["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, but it may interact with your "people are wrong when they talk about the widening gap" premise. Since the wealthiest 5% have grown more than the rest of the nation, and since there are more poor than 30 years ago, you may be working from a different skew than other.

Now compared to different periods in the past:
More poor than 5 years ago
More poor than 10
Less poor than 12
Less poor than 20
More poor than 30
Less poor than 35
Less poor than 40
Less poor than 50

So you mean to challenge the non-widening gap by comparing now's rate to a low point in the last half century? Come on. There are less poor now as compared to many points in the last 50 years, but there are more poor now than a couple of points.

It would be like tracking down the great depression and using it to show how well the economy is doing.

Nice hyperbole, but it's more like comparing now to 40 years ago, which is not as drastic as the difference between now or then and the great depression.

"The real median money income of both family and non-family households declined between 2001 and 2002.

Just one year. I concur that there are many fluctuations, up and down.

If we look at the poorest (less than 5k) then low-mark was in 1978 (2.6%). 2002's 3.2 is a noiceable trend up.

Yeah, if we compare now to the lowest poverty level in the 20th century, we have more poverty now. DUH.

The richt (100k+) do just keep rising in number.

Which means that more people are getting their hands on money. This is positive.

[JerryLove]

Now compared to different periods in the past:
More poor than 5 years ago
More poor than 10
Less poor than 12
Less poor than 20
More poor than 30
Less poor than 35
Less poor than 40
Less poor than 50

So you mean to challenge the non-widening gap by comparing now's rate to a low point in the last half century? Come on. There are less poor now as compared to many points in the last 50 years, but there are more poor now than a couple of points.

Your statements are unrealated. The number of poor does not address the wideness of the gap.

Nice hyperbole, but it's more like comparing now to 40 years ago, which is not as drastic as the difference between now or then and the great depression.

And yet when I moved the starting point a couple of years the entire picture changed. Your "positive moevement" occured in only a couple of years 35 years ago.

Just one year. I concur that there are many fluctuations, up and down.

Get the numbers for 2002+

Yeah, if we compare now to the lowest poverty level in the 20th century, we have more poverty now. DUH.

Which does sere to disprove your assertion that the gap is steadily narrowing... Compare the lowest DOW this year to the lowest from 1900-1970 and you'll see that nothing in that time peariod can top even a bad day for trading levels now. That's because there's a real trend.

Which means that more people are getting their hands on money. This is positive.

You do seem to love non-sequiters. What's the topic? The gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest.

Poor: " I concur that there are many fluctuations, up and down."
Rich: " The richt (100k+) do just keep rising in number."

This would support the claim that gap is rising, and the rich have a general upward trend and the poor fluxuate (and are at a higher point than at spots in the 20th... note that you can't say the same for the rich).

["BrooksB"]

A dinosaur is dug up... another day another mystery

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Your statements are unrealated. The number of poor does not address the wideness of the gap.

But it is still relevant to the discussion. My point is that there is not a marked trend downward as you say. If you could cite some statistics as I have done that show this downward trend, go ahead. The only statistics I've ever seen on the US economy is that it's getting better, not worse, albeit a recession here and there (which usually mean that growth is low, rather than a real decline) and is always followed by a recovery. The net effect is always positive (you know, historically speaking).

And yet when I moved the starting point a couple of years the entire picture changed. Your "positive moevement" occured in only a couple of years 35 years ago.

And also it occurred 20 years ago, and and 10 years ago. Remember that high unemployment rate in the early 80's? Guess what-- it's not higher right now. It's actually much much lower (the latest stat I heard was 4.9%-- even with all the GM layoffs)

Get the numbers for 2002+

So we had a recession... we're coming back from it. However, I haven't checked numbers for the most recent periods. I'll check that sometime, if my computer ever starts working and I don't have to use this grueling piece of work.

Which does sere to disprove your assertion that the gap is steadily narrowing...

You hyperbolized previously about me comparing to the great depression and saying times are good now in comparison (and you were, essentially, lying about this), but you really are compairing right now to an all-time low poverty rate and saying that times are bad. Yes, the rich are richer. The poor are, well, less poor. As I said before, that the top 5% rose so sharply is explainable by my statistics: in '67, less than 5% of the population made more than $100k. In 2002, around 15% of the pop. made more than $100k. So where does that put the top 5%? Way above $100k, that's for sure. It seems that every income distribution class increased in population except for the ones on the lower half of the spectrum. Interesting. More rich people, less poor people. Ain't disparity grand!

Compare the lowest DOW this year to the lowest from 1900-1970 and you'll see that nothing in that time peariod can top even a bad day for trading levels now. That's because there's a real trend.

? A trend upwards, is that what you mean? A general trend upwards from 1900? The lowest DOW this year was slightly below 10000, the low for 1900-1970 was 50 or something like that. That sounds like a clear trend upward to me.

You do seem to love non-sequiters. What's the topic? The gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest.

The topic is "Income Distribution in America". Where's the non-sequiter? Just because you are glued to the gap topic doesn't mean the discussion is. I, for one, am capable of have a multi-faceted discussion. However, we don't have to do that- I know how you like to keep the blinders on so you can focus.

Poor: " I concur that there are many fluctuations, up and down."
Rich: " The richt (100k+) do just keep rising in number."

This would support the claim that gap is rising, and the rich have a general upward trend and the poor fluxuate (and are at a higher point than at spots in the 20th... note that you can't say the same for the rich).

Perhaps the gap between the richest and poorest is widening, but the disparity seems to be a positive thing, anyhow. The only drawback I see is that poor people in America are keenly aware of how well off rich people are. It's not even that their standard of living is unacceptable. They are just jealous.