["BrooksB"]

I checked out the census website and found some info about income distribution. I was mainly interested in what percentage of our population falls into different income levels. Attached are a couple of beautiful depictions of the distribution (adjusted for inflation) of income. The table I found had stats for the following income levels for every year starting in 1967 until 2002: <$5k; 5k-10k; 10k-15k; 15k-25k; 25k-35k; 35k-50k; 50k-75k; 75k-100k; and 100k+.

Even after lumping the lowest three groups (LTG) the largest group was the 50k-75k at 18.3% compared to 16.1 for LTG in 2002. In 1967, however, the LTG was slightly bigger at 22.2% compared to the next highest group, 35k-50k at 21.5%. Looking at the overall trend, it looks like a wave moving towards wealth. The crest has moved up a level, and a trough is forming in the lowest bracket.

Anyways, I just thought that was pretty interesting, and particularly relevant to anyone discussing macroeconomics relating especially to the US.

[jfahler03]

I'm not extremely familiar with macroeconomics, is there any kind of theory as to what will happen as the wave continues to move right, considering the variables remain conducive to growth? Obviously this cannot continue forever (in theory as I would understand it... I'm thinking this off the top of my head) as the workforce will be required to remain in its place for the benefit of Marx's "capitalists".

Am I correct? What is to come?

[JerryLove]

Ain't disparity grand? http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/IncByClass.gif

["BrooksB"]

Any thoughts on the distribution of income? Positive/negative?

I definitely see it as positive for America being that in general over the last 40 years poverty has decreased and there are also more wealthy people. I hear so often that there is a widening gap between rich and poor, and these statistics obviously state otherwise. The middle class is richer, the rich are richer, and hell even the poor are, well, less poor. The poor may be the least mobile, but that is clearly no new phenomenon.

[JerryLove]

I hear so often that there is a widening gap between rich and poor, and these statistics obviously state otherwise

They don't really touch on it as they don't talk about how rich the rich are (BTW, handdrawn graph != statistics).

In the thirty years fom '65 to '95, the poorest 20% and middle 20% (1-20, and 40-60 respectively) remained almost entirely flat, while the richest 5% gained in income by 65%.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

They don't really touch on it as they don't talk about how rich the rich are (BTW, handdrawn graph != statistics).

By the way, the national census bureau's statistics = the statistics I used to make the graphs (and their stats are probably more reliable than some liberal biased press group). Furthermore, it doesn't matter so much how rich the rich are. The point I'm trying to make is that the percentage of the pop. with real incomes below $15k has decreased and the percentage of those with an income above $100k has increased dramatically. That last little tidbit says something about why the top 5% gained so much in income (the lowest income in the top 5% is now well above $100k- notice how there's more than 5% of people in 2002 above $100k, but less than 5% in 1967).

In the thirty years fom '65 to '95, the poorest 20% and middle 20% (1-20, and 40-60 respectively) remained almost entirely flat, while the richest 5% gained in income by 65%.

Rhetoric aside, the fact of the matter is that all three groups had a definitive increase over the last 40 years. The poor are not getting poorer, quite literally.

[JerryLove]

By the way, the national census bureau's statistics = the statistics I used to make the graphs

link me

What I can find from the US Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6 :
In every variant, I see a fluxuating but generally upward trend from 80-92, then a sharp drop in poverty thought the Clinton years, then a continuious rise under Bush.

Specifically (again from US Census):
1999 - 11.9%
2000 - 11.3%
2001 - 11.7%
2002 - 12.1%
2003 - 12.5%

Also, according to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...pov03fig03.pdf, the major decline ended between 1970 and 1975.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

link me

Gladly.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income02.html

I got mine from the pdf entitled "Income in the United States: 2002" at the top of the page. The table I was referring to is on page 23 of the pdf, but there's a ton of stats in the report, feel free to post some more up here. I didn't really feel like reading through all of them. The table has stats for different races, but the one I used was the first one, "All Races". I was particularly astounded at the column of $100k+ which went from 3.1% in 1967 to 14.1% in 2002. Post your thoughts, I'm interested to get your take on this.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Also, according to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...pov03fig03.pdf, the major decline ended between 1970 and 1975.

Which doesn't detract from the overall decrease between 1967 and 2002.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Which doesn't detract from the overall decrease between 1967 and 2002.

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.

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

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income02.html

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

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.

There is a definate downward adjustment from 1967(5.6%) to 1978(2.6%), We never see a number that low again, though we get near in 1999 (2.7%).

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

Really interesting is the "Median Household Income"... which has ups and downs, but a solid downward trend from 2000 forward.

[hockeywannabe23]

I may end up sounding dumb because I dont have stats or anything, however the government should never redistribute wealth for any reason. When money is taken from some people to give to others it greatly diminishes the incentive to work. When the rich are penalized for their prosparity they have no reason to continue to work if their profits well only be stolen. On the other end other spectrum when a low income person receives a reward for their position why should they try to gain income when the government will give it to them. Any time the government steps in and artificially tampers with the free economy it will suffer.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by hockeywannabe23

I may end up sounding dumb because I dont have stats or anything...

1. Even if you don't have the statistics to back you, please research and cite them.

2. Here we go:

...however the government should never redistribute wealth for any reason. When money is taken from some people to give to others it greatly diminishes the incentive to work.

