If the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper class

evilgenius, I am really happy for you. Keep your nose to the grindstone and you'll be in the lower middle class soon.

Hey guys thanks, I'm doing pretty well. My gf and I have a house, 2 cars and a dog. We both work, but make less than $35,000 which is considered poor, but we are comfortable and doing better than when I was in school making less than $5K a year. It's the unexpected that takes its toll. The Alternator went out on my car a couple of months ago and cost me about $400 for the new part, belt, battery and all. I can only imagine what would happen if I got sick. I'm self employed (contracted) and I'm just now trying to get insurance to back that up. I am trying to negotiate Life, Short Term Disability, Long Term Disability and Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance in this year's contract. Also 10 days personal time off and paid holidays. Just the extra days amount to nearly an extra $2K a year.

ajs- I don't believe that escaping poverty is as simple as graduating from high school and getting a job. With housing rates rising, average renters pay anywhere from 27 to 50 percent of their income for decent housing. These leaves little left over for food and other necessities. Plus, without health insurance many families are left in the dark when a family member becomes ill and they can't pay the bill.

Really, approximately how many people do you know who are in the situation you describe?

Wow, seriously? Almost all of my friends and family are in a situation like this. I am in a situation like that except I recently got health and dental insurance, so I guess I'm "moving up" if you are delusional enough to call it that.

It's definitely not moving down or stagnating...

How Not To Be Poor

The number one way: Be born to rich and powerful parents. Thats the way President Bush did it.

I recently got health and dental insurance, so I guess I'm "moving up" if you are delusional enough to call it that.

Good for you. Of course, such individual anecdotes do not tell us much of anything about most Americans.

The nations poverty rate has increased every year but one since 2000.

The rate of uninsured has increased every year since 2000.

Although median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose for the second straight year, it has not reached the pre-recession high of 1999.

The increase from 2005 to 2006 in median household income, to $48,201, appeared to be mainly the result of a jump in the number of people per household who held a full-time job rather than a rise in wages. Earnings of both men and women declined by slightly more than 1 percent.

If you define moving up as getting health isurance, then record numbers of Americans are moving down whatever your individual circumstances.

Thats the way President Bush did it.
Attention everyone, we have broke the seal, let the Bush insults begin!

Why is repeating that fact in your opinion an "insult?" Are you saying he should be ashamed for that?

I would argue that it would be delusional not to call these gains moving up.

I would argue that you view this situation from a sunnier side of reality, maybe one with more benefits and expendable money. Finally being able to go to the doctor (without breaking my entire financial situation) at the young age of 25 isn't moving up.... it's catching up. Where as, I assume, you could maybe go to the doctor before you were 25, I had to wait until my mid-twenties, plenty of time to accumulate illnesses and make that more affordable doctor visit less affordable.

It makes me sick when people from a higher class think it's not so bad for the lower classes. You have no clue. You can look at numbers all day, it doesn't make you any less ignorant. Go meet some poor people for the first time in your life, and see what reality looks like.

Go meet some poor people for the first time in your life, and see what reality looks like.

Take your own advice Mars.

In my opinion, if you are living in the US with access to the internet, you are not really poor by international standards.

Nope, I'm not.In most countries I am blessed. However, I am poor in America... and that's what this seed is about.... next time read first. I don't see how having internet at work says anything at all about my income. I guess it's better to be poor than uneducated, Roan.

And? That doesn't say a whole lot.

Nope, I'm not.In most countries I am blessed. However, I am poor in America... and that's what this seed is about.... next time read first. I don't see how having internet at work says anything at all about my income. I guess it's better to be poor than uneducated, Roan.

I did read Mars, I read your tirade about people thinking it's not so bad for people less fortunate than them, and that they should meet poor people to see what it is like. That is what I quoted, and responded to.

I was just pointing out, as you acknowledged, that you are blessed. What you consider poor, many others would consider rich.

But you make it sound as if being rich in Africa helps someone pay rent and bills in America. A guy living in a gutter in New York is probably more comfortable than 1/8 of Africa, but does that improve the situation of the man in the gutter?

And I'm sorry, I should have just said "and?" instead of going off. I'm feeling a bit venomous today. I honestly apologize Roan.

No, it does not; and I do realize that.

No worries Mars, this is definitely a touchy subject and I over-reacted. Sorry about that.

it's all good man. we're still friends ;)

Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior.

