Wow, there's a limit of 10 smilies. That sucks a bit

ray

In 1980 the median household income was $44,616. In 2010 it was $49,445. It peaked at $53,252 in 1999.

In 1980 the Consumer Price Index was 82.40 In 1999 it was 166.6 In 2012 it was 224.9

Lets index the median income from 1980 = 100 1999 = 119.3 2012 = 110.8

Lets index the CPI where 1980 = 100 1999 = 202.1 2012 = 272.9

If this isn't a clear indication that incomes for most aren't keeping up with the cost of living....

http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/ ... alCPI.aspx

steve

How is that addressing the idea that Reagan would be not welcome in today's GOP?

After initially lowering taxes substantially Reagan went on to increase taxes 17 times in the next six years.
Today, almost all republican members of congress have signed Grover Norquists pledge to never raise taxes.
Mitt Romney has signed the pledge too.
If Reagan arrived on the scene today, and understood as he did in 82 that taxes needed to be raised, he'd never get the nomination....

rickyp wrote:ray

In 1980 the median household income was $44,616. In 2010 it was $49,445. It peaked at $53,252 in 1999.

In 1980 the Consumer Price Index was 82.40 In 1999 it was 166.6 In 2012 it was 224.9

Lets index the median income from 1980 = 100 1999 = 119.3 2012 = 110.8

Lets index the CPI where 1980 = 100 1999 = 202.1 2012 = 272.9

If this isn't a clear indication that incomes for most aren't keeping up with the cost of living....

http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/ ... alCPI.aspx

Except if you read more carefully you would know that I already adjusted for inflation. The fact that you didn't catch this most salient fact when analyzing my numbers (and my sources) suggests to me that you think about your arguments even less than I had previously thought. If you were driven by trying to understand other people's arguments instead of just refuting them because of your own cognitive dissonance, this would have come out way before you posted.

rickyp wrote:steve

How is that addressing the idea that Reagan would be not welcome in today's GOP?

After initially lowering taxes substantially Reagan went on to increase taxes 17 times in the next six years.

Top rate went from 70 to 28%. Loopholes were closed.

If "trickle down" economics was so popular with liberals, why did they hate Reagan when he was President?

One's enemies are revealing.

Today, almost all republican members of congress have signed Grover Norquists pledge to never raise taxes.
Mitt Romney has signed the pledge too.
If Reagan arrived on the scene today, and understood as he did in 82 that taxes needed to be raised, he'd never get the nomination....

Sure. This is anachronistic garbage.

And, Obama is bipartisan.

Doctor Fate wrote:[extraneous Obama-bashing ignored as it's kind of missing the point a bit]

Reagan fired the Air Traffic controllers.

Woo. What a man!

Reagan also cut taxes.

Yes, he did. And he put them up when things went wrong. Because deficits grew after the first set of tax cuts (for some inexplicable reason, like saying the magic word "Laffer" was not done at the right phase of the moon or something ).

[extraneous Obama-bashing ignored as it's kind of missing the point a bit]

You are presenting the liberal myth of Reagan. Great, but it's no more invested in history than some of those who claim the cloak of Thatcher or Churchill are.

Yeah Steve. The Reagan that was popular with many Democrats, who was bipartisan (as you acknowledge, in your cute Obama-obsessed way), who did increase taxes in 1982 and again in 1986, largely of payroll taxes (income tax that more people have to pay) and corporation tax. Debt almost trebled from $712bn to $2.05Tn. The economy grew slower during his tenure than the preceding post-war period and the Bush-Clinton years. Deficits were consistently high.

Reagan was not perfect. I know that he's regarded as some kind of secular saint by many, but in his time as President (as with all Presidents) he had to make tough choices. The spectacle of his 'spiritual descendants' exhibiting a far more close-minded and blinkered approach, while attacking directly some of the outcomes that he himself oversaw is an interesting phenomenon.

Oh, and when he died, we on here were pretty much told straight out by the righties that we should not besmirch Reagan's name. I kind of thought that purdah was over by now, but perhaps not. What I am amused by is the veneration of one man (Reagan) juxtaposed with withering scorn at the idea that anyone might - even if they don't - have similar feelings about another (Obama).

Cute.

Surely you mean as high and as far as 'talent, effort and luck will take you?"

Luck is winning the lottery.

Or being born without a disability. Or having parents who care about your future. Or growing up in an area where there's work available that's worthwhile. Or the right investor deciding to look in your general direction at the right time.

There's a lot more to luck than you appear to think

Nice bit of spreading the dirt around--in other words, you failed to define what social mobility is. You said it's not the ability to become "rich." What is it?

I'd have though from the two words it was pretty self evident. It's the extent to which people move around (ie: down as well as up) in socioeconomic terms during their lifetime, as aggregated over a society.

I think it's not a new idea, and there are ready definitions around for you to look up, if you have the time and inclination. There are whole comparative studies and reports about it that I had no part in whatsoever.

One thing it is not, is solely about how many millionaires were born millionaires.

Still, isn't it a bit cheeky to give Ricky a pass and demand that I deconstruct his vague, unsupported arguments? As if I'm supposed to know what he's talking about?

