Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[PLAYER57832]

Here's my take - I don't think there is data in 2010 and 2011 that can readily identify whether the poor are getting poor and the rich are getting richer in the United States. I think we can say with some certainty that most people are doing badly, regardless of wealth. In a few years, the data will be available and we can rejoin this conversation. I therefore move to adjourn this discussion for three years. Seconded?

That is NOT what the data shows, sorry. So.. no.

You asked for data, I provided it and now you ignore it.

[thegreekdog]

Here's my take - I don't think there is data in 2010 and 2011 that can readily identify whether the poor are getting poor and the rich are getting richer in the United States. I think we can say with some certainty that most people are doing badly, regardless of wealth. In a few years, the data will be available and we can rejoin this conversation. I therefore move to adjourn this discussion for three years. Seconded?

That is NOT what the data shows, sorry. So.. no.

You asked for data, I provided it and now you ignore it.

Oh sorry, I forgot to point out how your data doesn't actually show what I asked you to show. I thought that was self-explanatory...

Chart One - You're going to have to explain to me how this chart shows how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, because I don't understand it.

Chart Two - None of the charts in this article show how the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer. They should an increasing divide between rich and poor, but that's not the purpose of this thread. The data is also in 2007 and I thought we were talking about the recession from 2008 through 2011.

Your article - You (and the article) indicated that data is hard to get for years after 2007.

Graph #3 - Also has data only through 2007. And the chart I would point you to is the one that says "The last two decades were great... if you were a CEO or owner. Not if you were anyone else." The interesting data point that at least proves through 2007 the poor have not been getting poorer is that the lowest wage earners (other than the minimum wagers) are up 4.3% in wages. Turning to the minimum wagers, that statistic merely measures the government mandated minimum wage; nothing more than that. So we can ignore that one for purposes of this conversation.

Graph #4 - These charts measure wealth inequality, not whether the poor are getting poorer. Again, the topic of this conversation is not whether there is a growing wealth gap, it's whether the poor are getting poorer. Also, no data past 2007.

Graph/chart #5 - These charts also measure wealth inequality, not whether the poor are getting poor. Also no data past 2007.

In sum - Your charts have shown that the gap between rich and poor in the United States has gotten worse up to 2007. Nowhere do your graphs or charts say that the poor are getting poorer up to 2007. Nowhere in your graphs or charts is there data subsequent to 2007.

So take this:

That is NOT what the data shows, sorry. So.. no.

You asked for data, I provided it and now you ignore it.

And shove it.

[PLAYER57832]

Here's my take - I don't think there is data in 2010 and 2011 that can readily identify whether the poor are getting poor and the rich are getting richer in the United States. I think we can say with some certainty that most people are doing badly, regardless of wealth. In a few years, the data will be available and we can rejoin this conversation. I therefore move to adjourn this discussion for three years. Seconded?

That is NOT what the data shows, sorry. So.. no.

You asked for data, I provided it and now you ignore it.

Oh sorry, I forgot to point out how your data doesn't actually show what I asked you to show. I thought that was self-explanatory...

And gee, here I thought you were willing to act like the reasonable human being I know you are.

Phattscotty is making sense.. and you are ignoring anything that disagrees with you.

Chart One - You're going to have to explain to me how this chart shows how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, because I don't understand it.

Note the rises, followed by the BIG drop at the end of the graph?

BUT... since this is apparently your idea of intelligent rhetoric today

So take this:

That is NOT what the data shows, sorry. So.. no.

You asked for data, I provided it and now you ignore it.

And shove it.

Well, there you go.
Sorry, but
"nya.. nya.. don't want to hear it" isn't debating for anyone over 5.

[thegreekdog]

So Player - are you conceding that the rest of the charts, with the exception of the last chart in link #1, don't illustrate your point? I think the answer is yes since none of those charts point out that the poor are getting poorer and none of those charts have any data post-2007.

So I win all those.

Note the rises, followed by the BIG drop at the end of the graph?

I could find a whole lot of chrats with the rises followed by the big drop at the end of the graph. You need to tell me what the Y-axis means. The onus is on you because you're the one that provided the data. Maybe someone will help you; until then... you haven't proven anything.

I don't know if you're purposefully changing the question. I don't know if you realize that there is no data subsequent to 2007 (although you've already admitted that there's no data subsequent to 2007). However, what I'm pretty sure about is that you just don't like to admit when you're wrong and so that's where we're at right now. I contend there is no data subsequent to 2007, you contend that your data pre-2008 is enough to support your contention that the poor are getting poorer post-2008. Who is being the five year old again?

[PLAYER57832]

So Player - are you conceding that the rest of the charts, with the exception of the last chart in link #1, don't illustrate your point? I think the answer is yes since none of those charts point out that the poor are getting poorer and none of those charts have any data post-2007.

