Trickle Down?

[dahermit]

If prosperity really did "trickle down" as suggested by R.R. and many neuvo-Conservatives, would not the common poor people's income have increased along with that of the ultra-rich? In the past few decades, the ultra-rich have gotten richer. Why have the working poor not kept pace?
The poor have gotten poorer while the rich have gotten richer. Is that not "redistribution of wealth"?

 

[ProudLefty]

Trickle down has never worked. The wealthy pay underlings to sop up any leakage and to keep their ship tight. There is nothing left to trickle down.

Worse than that, the rich & powerful have the means, the motive, and the desire to go beyond wealth and to stretch for power over others. Just having more money than one could ever spend is not enough. One needs to be able to crush opponents and reward friends. Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers come to mind.

 

[Openmind]

If prosperity really did "trickle down" as suggested by R.R. and many neuvo-Conservatives, would not the common poor people's income have increased along with that of the ultra-rich? In the past few decades, the ultra-rich have gotten richer. Why have the working poor not kept pace?
The poor have gotten poorer while the rich have gotten richer. Is that not "redistribution of wealth"?

Absolutely!
But for some people, redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is "okay," it's actually "the natural order of thing," something like: "survival of the fittest!

So, it shouldn't be intereferred with, unless it is to speed up that process!

However, any thought of any programs that might possibly help narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor, that might actually benefit the middle class at the expense of the very wealthy is unnatural, a crime almost. . .it is so not in line with the Capitalist philosophy that it is unpatriotic and wrong!

NOT!

 

[BigRob]

If prosperity really did "trickle down" as suggested by R.R. and many neuvo-Conservatives, would not the common poor people's income have increased along with that of the ultra-rich? In the past few decades, the ultra-rich have gotten richer. Why have the working poor not kept pace?
The poor have gotten poorer while the rich have gotten richer. Is that not "redistribution of wealth"?

This comes from an article by Stephen Moore:

Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.

 

[Openmind]

This comes from an article by Stephen Moore:

Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.

Seems like you conveniently chose to only look at the middle class. . ., but you didn't compare the increase of income over those years between the middle class and the top 10%.

Here is a more complete link, that clearly shows that, while EVERY income level was raised over the last 60 years, the upper quintile went up FAR MORE than the rest!

So. . .inequality of income continues to increase! And that is NOT sustainable for anyone!

Link: Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[BigRob]

Seems like you conveniently chose to only look at the middle class. . .,

Well the common talking point seems to be that the middle class is getting screwed, but the numbers don't seem to support that claim.

but you didn't compare the increase of income over those years between the middle class and the top 10%.

Yes, because that is not relevant. If all the "rich" suddenly moved all their money overseas, we would have great "income distribution", but it wouldn't mean anything.

Here is a more complete link, that clearly shows that, while EVERY income level was raised over the last 60 years, the upper quintile went up FAR MORE than the rest!

So. . .inequality of income continues to increase! And that is NOT sustainable for anyone!

Link: Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

So the argument is that even though all groups are far better off than they were before, the "rich" are getting too rich too fast in your opinion?

What does it matter if the rich get richer, the numbers clearly bear out that all groups are clearly better off and being benefited under the current scenario.

 

[Openmind]

Well the common talking point seems to be that the middle class is getting screwed, but the numbers don't seem to support that claim.



Yes, because that is not relevant. If all the "rich" suddenly moved all their money overseas, we would have great "income distribution", but it wouldn't mean anything.



So the argument is that even though all groups are far better off than they were before, the "rich" are getting too rich too fast in your opinion?

What does it matter if the rich get richer, the numbers clearly bear out that all groups are clearly better off and being benefited under the current scenario.

It means that the rich are getting richer at twice the rate as everyone else. This huge inequality in income distribution is what defines many "third world" countries, and has led for centuries to revolutions (including in France!).

That sky rocketing increase in wealth for the top 1% is NOT sustainable.

If you have 3 teenagers of about the same age, and you tell them, "since our business did so well in the last month, I want all of you to share in this and get a treat! So, you, John, you'll get a new bicycle, you, Rick, you'll get a new motor bike, and you, Mike, you'll get a new Mercedes"

Yep, all three may be happy with their "new treat!"

But. . .is it fair? IF they are smart, do you think they will not KNOW the difference?

And if you come back next month and tell them. . ."business is still doing really well, so I decided to secure your future, so I purchase a new apartment building. John, you'll have free use of a studio. Rick, you will have a one bedroom apartment, and you Mike, you're getting the 3 bedrooms penthouse."

But. . wait. . . 6 months later, business is not doing so well anymore, and you go back to your kids and you tell them: "sorry guys, but we have to downsize! So, John, I'm taking away your studio, because I have to sell it. And Rick, very sorry, but I'll have to rent your one bedroom apartment, but once we do better, you can have it back. And MIke, sorry kid, but you're going to have to pay your own electric bill for your penthouse!"