Makes a lot of sense-- and its fairly simple and straight-forward.

But there are a lot of people who would rather not do those things-- and if they mess up their lives-- they'd rather blame someone else!

While I'm no longer homeless and jobless I'm still considered poor. So yeah I'm moving up!

While evilgenius' economic progress is commendable, the focus of this article is in theory about how the middle class is disappearing into the upper class. People with the guts to work their way up from nothing into something are the backbone of America, but that says nothing about all the Americans who have done just that and are now seeing their progress erode as the U.S. adopts anti-middle class policies. We're becoming a country with a handful of immensely wealthy people and a mass of people just escaping poverty and less and less in between. The recent subprime lending crisis underscores how people's dreams of real economic progress for their family are being manipulated to support the profits of wealthy speculators while leaving people who can no longer afford these loans as their onerous terms come due in the lurch. It's a perfect metaphor for the Bush era - deceive people long enough to get what you want and then leave town as fast as you can.

What about welfare? You object to the premise or the implementation? I'm not big on the current implementation, but I think there have been improvements in the last 15 years or so. Some of the changes implemented by Clinton and the Newts sounded like steps in the right direction.

I don't think you really know that it's despite government or whether we could have improved life more quickly with different approaches. Nor do I.

I tried looking up poverty trends under different government styles, but didn't find anything. Got any ideas?

What about welfare? You object to the premise or the implementation?

It should not be done by the government and those in need should to turn family, friends and finally faith. The churches and charities can and would provide for the needy if the government were not in the business of creating dependents via the welfare system.

Actually, except for a slight hiatus between 1992 and 1994, we have been under Ronnie Reagan's economic policies since 1981. If you look at the stats that is where the most gains have been made.

:)

It should not be done by the government and those in need should to turn family, friends and finally faith.

That's great for people who have those things. I know I was greatly helped on my way by my parents- both financial and moral support. It seems like the people who have the most problems are the ones stuck in cyclical poverty, these people have no family or friends who can give them a place to live while they get on their feet or help them find a decent job. You say faith, but what's stopping the faithful- or any charity organization- from eliminating poverty right now? If everyone in the church gave their last 2 coins- or at least gave til it hurt- I doubt we'd have a problem, right? But they'll magically start doing more than what's currently being done once the gummint gets out of the way? Sounds like a longshot.

I don't much have a dog in this fight. I am in no way in favor of permanent welfare or welfare without accountability, I've never been poor, or spent much time on poverty issues. I'm glad to see incomes increasing if this is an accurate picture, I'm just not sure why anyone would want to cut out welfare programs entirely. Aside from the general humanity of helping people, it seems like the cost of cyclical poverty to society would motivate us to help people out of that mess. Seems to me that endemic poverty would make a capitalistic society less efficient.

Age old debate between a Capitalist Republic or Socialist state. U.S.S.R. didn't do to well but Canada is OK. U.S. is almost land of class extremes (Not quite India) but has faired well in the past 200+ years. Pick your poison and hope your born into the elite or have the opportunity to educate yourself and earn what you work for.

Why does it have to be capitalist republic or socialist state? I'm a little left of libertarian. I just think that a serious system for getting people on their feet and helping them be productive members of society is a good investment for all of us. An educated population with hope and rising incomes makes for good customers.

I agree there are never TRUE forms of a governmental ideal. You'll never see a true Communist state. Looked good on paper...

I wish in my idealistic Utopian dream-scape that everyone went to a public school that had teachers who cared and the students themselves wanted to do better on their scores, caring less about the current pop culture or consumer addiction that twists their and their parents priorities. Or maybe we had a group of poor in this country that wanted nothing but to make a better life for themselves and their family. Unfortunately people are as much if not more to blame and the system that might be in place to support them. Survival of the fittest and personal responsibility goes way beyond the thought that people have a 'right' to a support system. Every little bit helps for those that truly need and appreciate it. It's the abusers (both the poor and the law makers) that make this more of a Hobbes view of nature.

Ramble...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

All I can say is that figures don't lie but liers figure.

What type of statistical figures are you talking about?

Your numbers show the rich are getting richer and the poor, well @!$%# the poor, right?

I did not know this was a personal discussion, I was talking about the mentality of this country as a whole. If we cared about the poor, we would provide them with health coverage (but we don't), and educational opportunities beyond High School.