Are we talking about welfare? Here are some statistics regarding that ever important "incentive to work":

"Because typical welfare payments pay less than a full-time job, it should not be surprising to find that most welfare recipients do not see it as an incentive to avoid work. Indeed, studies reveal this in two different ways: that most welfare recipients do indeed want and seek work, and that in a dynamic economy, the welfare rolls are ever-changing.

Many studies show that welfare recipients find welfare degrading and demoralizing, and greatly prefer the chance to work. (4) In fact, in March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work. (5) This may seem contrary to common sense, but, as Norman Goodman points out in Introduction to Sociology: "Many 'common sense' beliefs are simply untrue. For example, many believe… that most people on welfare really don't want to work. [This is] false." (6)

Again, the "incentive" accusation fails because of welfare's inability to let families make ends meet. One study of Chicago welfare mothers found that their family's rent and utilities cost $37 more than the welfare check. Even for those few who received housing assistance, that left only $160 to cover all other monthly expenses, such as transportation, clothing, hygiene and school supplies. The typical food stamp allowance was insufficient, and many recipients actually went hungry near the end of the month. To make ends meet, the mothers had to receive income from somewhere else. Some of this came from absent fathers, friends and relatives, but almost half came from work -- work that typically paid $3 to $5 an hour. The authors of the study concluded that "single mothers do not turn to welfare because they are pathologically dependent on handouts or unusually reluctant to work. They do so because they cannot get jobs that pay better than welfare." (7)

Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that the welfare rolls are filled with a substantial population of sedentary freeloaders who stay on for ten years at a time. Most welfare recipients leave within the first two years: "

Percent of
Time on AFDC Recipients (8)
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Extended quote from: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

When the rich are penalized for their prosparity they have no reason to continue to work if their profits well only be stolen.

I understand your point... but... what happens if the rich are not controlled at all, and a lassiez-faire economy rules? Read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair and you find out. Look at the "robber barons" of the late 18th century and pre-Depression-era and you find out. I've gone on the spiel about them before, so I'll just add a link to a post of mine about them later. In other words, while Carnegie, Rockefeller ("Reck-a-fellow"), and their croonies are rolling in money, Jurgis Rudkis can't feed his family because he's out of work. The capitalist system not only allows inequality, it in fact thrives upon it in its sense of individual freedom in economics. Without a central government controling and passing laws regarding the economy, men will take it into their own hands and take complete advantage of it.

Edit: A Prime historical example is that of John D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Company (copied from another thread by me):

"John D. Rockefeller (b. 1839 d. 1937):
On your comment of coming from "nothing" you are correct: Rockefeller did in fact come from a modest family of around 7 children. By the age of 19, he had become an entrepeneur (sp?) and had entered the business world. Interestingly, he paid his way out of the draft during the Civil War ("American Dream?").

By 1870, he had started Standard Oil Company, which grew out of a need for oil for kerosene lamps. This "black gold" was widely used, and even as the electric lightbulb was invented (and lamps no longer used) had continuity through the invention of the 1900's: the automobile.

Yes, once he became wealthy, he donated millions (which would translate to some of the largest sums of money ever in today's dollars) via philantrophy to various organizations. However, as he did this, his business practices were ethically questionable at best, outright hypocritical and unChristian at worst (Rockefeller was a Baptist who never drank, smoked, or swore)

I'll finish this off with David Kennedy et al, author of The American Pageant , 12th Edition: (italics, etc are my own for emphasis)
"Pious and parsimonious, Rockefeller flourished in an era of completely free enterprise. So-called piratical practices were employed by 'corsairs of finance,' and business ethics were distressingly low. Rockefeller, operating 'just to the windward of the law,' pursued a policy of rule or ruin. 'Sell all the oil that is sold in your district' was the hard-boiled order that went out to his local agents. y 1877 Rockefeller controlled 95 percent of all the oil refineries in the country.

Rockefeller - 'Reckafellow,' as Carnegie had once called him - showed little mercy. A kind of primitive savagery prevailed in the jungle world of big business, where only the fittest survived."
(Kennedy et al, 2002).

So that's it. The "self-made" millionaire takes advantage of the same lower class he was once a part of. I won't even get into wages, community living, and "social programs" during this time. The fact is, unwatched capitalism is the largest flaw (in my opinion, larger than slavery ever was; or racism) in the history of the United States, because it became the rule, not the exception."

Retrieved from: http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...53&postcount=7

On the other end other spectrum when a low income person receives a reward for their position why should they try to gain income when the government will give it to them. Any time the government steps in and artificially tampers with the free economy it will suffer.

I think I answered both of these arguments (1st being about welfare, 2nd being about lassiez-faire economy)...

-Josh "I'm not a Marxist" Fahler... sorry for the length of the thread... just that I have a lot against lassiez-faire capitalists these days...

[JerryLove]

however the government should never redistribute wealth for any reason.

jfahler03 seems to have already addressed this pretty well but I would point out that any time you have any taxes that go anywhere you are taking money from someone to give to someone else. Your standard says "there should be no government and no paid civil servents".

[Nate]

Those statistics don't account for the fact that there are certainly significantly more dual-income households (total household income is what that one table was measuring) today than there were in 1967. Sure, we have more households (by percentage) in the upper echelons of incomes, but that's come at a great cost, I think.

[Nate]

And, quite frankly, I'm inclined to believe Jerry's by-class breakdown graph of the change in income distribution.