General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthe rich aren’t just grabbing a bigger slice of the income pie — they’re taking all of it.
According to Pavlina Tcherneva in a Washington Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/this-depressing-chart-shows-that-the-rich-arent-just-grabbing-a-bigger-slice-of-the-income-pie-theyre-taking-all-of-it/
The chart is mind numbing..worth going to the site.
can anyone here post it for me, I can't do photo downloads
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
deutsey
(20,166 posts)With apologies to Lincoln: Reagan and his ilk have proven you can fool enough of the people most of the time and thereby render any opposition to you irrelevant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)My heart sank when I saw it.
thanks for posting it, deutsey....
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It was carefully designed to happen.
Boy there are some stupid comments at that link.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Mark Twain
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)go down to view image info then right click on the highlighted entry and click on copy then paste it in the message box of DU and viola there it will appear.
Don't worry someone had to help me figure it out too a long time ago.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)I thought we were supposed to load to our own photo accounts online and then download???
Would love to know I am wrong about that, since Photobucket became so unreliable.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Now I use postimage dot org.
http://postimage.org/
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts) madokie
(51,076 posts)I might be on the shit list and not know it 
Centrist1984
(32 posts)I would have to disagree with the basic gist of the article. For one, there is no such thing really as the "income pie." No more then there is such a thing as a "Weight Pie" or a "Height Pie" in society, even though you could record the height and weight of all 300+ million Americans, and then look at the "distribution," if you will, of height and weight in society. Obesity is a problem among the poor right now. But it obviously wouldn't make sense to claim that the poor are being unfairly forced to carry around an excessive amount of "society's weight."
Income is very similar. There is no societal "pie" of income. Income is just what one earns in exchange for what they produce. Nor are statistical brackets such as the top 10% and bottom 90% representative of fixed classes of people. Many people who thirty years ago were in the bottom income brackets are not in higher income brackets. People move between them.
One thing I would ask is, if the period starting in the 1980s was so terrible for the general population, then why are those remembered as being such economic golden times? Reagan was re-elected in a landslide. And everyone remembers the golden economic times of the Clinton years. But according to many who look at the data, the general population was getting pounded and crushed during the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s. Had that really been the case, Reagan would likely not have been re-elected, nor would Clinton.
The large income gains seen by those who make up the richest in society are a result of the massive amount of wealth creation that we saw starting in the 1980s, primarily due to technology. You had lots of very huge fortunes that were created, which thus created an overall increased concentration of wealth at the top.
onethatcares
(16,166 posts)in my neck of the woods. They are remembered as the day the worker died. Once the air traffic controller union was busted wages started to sink for those of us that worked in the trades. The dot.com bubble bouyed the market but did nothing for the wages of the workers, the housing bubble did exactly what you see to date and the worker didn't make out like a bandit then either. They got the shaft.
During the Clinton years we had no wars to fund allowing people to feel that they were gaining and not just tossing money into the MIC money pit.
That changed in November, 2000 with the selection of the shrub. suddenly the country needed a war, not only a war, but one where we had to cut social services in order to cut taxes and programs while spending billions.
In my opinion, the large income gains by those who make up the richest in society are the result of tax cuts for the wealthy, and wars where they made out like bandits furnishing the weapons and war infrastructure.
Those are my thoughts as a working tradesman, no more/no less.
btw, I see that the Donald wants to do away with employee pensions and healthcare at his casino in New Jersey. Why would he hate Americans enough to do that?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)His Atlantic City casinos went under.
Sooo sad.......
not.
Centrist1984
(32 posts)in my neck of the woods. They are remembered as the day the worker died. Once the air traffic controller union was busted wages started to sink for those of us that worked in the trades. The dot.com bubble bouyed the market but did nothing for the wages of the workers, the housing bubble did exactly what you see to date and the worker didn't make out like a bandit then either. They got the shaft.
Remember wages and incomes are not the same thing. Incomes per capita have continually increased since 1980, minus a few hiccups during recessions. Incomes are wages + benefits. The problem is that as healthcare costs have been spiraling out of control, it has caused wages to stall or even decline even though incomes overall have been increasing, because more and more of a person's income is being put towards their healthcare. I would not blame the decline of unionization for the decline of the worker, but that's a different discussion most likely.
During the Clinton years we had no wars to fund allowing people to feel that they were gaining and not just tossing money into the MIC money pit.
Not really sure how having no wars made a difference to people's standard of living.
That changed in November, 2000 with the selection of the shrub. suddenly the country needed a war, not only a war, but one where we had to cut social services in order to cut taxes and programs while spending billions.
How were social services cut? President Bush sizeable enlarged social services, as he signed what at the time was the largest expansion of government into healthcare in decades, the Medicare Prescription Drug Program (which is one of the first and only government programs in history to cost less than was projected). President Bush also doubled the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1000 per child (it is because of the Bush tax cuts that about 40% ultimately do not pay federal income taxes). It was under Clinton that social services were cut, with welfare reform (which was supported also by the Republicans and the general public).