If you choose to help the poor, that is great. Of course, that can mean many things. Is it a handout to the homeless person on the corner, a donation to your place of worship, a donation to an organization that says it helps the poor (got to be very careful of these, some forward just a small percentage), or giving items, such as food or clothes.

I stand by my statement that your 'figures' prove the gap between rich and poor is widening.

If you want to stereotype me, go ahead. Here, let me help you (should be easy):
Female
Jewish
22 years old
Grad student
live in NYC
grew up in NJ

go ahead, have fun.....

I did not know this was a personal discussion, I was talking about the mentality of this country as a whole. If we cared about the poor, we would provide them with health coverage (but we don't), and educational opportunities beyond High School.

Hmmm.... What country do you really live in?

First education. There is nothing stopping a poor person from getting an education. I am the first person in over 100 years to get a college education in my family and while I am still paying off the loans, I was able to get all the support I needed from the Federal Government and the university to get my degree in physics. The University of Alabama in Huntsville is not NYU but who cares as it is one of the top rated science schools in the country.

I sat on scholarship boards and saw how the system works. Anyone can get a college education today, to say otherwise is a myth.

Health care? Health care is not a right, it is something you work for. As for the poor, there is no hospital in the nation that turns away poor people. That is why the emergency room system is overloaded because they cannot turn away those people. My nephew was destitute and had cancer and all of his healthcare was free. He was an idiot and after his testicular cancer was removed, he did not even bother to go back for the free checkups, the cancer spread after five years and he is dead now. Even with that, during his last year, he was in the hospital a lot and all of that was free.

You have a lot of silly crap pounded into your head by the media there in NYC, take a look at the broader world.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you.

In most of the western world, education and healtecare ARE rights, not privileges.

Sure, I can go to college and rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt (or more, which I did), but if I lived in Holland (for example), a university education is available to all (you must get the grades) at no cost. This is the correct method to make education available to all.

Healthcare IS a right, not a privilege (in the rest of the western world). I'm sorry you live in denial, but if your idea of healthcare is an emergency room, you need to wake up to the reality of the situation.

You have a lot of silly BS pounded into your head by the the likes of Fox News (oxymoron), take a look at the rest of the western world. On these topics, the US has it dead wrong, and the results are a disaster.

If we cared about the poor, we would provide them with health coverage (but we don't), and educational opportunities beyond High School.

You can't dictate compassion or caring. Enslaving somebody and calling it 'caring' is a very odd concept. A government can allow for compassionate citizens or it can prevent it in the name of national 'caring'. I believe you do not care enough about my need for a safer country, is it ok to force you to go fight for me? If not why do you not care about me do you lack so much in compassion you would have me killed?

Force and compassion do not and can not belong together.

AJS,

go find a poor person, provide them with health coverage and educational opportunities. If you can not afford it alone, then find others that also will help support them.

Great idea, this is EXACTLY what I am proposing, having EVERYONE help pay for healthcare and education. I see you have come around to my point of view. Universal healthcare and education.

Statistics can be provided to prove anything, but there are no hard facts to disprove my statement, I stand by it.

In most of the western world, education and healtecare ARE rights, not privileges.

Yes and these are the most unproductive economies in the world today. It is better to support the creation of jobs so that people can afford their own healthcare. Furthermore, that healthcare should allow competition so that prices can come down rather than continue their upward socialist spiral.

eviefalcon - You say health care is a 'right.' - How do you define a 'rights?' If it's something defined by the government i.e. The Constitution you are wrong. It's a benefit that must be paid for out of someones pocket. Don't get me wrong - I think people SHOULD have an option for health care but it's not a 'right.'

I'm sure that the unproductive economies of the Scandinavian countries are your proof, right? Perhaps Canada or Holland?

As soon as we remove the insurance companies and their profit motive from the equation, the better off we will be.

National Healthcare is the only way to fix the problem. You can disagree, but time will prove me right.

No I agree with you. But it's just not a RIGHT just like welfare isn't a RIGHT such as defined by the U.S. Bill of Rights. This isn't Canada or Holland. They have a different governmental system and different laws. You are leaning more towards moral obligations. It might be semantics but when you say people have a 'right' to healthcare you have to define where people's 'rights' come from in that specific country and how they are defined. The right to healthcare is NOT on paper anywhere on those old pieces of parchment in The Smithsonian.

