilding.

The working class however, is generally pretty benevolent towards the wealthy - if they weren't Reagan never would have gotten elected pitching his 'supply-side' crap.

If there hits a point that the workers get fed-up with the abuse of the wealthy and start standing up for themselves, all the wealthy start crying "Class Warfare!"

What a load of crap!
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
And consider that when Reagan took office our national debt was around 700 Billion. That is Billion.
But somehow the republicans fixed things....
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top