So I win all those.

NOPE. You asked for internet-available data knowing that economic statistics like this take time. It does not mean you "win" it means you are pretending that the fact firefighters are too busy fighting a huge fire right now to give more than general estimates of damage means that you can just insert whatever you want and call it a "win".

It doesn't take graphs and charts to know that the number of unemployed and underemployed is increasing (note, I did NOT say the unemployment rate, because that is solely based on claims filed!) OR to know that more and more people are showing up daily at food pantrys across the country.

NOR does it take charts to know that companies are laying off or moving overseas, tha they are stockpiling money and not spending it, etc, etc, etc.

In short the fact that all of the above is disbursed over many articles and interview instead of being already concisely compiled into one neat chart by an economist does NOT mean the data is "not there".

Secondly I DID provide the data... AND the reasoning for what I said, in addition.

Note the rises, followed by the BIG drop at the end of the graph?

I could find a whole lot of chrats with the rises followed by the big drop at the end of the graph. You need to tell me what the Y-axis means. The onus is on you because you're the one that provided the data. Maybe someone will help you; until then... you haven't proven anything.

Its labeled.

Also, you continue to concentrate on only half of what I said. The MAIN point I made was that while we are not sliding down to "starving children in Ethiopia" standards (thank heavans!) (which IS a point BBS has made in the past and to which I agree), the point is that far more are sliding from middle class into poverty AND that the routes up are being curtailed.

I don't know if you're purposefully changing the question. I don't know if you realize that there is no data subsequent to 2007 (although you've already admitted that there's no data subsequent to 2007). However, what I'm pretty sure about is that you just don't like to admit when you're wrong and so that's where we're at right now. I contend there is no data subsequent to 2007, you contend that your data pre-2008 is enough to support your contention that the poor are getting poorer post-2008. Who is being the five year old again?

There IS data subsequent to 2007. You apparently just gave a cursory glance.

At any rate, my saying the past 3-4 years was fairly arbitrary. The POINT, which I HAVE made over and over, was that the initial chart, which you and BBS both claimed show that folks are not getting poorer, is only correct because it goes back and takes some of the most prosperous times in the US. Even so, as the article I posted explains, the figures presented DO hide another reality.. specifically that the gap was greatly widening throughout that whole time period, plus power was being more and more concentrated at the top. If you look at more recent times (earlier I believe I said 10 years, another point 5 years), then you DO see a very different trend.

[thegreekdog]

Look Player, you're either going to have to do a better job pointing me to this data or get someone else to do it.

As for the second chart, what does the Y-axis label say? Does it say "income of the poor?" No? Then what does it mean?

At any rate, my saying the past 3-4 years was fairly arbitrary.

Yes, yes it was arbitrary... and, as far as I can tell, without supporting data. At least until you do a better job pointing me to the data (or someone else does it).

The POINT, which I HAVE made over and over, was that the initial chart, which you and BBS both claimed show that folks are not getting poorer, is only correct because it goes back and takes some of the most prosperous times in the US.

Yes... and? It still doesn't illustrate your point.

specifically that the gap was greatly widening throughout that whole time period, plus power was being more and more concentrated at the top. If you look at more recent times (earlier I believe I said 10 years, another point 5 years), then you DO see a very different trend.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE FREAKING DISCUSSING!!! We're not discussing the widening gap. We're discussing whether the poor are poorer now than they were before.

Look, here's what you need to convince me - A graph that shows on the Y-axis average wages for the poor or middle class or both and on the X-axis shows years, the latest of which are 2008 through 2011. Not only do you have to show me this graph, but the graph has to show a decrease in the Y-axis from 2007 through 2011. Unless you can find that, you're not going to be able to convince me and your contention, which may very well be reasonable and correct, will not be supported by data and thus can be readily ignored. I suspect, as I indicated a few posts ago, that data you want will not be available in the near future. Why can't you simply acknowledge that and we can move on?

[BigBallinStalin]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

I suspect that everyone living in the United States and purchasing products from countries like China and India are supporting child labor and sweatshops. So, the answer to your question is yes.

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

[Phatscotty]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

I suspect that everyone living in the United States and purchasing products from countries like China and India are supporting child labor and sweatshops. So, the answer to your question is yes.

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

Haha I don't think Natty's comment should be taken so seriously. he was just trolling in his own little way...jumping to conclusions then choosing the assumption that can be made to look most negative.

I do whatever I can to try not to purchase things made in china. Best example is q-tips, most are made in china, but if you look around a little bit and pay a dime more you can get Canadian ones, or at least that's worked for me as far as my options are at the local Piggly Wiggly.