To argue that health care is a right is simply foolish,

To argue semantics is childish and misleading. Whether you want to call it a right or not, is not particularly relevant to whether or not the Federal government should do it or has the power to do so.

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the Federal government should be responsible for ensuring access to healthcare for all Americans.

"Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?" N=501, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

It is the responsibility 64%
It is Not 33%

Of course popularity alone doesnt make it a good idea, but the fact is that the US has by far the most expensive system in the world, the highest rate of uninsured in the industrialized world, and quality of care for the typical American not particularly that good.

I stand corrected in the use of the word 'right'.

It is the responsibility of the government to care for and educate its people.

It is the responsibility of the government to care for and educate its people.

That is your opinion, not an established fact.

In my opinion, I can care for and educate myself and my family, all I need the government to be responsible for is providing the environment in which I can potentially succeed.

I'm sure that the unproductive economies of the Scandinavian countries are your proof, right? Perhaps Canada or Holland?

Yep, especially since I have been on the phone to Sweden this morning and worked in the Netherlands on a project for almost two years.

Give you an example. I have a motorized satellite dish that I paid $5k for here in the U.S. A slightly better model made in Sweden costs about $60k.

We fired our European contractor last year (Can't say which country) for coming up with a design that was 3 times as expensive as the one that we are getting built in Sweden. Both are more expensive than one I can build here in the U.S.

Go figger.

Give you an example. I have a motorized satellite dish that I paid $5k for here in the U.S. A slightly better model made in Sweden costs about $60k.

Isolated individual anecdotes are close to meaningless.

Sweden spends a little more than most European countries on healthcare, but a LOT less than the number one spender in healthcare - the US. In part due to healthcare access for all, Sweden has some of the longest living and healthiest people in the world.

On the whole they spend a lot less than the US on the healthcare, cover the whole popultation and for the typcial citizen provide better healthcare.

SpaceGuy.....your satellite dish example doesn"t really pan out. How does it relate to productivity or even health care?

US companies are being strangled by health care costs. Example, GM and Ford spend an average of $1,200 per vehicle in worker health care vosts. Toyota and Honda?? Their avg cost per car is $250. Thats 1K in lost profit per American built car rolling off the line.

How much more is the dish built in Sweden?

No I agree with you. But it's just not a RIGHT just like welfare isn't a RIGHT such as defined by the U.S. Bill of Rights. This isn't Canada or Holland. They have a different governmental system and different laws. You are leaning more towards moral obligations. It might be semantics but when you say people have a 'right' to healthcare you have to define where people's 'rights' come from in that specific country and how they are defined. The right to healthcare is NOT on paper anywhere on those old pieces of parchment in The Smithsonian.

Government does not grant rights. It can only protect or support (or deny) them. Because something is not on paper does not mean that something is not a right.

US companies are being strangled by health care costs. Example, GM and Ford spend an average of $1,200 per vehicle in worker health care vosts. Toyota and Honda?? Their avg cost per car is $250. Thats 1K in lost profit per American built car rolling off the line.

And Starbucks spends more on employee health care than on coffee.

US companies are being strangled by health care costs. Example, GM and Ford spend an average of $1,200 per vehicle in worker health care vosts. Toyota and Honda?? Their avg cost per car is $250. Thats 1K in lost profit per American built car rolling off the line.

Toyota and Honda build their cars over here now. They keep health costs down by hiring non-union employees.

In most of the western world, education and healtecare ARE rights, not privileges.

Actually in many places in Europe how well you do on your university entrance exams determines if you're allowed to go to university, and if you are, which ones you're allowed to attend. So it is certainly not treated as a right there.

Toyota and Honda build their cars over here now. They keep health costs down by hiring non-union employees.

They also currently have just a generally younger group of employees working for them, with consequently lower health bills. That will change somewhat as the workers age.

People need to quit looking at their home like a piggy bank.

Our most basic needs are housing and food, and the price of housing has skyrocketed ahead of any other commodity.

Housing prices haven't skyrocketed everywhere. While they're absolutely ridiculous in most of California (due mostly to government restrictions), and pricey elsewhere, they're quite affordable in other parts of the country. My house in a nice Dallas suburb cost around $100,000 for almost 1,500 square feet. For $400,000 (or even substantially less) I could get one of the "McMansions" that are so very common here.