Actually, I'm not asking you to deconstruct anything. I'm asking if you can yourself outdo Ricky (which given your dim opinion of him should be a breeze, right?).

So, for the third time...

When you see that the peak Median Household Income in the USA was in 1999, what do you think lead to stagnation or decline in the years 1999-2007 (before the credit crunch, recession etc)?

Ray Jay wrote:Except if you read more carefully you would know that I already adjusted for inflation. The fact that you didn't catch this most salient fact when analyzing my numbers (and my sources) suggests to me that you think about your arguments even less than I had previously thought. If you were driven by trying to understand other people's arguments instead of just refuting them because of your own cognitive dissonance, this would have come out way before you posted.

Indeed. Ricky, please please please take a minute to think before you post. And then check before you reveal your 'slam dunk', in case it's more of a foul ball.

It was obvious to me that RJ's figures were inflation adjusted even without checking. But I did, just in case.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:[extraneous Obama-bashing ignored as it's kind of missing the point a bit]

Reagan fired the Air Traffic controllers.

Woo. What a man!

Your post is contemptible. Then again, that's hardly newsworthy.

Why would I answer any of your questions when you cannot be bothered to be decent about it?

See? Question "Him", and his adherents get all antsy!

Just another fact for you about Reagan. When he took office, deficits were 2.64% of GDP, and $73Bn. At his 'peak' in 1985 they'd gone up to over 5% and over $200bn.

I know. It's 'contemptible' for anyone to question the Man (or summat).

I take it now that you've checked what Social Mobility means? If not here's a few links

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+mobility

Oh, and now we've settled that you aren't going to 'deconstruct' Ricky's post, are we also settled that you are not going to address why median household income stopped rising in real terms in the USA in 1999?

danivon wrote:I know. It's 'contemptible' for anyone to question the Man (or summat).

No, it's contemptible to act like a jackass.

First, you change my "quote." Then you respond to what I'm not talking about.

I take it now that you've checked what Social Mobility means?

Nope. I'm not responsible for supplying your definition. All I was talking about was the economic aspect of it.

Oh, and now we've settled that you aren't going to 'deconstruct' Ricky's post, are we also settled that you are not going to address why median household income stopped rising in real terms in the USA in 1999?

Not until you cease being a donkey's hind end.

I did not 'change' your quote. The square brackets marked an excisement. Frankly I don't care why Reagan is better than Obama, as that's not what was being talked about. Reagan can stand on his own record, can he not?

And you miss the point about social mobility. If you did look at the first link in that google list, you'd see a Wikipedia article that defines it just fine. I'm not using some bizarre measure, I'm referring to the general one; you are the one who wants to boil it down to millionaires.

I'm sorry, Steve, I'm in a good mood. The sun was out, I made a nice barbeque and now I'm chilling out to Leverage. But I did ask that basic question a day or so ago and you ignored it then, so hey, now you have your 'excuse'.

danivon wrote:I did not 'change' your quote. The square brackets marked an excisement. Frankly I don't care why Reagan is better than Obama, as that's not what was being talked about. Reagan can stand on his own record, can he not?

And you miss the point about social mobility. If you did look at the first link in that google list, you'd see a Wikipedia article that defines it just fine. I'm not using some bizarre measure, I'm referring to the general one; you are the one who wants to boil it down to millionaires.

I'm sorry, Steve, I'm in a good mood. The sun was out, I made a nice barbeque and now I'm chilling out to Leverage. But I did ask that basic question a day or so ago and you ignored it then, so hey, now you have your 'excuse'.

I need no "excuse." However, if you're going to "excise" something and replace it with your own sarcastic characterization, then I have every right to think you're engaging in half-witted chicanery . . . because you are.

Let's examine the facts: Ricky makes a barely coherent post. You want me to critique what is almost impossible to make any sense of? No thanks. I'll leave that to his barrister.

I didn't miss the point about social mobility. You wrote:

Social mobility is not all about millionaires. Of course, with inflation, someone who inherited a few hundred thousand dollars a coupel of decades ago and is a millionaire now may be no better off than they were before in real terms and even those who don't inherit millions can inherit a tidy sum and have some useful connections ready and waiting for them.

That's why social mobility is better measured across the whole of society, as opposed to one cherry picked stat about only a minute proportion of it.

How does one measure ". . . some useful connections ready and waiting for them?"

I'll wait.

I didn't cherry-pick a stat. I went with one that can actually be measured. From the wiki link you provided (in your standard condescending fashion):

Mobility is enabled to a varying extent by economic capital, cultural capital (such as higher education), human capital (such as competence and effort in labour), social capital (such as support from one's social network), physical capital (such as ownership of tools, or the 'means of production'), and symbolic capital (such as the worth of an official title, status class, celebrity, etc.).
In western modern states, examples of policy issues are: taxation, welfare, education and public transport each exercising great influence over the state. In other societies religious affiliation, caste membership, or geographical location may be of central importance. The extent to which a nation is open and meritocratic is influential, but an arbitrary system of promotion can also lead to mobility: a society in which traditional or religious caste systems dominate is unlikely to present the opportunity for social mobility. The term is used in both sociology and economics.