Yep! Nice scenario!

 

[BigRob]

It means that the rich are getting richer at twice the rate as everyone else. This huge inequality in income distribution is what defines many "third world" countries, and has led for centuries to revolutions (including in France!).

That sky rocketing increase in wealth for the top 1% is NOT sustainable.

If you have 3 teenagers of about the same age, and you tell them, "since our business did so well in the last month, I want all of you to share in this and get a treat! So, you, John, you'll get a new bicycle, you, Rick, you'll get a new motor bike, and you, Mike, you'll get a new Mercedes"

Yep, all three may be happy with their "new treat!"

But. . .is it fair? IF they are smart, do you think they will not KNOW the difference?

And if you come back next month and tell them. . ."business is still doing really well, so I decided to secure your future, so I purchase a new apartment building. John, you'll have free use of a studio. Rick, you will have a one bedroom apartment, and you Mike, you're getting the 3 bedrooms penthouse."

But. . wait. . . 6 months later, business is not doing so well anymore, and you go back to your kids and you tell them: "sorry guys, but we have to downsize! So, John, I'm taking away your studio, because I have to sell it. And Rick, very sorry, but I'll have to rent your one bedroom apartment, but once we do better, you can have it back. And MIke, sorry kid, but you're going to have to pay your own electric bill for your penthouse!"

Yep! Nice scenario!

If this scenario assumes that these three children just sit at home all day, then they have nothing to complain about, and the people who earned the money (their parents) can do whatever they want with it. They might not think it is fair, but you know what, they didn't earn, and it is not their money.

That said, the better scenario is this:

Business is going great:
1) Rick does not work at it and just stays home.
2) John works part time at the business
3) Mike works full time at the business.

It makes perfect sense to reward people according to their contributions. Rick might not like that he doesn't get a new car out of the deal, but he did nothing to earn one.

Business starts to slow:
1) Rick must return his gift that he did nothing for (which in reality no poor people are going to have a tax increase)
2) John must temporarily take a hit, just as he temporarily works there
3) Mike, who works full time at the business, will continue to bear the brunt of the work, and will in turn, make sacrifices as well.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The poor have gotten poorer

Trickle down has never worked.

The leftist losers have gotten a surprising amount of mileage out of these lies, which seem to form the basis for their entire agenda of govt control of more and more of the economy.

Time for the periodic debunking.

That should take care of that. For a few months at least, until the leftist losers decide that enough people have forgotten how wrong they were, and they can start lying again as though their wishful thinking had never been debunked.

 

[Openmind]

The leftist losers have gotten a surprising amount of mileage out of these lies, which seem to form the basis for their entire agenda of govt control of more and more of the economy.

Time for the periodic debunking.

That should take care of that. For a few months at least, until the leftist losers decide that enough people have forgotten how wrong they were, and they can start lying again as though their wishful thinking had never been debunked.

No, dear, it doesn't take care of that! In fact, it once again demonstrates that the wealthy gain two to three times more wealth than the middle class, even in "good times!" and they don't lose anymore wealth than the middle class in "bad times!

What did you think this graph would prove, except exactly what "Leftist losers" were stating?

And. . .why didn't you provide a more recent graph? I'm sure the trend is very similar!

Thanks for helping prove our point!

 

[Little-Acorn]

What did you think this graph would prove

The poor have gotten poorer

Trickle down has never worked.

(yawn)

 

[Openmind]

(yawn)

Yes, we forgive you!
I'm sure you would have understood that this graph actually supported our statements if you had been fully awake!

Have a good night sleep! Everything will be better tomorrow!

 

[Lagboltz]

If prosperity really did "trickle down" as suggested by R.R. and many neuvo-Conservatives, would not the common poor people's income have increased along with that of the ultra-rich? In the past few decades, the ultra-rich have gotten richer. Why have the working poor not kept pace?
The poor have gotten poorer while the rich have gotten richer. Is that not "redistribution of wealth"?

Excellent point. Trickle-down did not really trickle down at all.

 

[Little-Acorn]

(Patiently waiting for lagboltz and openmind to stop preening long enough to notice the poor didn't get poorer, but actually saw a significant raise in incomes thru the entire era, contrary to their cherished wishful thinking)

(but not holding my breath )

 

[Lagboltz]

(Patiently waiting for lagboltz and openmind to stop preening long enough to notice the poor didn't get poorer, but actually saw a significant raise in incomes thru the entire era, contrary to their cherished wishful thinking)

(but not holding my breath )

You are right that the poor didn't get poorer, but as the following graph shows, the lowest percentile stayed fairly flat. The highest percentile increased almost by a factor of 2 from 1968 to 2003. The graph you show in an earlier post only goes to 1990. That is 20 years ago. Was the data you used normalized? It doesn't look like it was at all. In light of this the old saw should be replaced by "The poor don't get anywhere and the rich get richer.
This following graph is normalized data from the US census.