In my opinion, the large income gains by those who make up the richest in society are the result of tax cuts for the wealthy, and wars where they made out like bandits furnishing the weapons and war infrastructure.
Bush's tax cuts were for everybody, and the middle-class and poor received the largest percentage reductions. That is why after Obama got elected, the rhetoric to "End the Bush tax cuts" got subtly changed to "End the Bush tax cuts for those who make $250,000 and up..." the reason being because if they just ended the Bush tax cuts period, it would have meant raising taxes on everybody. The large increase in incomes for the richest brackets were due to the technology boom, financial boom, and associated booms in other industries as a result. Not all rich are involved in infrastructure or the military-industrial complex.
Those are my thoughts as a working tradesman, no more/no less.
btw, I see that the Donald wants to do away with employee pensions and healthcare at his casino in New Jersey. Why would he hate Americans enough to do that?
I don't know. Not much of a fan of Donald Trump though.
1. The pie metaphor bit was cute. It really doesn't make much sense, but it was kind of fun to see you try to refute the idea of aggregate income by making pointless comparisons.
2. Your definition of income is QUITE interesting. It doesn't include non-labor income. Generally, that sort of definitional choice is found on the right.
3. Your argument regarding the 80s and 90s is deceptive. You essentially argue that the data on income distribution from those decades must be wrong because two presidents got re-elected. That's a silly argument on its face. Using that logic, Nixon should have been stomped by Kennedy in 1960 because of the recession that began while he was VP. FDR should have lost to Willkie because of the 1937 recession. Al Gore should have run up 60% because of the awesome 90s. Why didn't these things happen?
4. The "massive amount of wealth creation" is not primarily due to technology. There has been a significant increase in productivity due to the widespread adoption of the computer and the use of the internet as a backbone. That being said, it's still a lot smaller than the increase in paper profits as a result of the increasing financialization of the American economy. It gets a bit silly to swallow the tech hype when you see virtually method of acquiring an income stream being securitized and sold to investors. Hell, subprime auto loans and income from rental properties are being securitized these days. Student loans are securitized. Virtually nothing cannot be monetized these days. That's your real driver of wealth creation.
A few very large fortunes were created from tech. Most of the rest come from finance or servicing it.
1. The pie metaphor bit was cute. It really doesn't make much sense, but it was kind of fun to see you try to refute the idea of aggregate income by making pointless comparisons.
I would say it makes plenty of sense. One of the prime arguments from the left is with regards to so-called "income inequality." Generally this relies of claiming that the rich are "taking" a larger and larger "share" of "the income." This relies however on the pie concept of income. In reality, income is not something that any group "takes" a "share" of.
2. Your definition of income is QUITE interesting. It doesn't include non-labor income. Generally, that sort of definitional choice is found on the right.
What people produce I'd say also includes non-labor income. Labor is not related to income generation. A coal miner engages in a lot more physical labor than say a software engineer, yet the software engineer may make a lot more.
3. Your argument regarding the 80s and 90s is deceptive. You essentially argue that the data on income distribution from those decades must be wrong because two presidents got re-elected. That's a silly argument on its face. Using that logic, Nixon should have been stomped by Kennedy in 1960 because of the recession that began while he was VP. FDR should have lost to Willkie because of the 1937 recession. Al Gore should have run up 60% because of the awesome 90s. Why didn't these things happen?
I get your point, but Reagan wasn't just re-elected, he was re-elected in a landslide. And Clinton was re-elected during a period that everyone remembers as having been really nice economically. Regarding Al Gore, he did win the popular vote remember.
4. The "massive amount of wealth creation" is not primarily due to technology. There has been a significant increase in productivity due to the widespread adoption of the computer and the use of the internet as a backbone. That being said, it's still a lot smaller than the increase in paper profits as a result of the increasing financialization of the American economy. It gets a bit silly to swallow the tech hype when you see virtually method of acquiring an income stream being securitized and sold to investors. Hell, subprime auto loans and income from rental properties are being securitized these days. Student loans are securitized. Virtually nothing cannot be monetized these days. That's your real driver of wealth creation.
A few very large fortunes were created from tech. Most of the rest come from finance or servicing it.
That is part of it, but productivity from the computer was a massive contributor as well, along with new tech fortunes.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. Your fight against the pie is bad sophistry. At any given point in time, there exists an aggregate amount of goods and services, denominated in dollars here in the US, that is given the designation "income" because it is tracked as it flows to individuals and entities. When you argue that the pie doesn't exist, you are arguing that we can't add up total amount of income in the country. Yes, that is really your argument. I call it bad sophistry because you continually fixate on the words used instead of the ideas behind them.