Yes, but what about places people actually want to live?

Perhaps they are expensive because of supply and demand, not government restrictions. ;-)

Yes, but what about places people actually want to live?

Now that is the rub. What you are effectively saying is that everyone should be able to own a house on the beach in LA for $50k?

Sorry, this is the real world. You can buy a new house here in Alabama for less than $100k. Over 4 million people call this state home and more are moving in every day as we have a 3.2% unemployment rate.

There's a difference in "a house on the beach in LA for $50k" and "an affordable house near enough to a decent job that you don't go broke driving there". I think you know what was meant.

Housing prices in and immediately surrounding most cities- where most people who struggle with poverty live, because there are the most jobs- have risen sharply. Come on now. Don't pretend you haven't been enjoying the extra equity.

Interesting, you put words in my mouth.

Why would everyone want to live on a beach in LA? Why would you set an arbitrary low price, supply and demand dictates a more realistic price. Wages in the area support higher housing prices.

Perhaps you can buy a house in Alabama for $100,000 because of supply and demand. If the demand were higher, the price would rise, or perhaps a state with low wages dictates low housing prices.

Yes, but what about places people actually want to live?

Perhaps they are expensive because of supply and demand, not government restrictions. ;-)

The recent dramatic increase in property costs was driven mostly by speculation, not purely demand. This is why in many areas it is now a buyers market.

There's a difference in "a house on the beach in LA for $50k" and "an affordable house near enough to a decent job that you don't go broke driving there". I think you know what was meant.

It depends on your definition of a decent job. A new steel mill in South Alabama is going to be paying an average salary of $65k to 2,700 blue collar workers. Many of my friends where I grew up work in steel mills and my cousin, after working at ACIPCO for almost 30 years has a month vacation per year, quarterly bonuses that exceed his salary, has two new cars, a paid off house, a boat, and just about anything else he wants. Oh and in 1996 Al Gore visited the plant and sang the praises of their internal health care system that is one of the best in the country that includes free Dr. Visits for the entire family (they have their own medical staff at the plant)

What the hell more do you want?

Nice job finding an exception.

Now, how about the rest of the state??

How does the average income and education compare to the rest of the nation?

The recent dramatic increase in property costs was driven mostly by speculation, not purely demand. This is why in many areas it is now a buyers market.

And the start of the housing boom was triggered by what? The historically low mortgage rates that followed shortly, and inevitably, from the federal reserve setting their overnight rate at 1%. The initial rush of real buyers is what got the speculators into the game.

Exactly. The assessment that we're all getting wealthier and the assessment that the distribution is becoming more skewed can both be true. Everyone is gaining, but the further up the income scale you are, the more you have gained recently.

Or people who retire. Duh.

Pension income is still income, and it is usually higher than the one's starting salary at the age of 25.

Handshake - I am agreeing with you. This Treasury report and the reporting on it are junk. The report follows the same group of people over 10 years. High earners, who are generally older, retire and move to the lower levels. People in the lower levels advance to higher incomes. None of this is accounted for in the Treasury report. By the way, most of those who fell out of the top quintile "fell" into the seventh quintile. Hope they didn't get hurt.

I read this entire report and wrote an article on it on November 15. If you are interested you can find it here.

Excellent, and having read your article I now realise I had misinterpreted your point about pensions.

Together with Catch22's figures, this really should end the discussion. The article seeded here is inaccurate and draws totally unwarranted conclusions. To say nothing about the title of the seed.

what was the population in 1918? about 100 million
what is the population today? about 300 million
.5 of 1% is more people today.
according to you article which supposidly debunks my info
1 guys wealth (rockafeller you know the guy whoes oil empire we broke up) equates the same as 3 guys welth put together plus a portion of a 4th but if you notice.. the 4th guy has the second most money.. see they did this so they could use 4 popele, but actually you can combine just bill gates with buffet.. so 2 people hold the same amount of wealth in a country with 3 times the people.. which actually proves exactly what i was saying and what my links are saying.. the income disparigy is going up.
sorry is posting a dissenting opinion to you on something you think is debunked means i didnt read it.
And just cause an article says somethign is wrong.. doesnt mean it is DEBUNKED.
I wonder if you read your seeds.

more debunked info for ajs.. mayube not debunked for the rest of yous
and yeah i still read the article.