So, at the end of all this, there's going to be a lot of subjectivity (unless we're talking about India, or some other heavily structured society, which we're not).

More:

Intra-generational mobility occurs when a person strives to change his or her own social standing. In some societies, this type of change is easier than in others. In social systems where people are divided into castes or ethnic groups, social mobility is limited.

Not the US.

The link gets around to it:

Research on American mobility published in 2006 and based on collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations looked at the probability of reaching a particular income-distribution with regard to where their parents were ranked. The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[8] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility. There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in th U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does (and they are basically even with the U.S.)

Oh, well, there it is! Please, do tell us--this study from 2006, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). (2006). Institute for Social Science Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, how many people did it involve? Was it a national study? Did it examine the lives of every American over the past few generations? Did it look at the effect of generational welfare? As you are an expert in the field, I really must ask.

Is it possible that political bias skewed the study? I mean if all of those conducting the study, for example, were libertarians, would that not skew the result? What if they are all, let's suppose, far left of center?

This was also linked in the Wiki article, from the Center for American Progress, a noted left-wing think tank.

Basically, it's thousands of subjects (people), not millions. It may or may not be representative. However, there is no doubt in my mind what the purpose of this study is: to convince the American people that the real need is for government to guarantee equality of outcome. After all, the game is "rigged" and they can "prove" it.

"Social mobility" is a made up idea. Why would anyone make it up? To subjectively make the US look less fair than socialist counterparts and dress it up as "objective." Again, a lot of the information in this cannot be measured. What is the measurement for "connections?"

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's examine the facts: Ricky makes a barely coherent post. You want me to critique what is almost impossible to make any sense of? No thanks. I'll leave that to his barrister.

For the absolute last time, Steve, I did not at any point ask you to critique Ricky. I asked you if you had an alternative thesis.

I can only conclude that you have none.

How does one measure ". . . some useful connections ready and waiting for them?"

I'll wait.

One doesn't. One takes wider measures.

I didn't cherry-pick a stat. I went with one that can actually be measured. From the wiki link you provided (in your standard condescending fashion):

As can more wide-reaching statistics on social mobility. Such as intergenerational change, relative wealth position, househod income etc etc etc...

Over all of the country, not just over the millionaires. That was my point.

"Social mobility" is a made up idea. Why would anyone make it up? To subjectively make the US look less fair than socialist counterparts and dress it up as "objective." Again, a lot of the information in this cannot be measured. What is the measurement for "connections?"

I didn't say there was one. There are objective measures for how easy it is for people to move up and down society from where they start, whether in absolute or relative terms. You clearly take objection to studies that show that the USA has lower social mobility than places like Denmark or Sweden. You put the entire thing down to bias.

But here's the thing I noticed in that article on wikipedia - that US perception of mobility was increasing while measure of it showed it decreasing. The power of myth over reality, I guess.

And yes, I am aware that mobility is low in the UK, too. It's lower than it used to be, too - over the last 30 or so years, we have become more entrenched, and closer to American levels of mobility, while Europe has seen levels of mobility increase.

However if, to you, the entire concept is bunkum, there seems to be no further point discussing it.

On the earlier question of what changed in 1980, I'll suggest this.

For the 30 years before, the US debt per capita remained about the same in real terms (between $10,000 and $12,000 in 2005 money). After 1980 it started to rise, to over $20,000 by 1989, $28,000 in 1996 (where it stabilised until about 2001), then up into the $30,000s during the noughties and well over $40,000 now.

That's not a good trend, and it didn't start with the incumbent.

I would have assumed that Monte would have posed inflation-adjusted figures without my bothering to check.

I am wondering, however, about the use of median household income. If families are having to put in more hours to get increased income (in particular by having women work more), then the increases in median income aren't so wonderful, are they? If median income for male workers stayed the same or even went down over the past 30 years and the way families solve this is by having women work outside the home when their children are very young, well, I don't know that is something we should brag about. Maybe I'm wrong and the numbers of hours worked per household in 1980 was the same as now, but I guess I would like to see those numbers before assuming that is true.

And, of course, even median household incomes have stagnated since 1999.

I searched for stats to look at house prices and work hours. Because I'm at work and using a ohone, I can't post links, and perhaps my sources could do with correlation anyway, but:

House prices were pretty much in step with CPI inflation from the 1970s to about 2000. Then they surged up to a peak in 2006, before crashing down - They are now pretty much what CPI trend would have them be. That doesn't adjust for house 'size', but it does suggest that house prices in the US do not usually increase faster than inflation, but the last decade has seen a bubble grow and pop.

Mean hours worked correlates strongly to median income, over the past 50 years. This suggests that people are often only on more money in real terms if they work more hours, which backs up freeman's thesis. That does of course mean that the work/life balance is moving in one direction, and that people in the middle are not seeing the benefits of productivity gains.

Which may mean families are better off financially than 30 years ago, but worse off in terms of bein together as a family. Quality of life is about more than purchasing power, in my book, and I would suspect social conservatives also have a nagging doubt about it too.