You claimed that no group can take a share of the national income. Yet, you used the designation "the rich" in the sentences preceding this claim. You don't get to have it both ways. It's clear that you understand, and share, the commonly accepted delineations of American society. It's also clear that you're attempting to obscure those delineations by trying to obscure their common meanings in order to advance your arguments. Essentially, your argument is that America consists of atomized individuals, each pursuing his or her own maximal economic gain. Thatcher was wrong when she said it and so are you.
2. Your definition of income mentioned what one produces. In plain English, that means labor. Labor can be mental or physical, so your asides about coal miners and software engineers are pointless. Your definition did not include investment income. Go back and read it. You may have meant something else, but that is not what you wrote.
3. Reagan was elected in an electoral vote landslide, not a popular vote landslide. Clinton was re-elected in a three-way race while taking less than half of the popular vote. Gore squeaked out a victory in the popular vote.
If you're going to quote me, read what I actually wrote. You emphasize Reagan and Clinton, yet you ignore the cases that disprove your point. If your assertion can't withstand the slightest bit of contrary evidence, it's false.
4. Yeesh. Seriously, you're going to rehash what I wrote with an emphasis on the part that makes your arguments look better? How about you account the ever-increasing financialization of the economy? Maybe quantify that bald assertion on the "massive" contributions from increased productivity? You didn't make an argument, you tried to piggyback off mine.
Centrist1984
(32 posts)1. Your fight against the pie is bad sophistry. At any given point in time, there exists an aggregate amount of goods and services, denominated in dollars here in the US, that is given the designation "income" because it is tracked as it flows to individuals and entities. When you argue that the pie doesn't exist, you are arguing that we can't add up total amount of income in the country. Yes, that is really your argument. I call it bad sophistry because you continually fixate on the words used instead of the ideas behind them.
I think you are misunderstanding my point about the pie claim. Of course we can add up the total amount of income in the country. Just like we can add up the total amount of weight in the country. But no one would argue that say the poor are being forced to carry around a greater share of society's weight. Similarly, to claim that the rich are taking a greater share of the national income, as if the national income exists off to the side in some fixed supply that gets distributed out to society like Social Security checks, and the rich are hogging more and more of it for themselves, leaving less and less available for everyone else, is wrong.
You claimed that no group can take a share of the national income. Yet, you used the designation "the rich" in the sentences preceding this claim. You don't get to have it both ways. It's clear that you understand, and share, the commonly accepted delineations of American society. It's also clear that you're attempting to obscure those delineations by trying to obscure their common meanings in order to advance your arguments. Essentially, your argument is that America consists of atomized individuals, each pursuing his or her own maximal economic gain. Thatcher was wrong when she said it and so are you.
How so? That is, in fact, what America consists of. Terms such as "the rich" are just arbitrary definitions that refer to specific income and wealth brackets. They do not refer to fixed classes of people or individual people. But the way such language is used in much political discourse, that is how it is made to sound.
2. Your definition of income mentioned what one produces. In plain English, that means labor. Labor can be mental or physical, so your asides about coal miners and software engineers are pointless. Your definition did not include investment income. Go back and read it. You may have meant something else, but that is not what you wrote.
By labor, I was thinking you mean physical. With regards to non-labor income however, that is still income that is produced, albeit from the assets owned (and oftentimes managed, which would be a form of labor) by a person. Basically, it is a way for a person to multiply their labor. For example, owning an asset like a business multiplies the labor of the person.
3. Reagan was elected in an electoral vote landslide, not a popular vote landslide. Clinton was re-elected in a three-way race while taking less than half of the popular vote. Gore squeaked out a victory in the popular vote.
If you're going to quote me, read what I actually wrote. You emphasize Reagan and Clinton, yet you ignore the cases that disprove your point. If your assertion can't withstand the slightest bit of contrary evidence, it's false.
I said that you made good points. But my arguments were primarily in reference to the 1980s and 1990s. Also I was not aware of Reagan winning more by the electoral and not popular vote or that Clinton's re-election included a three-way race. I do still argue however that many remember the 1990s as having been great times economically. The Democrats themselves have pointed this out multiple times, from Obama arguing about why to go back to the 1990s tax rates to Hillary.
4. Yeesh. Seriously, you're going to rehash what I wrote with an emphasis on the part that makes your arguments look better? How about you account the ever-increasing financialization of the economy? Maybe quantify that bald assertion on the "massive" contributions from increased productivity? You didn't make an argument, you tried to piggyback off mine.
The economy has become increasingly financialized, and yes that also has been a factor for a lot of the new fortunes created, but I think you are ignoring the contributions of the computer. In almost every profession, the computer has hugely increased productivity to a degree that is almost impossible to quantify. In addition, we have had lots of various new fortunes created due to the further development of technology relating to the computer. You did not see the kind of technology entrepreneurship that occurred in Silicon Valley during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s pre-1980.
Response to Centrist1984 (Reply #10)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Sounds good for those interested in economic justice.
Thanks, Dixiesan!
Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