BTW rockafeller would have been way more wealthy had we not taxed him at 91% of his income.
today he would pay about 15% and crying still that he is overtaxed

by 1980, the private wealth held by the richest one percent fell to about 20 percent and has remained stable at that level since.

First, the percentage of private wealth held by the richest one percent has started to increase.

Second, the reason for relative stability has been progressive taxation and the estate tax.

The most natural and realistic candidate for an explanation seems to be the creation and the development of the progressive income and estate tax.

The income tax has become increasingly less progressive and Bush and the GOP have sought to eliminate the estate tax.

Third, estimates of wealth vary considerably and are believed to reflect efforts at tax avoideance.

Fourth, the US is currently undergoing the first negative savings rate since the Great Deprssion, with the middle class losing taping into wealth.

Fourth, the US is currently undergoing the first negative savings rate since the Great Deprssion, with the middle class losing taping into wealth.

I have been hearing about this since around 2001 I believe, yet only Q3/06 andQ3/05 show negative Personal Savings.

Personal Income and Its Disposition, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

Ok: The Annual US savings rate in 2005 and 2006 were at their lowest point in 60 years. The quarterly savings rate dropped below zero for the first time in 60 years during that period.

I know Catch, and I am not picking on you. It is an honest question. I definitely remember hearing this back in 2001, and have heard it several times since then. Is there another way of calculating Personal Saving?

I am not an economist but as far as I can tell the savings rate has a pretty consistent definition as "Personal savings as a percentage of disposable personal income."

As far as I can tell the personal savings rate in 2001 was never below zero, but I was unable to find monthly figures and it may have fallen below zero in a given month. The personal savings rate for the 4th quarter of 2001 did drop below 1 for the first time about 60 years. (Your data source appears to be as thorough and accurate).

What I have been unable to find that would be potentially more relevant to the discussion is the savings rate broken out by percentiles or quartiles. Then you could see how much the rate reflects "middle class" Americans around the middle third versus highend. I suspect that a big part of the reason the rate dropped below zero in 2001 was due to losses among those at the high end of the income spectrum. The overall declines however appear to be hitting most Americans hard, especially with bankruptcys and mortgage problems.

GAO Report National Savings June 2001 (PDF)

Not sure about the data and whether it was later revised but the chart on page 10 shows the savings rate dropping below zero in 2000.

In any case the report has a lot of information about savings rates for anyone interested.

Thanks Catch, some good info there.

MCL, How dare you disagree with the Right-Wing-Nuts!!!!

Off to Gitmo for you!!!

Off to Gitmo for you!!!

Ah, if only.....

Naa, just kiddin.

Um, check the footnote. The numbers you quote refer only to those in the study. Here is what the footnote says:

By comparison, in the U.S. Census data (2006), median household real income increased by 5.4% from $43,967 to $46,326 over this time period in 2005 dollars.

Oops.

The difference is more likely due to the what the Census does not take into account as cash income, any capital gains.

Furthermore that is median income, not actual income. Apple to oranges, polecolaw.

Oops.

If all taxpayers had their incomes grow by 24%, then how is it possible that median income grew by 5%? Oops back at you.

Who said all taxpayers had their income grow by 24%? Not I, not the report.

As I explained above, which you must of overlooked, the report and Census use different methods of calculating cash income. Hence you cannot compare them.

Apples to oranges, polecolaw.

Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation

Does this not say what it says? I am comparing the single group who matured over the course of this period to the entire population of the country. In each case, median income is the measure. This is directly from the report itself, so I really do not understand your argument at all. Perhaps if you read the report you will understand what I am saying, although I am simply quoting from the report.

I understand it is hard to believe that this is actually what the report says, especially when so many people have used the report to argue their positions. If you really believe, however, that the median income of all taxpayers in the United States increased in real terms by 24% over this 10 year period then you are completely out of touch.

Perhaps if you read the report you would not be so purposely obtuse.

As you well know, when the report says all, it is talking about all taxpayers in its study group, not all taxpayers. But you already knew that, as per your comment in #13.1: The numbers you quote refer only to those in the study., so I am not sure of why you are now attempting to feign ignorance.

I understand what you are attempting to compare, but as I explained twice, it is not a valid comparison.

OK, I give up. I have no idea what you are talking about except that you just proved my point.

If your point is that you are feigning ignorance and attempting to make an invalid comparison, then I did indeed prove it.

Here is the actually Treasury Department report: INCOME MOBILITY IN THE U.S. FROM 1996 TO 2005 (PDF format)

Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. In
addition, the real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. Further, the
median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median
incomes of those in the higher income groups.

The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer faster.

Roan - according to the above, you concluded from the report that the poor are getting richer faster. The portion of the report you quoted refers to the 24% income increase. But this is misleading, as is the entire report, because although it states "all taxpayers" it actually refers only to those in the study group. All that tells us is that this group of people, over time, moved up. It does not tell us what happened to the population as a whole or why they moved up. To conclude that the poor are getting richer faster ignores these facts, and the numbers look much different when you include the entire population. Therefore, I was pointing out that the 24% did not apply to "all taxpayers" and any generalizations drawn from that are suspect.

The reason people in the lower incomes moved up is likely because many of them were young and at the beginning of their careers. The reason some moved down (mostly from the top quintile to the seventh quintile) is likely due to retirements, among other things. In fact, if you use quartiles, almost no "taxpayers" moved down.

Sorry if I got on your bad side, it was not intended. I hate this report because it is misleading and designed to be quoted in this way. Every time I see it I get angry.

Yes, my witty attempt to play on the "rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" line was not supported by the study and I knew that.

The main reason for my post was to link to the original study, but I couldn't help throwing in that line to stir up trouble. Sorry.

I'm glad this study proves that over ten years an individual can increase his income by 24%.

That still says absolutely nothing. Everyone knows that over a decade you can increase your income by 24%. If you are making $10 an hour all you need is an increase to $12.40. The average for an entire population group is different, as it takes into account those entering and leaving income groups. You can't just watch some kid go from $10 an hour at Staples to $18 an hour at a construction job and say AMERICAN DREAM.

I'd liek to amend that to say.
people can come up with statistics to prove anythign to those that dont understand statistics.
It is very easy to see how he cheery picks his numbers.. which isnt science or stats.
You cant take the richest man of 1918 and compare him to 4 random people in the top 2%

Nice job.

Clipped to Propaganda.

You might want to check out the COH. Using groups to attack others is neither respectful or beneficial to the community.

I have nothing against ajs, and I am not attacking him personally, but this is disinformation. That should speak for itself.

Yet somehow "some people" equate that with personal attacks.

Partisan Hack -- neither intentions nor truth are mutually exclusive with insult. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it "not an attack".

Propaganda requires an element of intentionality that is not met simply because someone thinks differently than you do. You might as well put everything in Politics in propaganda if you count this.

Actually the census data really isn't that great, because all income data is entirely self reported. People tend to under report income.

It's also best when comparing incomes to use after-tax incomes, not pre-tax. You only get to spend your after-tax income. And isn't the whole point of progressive taxation to tax the rich more? Thus when comparing incomes between classes, it is best to use the after-tax incomes.

I take your point, but you seem to have missed mine. Mine is that the ratio of female:male incomes has risen by 77%. Presumably, we haven't been taxing each gender differently, so unless you want me to believe that one gender is more likely to conceal income than the other, my basic point remains: "household" income going up must, in part, be a consequence of women making more money than they used to, both because more are working and because those that are are more frequently gaining access to high-wage trades, such as doctors and lawyers.

We could also talk about the shrinking size of the median household, down to 2.6 people from 3.3 people in 1967, and discuss that this implies a reduction in income spent on supporting children, or how home ownership is 5.3% higher in 2006 than it was in 1967, combined with the rise in the cost of houses even adjusted for inflation ($290k in 2006, compared with $149k in 1967 after adjusting for inflation), and talk about the impact this has on cost of living. But evidently the Census has nothing to tell you.

utes, etc

What is an ute?

It is an Australian term for a vehicle that is a cross between a normal car and a light pick-up truck. Much like the old El Camino.

ah, I thought you were referring to the indian tribe.

Or a young person (da ute did it).

What is an ute?

The name of a musical instrument similar to but somewhat larger than a piccolo-- when the 'f' and 'l' keys on your computer keyboard aren't working...?

that's a uke. :)

It may form many but not clear how many. By that measure Gore should have easily won in 2000 since since most Americans saw substantial improvement over the prior 4 years and Bush should have easily lost in 2004 since 2000-2004 was a period of stagnating incomes for most Americans.