[natty dread]

trolling

You keep using that word...

[Phatscotty]

trolling

You keep using that word...

If the shoe fits

You know I don't support sweat shops, but you try to imply and assume that I do by pretending I said I do. The only reply I can make is "no, I do not support child labor and sweat shops" I mean duh! who does??? It was a bs question meant to troll.

I just want to say I think America is doing a fantastic job helping the poor, and there has never been a better time to be poor in all of history.

[thegreekdog]

trolling

You keep using that word...

Who trolls the trolls? Or, maybe, who trolls the trolls who troll the trolls?

[BigBallinStalin]

trolling

You keep using that word...

Who trolls the trolls? Or, maybe, who trolls the trolls who troll the trolls?

It depends on which one is the most sentient, and whether or not the most sentient troll is traveling around the world in an airplane, or by boat, or if the troll is being traveled around the world in an airplane, or by a boat.

[PLAYER57832]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

I suspect that everyone living in the United States and purchasing products from countries like China and India are supporting child labor and sweatshops. So, the answer to your question is yes.

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

Most people would actually rather work in the fields if they were truly given a choice.

[spurgistan]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

I suspect that everyone living in the United States and purchasing products from countries like China and India are supporting child labor and sweatshops. So, the answer to your question is yes.

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

Most people would actually rather work in the fields if they were truly given a choice.

I might disagree with that.

[BigBallinStalin]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

I suspect that everyone living in the United States and purchasing products from countries like China and India are supporting child labor and sweatshops. So, the answer to your question is yes.

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

Most people would actually rather work in the fields if they were truly given a choice.

Player, you can't reasonably compare your preferences to the preferences of people in China. It's a very different story there. If a factory job pays significantly more than toiling in the fields, then it's no surprise people will flock to manufacturing. Recall the US experience when people increasingly shifted from agriculture to manufacturing. At those times, there was comparatively better options in manufacturing than in agriculture. There are choices, and they make them, but please distinguish a "truly given choice" from a "falsely given choice."

[PLAYER57832]

Player, you can't reasonably compare your preferences to the preferences of people in China. It's a very different story there. If a factory job pays significantly more than toiling in the fields, then it's no surprise people will flock to manufacturing. Recall the US experience when people increasingly shifted from agriculture to manufacturing. At those times, there was comparatively better options in manufacturing than in agriculture. There are choices, and they make them, but please distinguish a "truly given choice" from a "falsely given choice."

India, not China.

In either case, the situation is a LOT more complicated than you present. What people really want is to make something other than poverty wages in their chosen profession, whatever it is.

As per the rest, you are almost certainly descended from people who made the choice you describe and who were happy about it. I am not. Sometimes people don't miss what they have until its already gone. As much as people flocked to the cities, our folk songs and stories are also full of people who regretted making that choice, IF it even was a true choice at all!

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not your money; therefore, you don't have a right to it. Any justification for theft on the grounds of "it's not fair!" is absurd, albeit morally satisfying to only you. Think about the wealth which is created from that invested money, or the job of the financial manager, or whoever is affected by the demand created by that millionaires' money. According to them, it's not fair for them to lose those opportunities simply because you say it's not fair that the recipient gets to keep a tax-free gift (i.e. inheritance).

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Except, who defines whether its "your money" or not?

Private property rights, which would ideally be upheld by public courts.

Based on what? Why is that better or more correct than the old style which said the monarche basically owns all, or that of some tribal groups that says we hold the land more or less in trust ( We can use it, but not own it, basically) You jump from "its the law" to "it must be correct". I am asking why it is correct, in your mind.

Also, who decides which private property ownership has rights over another?

Well, player, if you create something, why is it not yours to do whatever you want with it?

[PLAYER57832]

It's not your money; therefore, you don't have a right to it. Any justification for theft on the grounds of "it's not fair!" is absurd, albeit morally satisfying to only you. Think about the wealth which is created from that invested money, or the job of the financial manager, or whoever is affected by the demand created by that millionaires' money. According to them, it's not fair for them to lose those opportunities simply because you say it's not fair that the recipient gets to keep a tax-free gift (i.e. inheritance).

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Except, who defines whether its "your money" or not?

Private property rights, which would ideally be upheld by public courts.

Based on what? Why is that better or more correct than the old style which said the monarche basically owns all, or that of some tribal groups that says we hold the land more or less in trust ( We can use it, but not own it, basically) You jump from "its the law" to "it must be correct". I am asking why it is correct, in your mind.

Also, who decides which private property ownership has rights over another?

Well, player, if you create something, why is it not yours to do whatever you want with it?

Because you don't live in isolation and because we always have a responsibility to not harm others and to ensure that we don't destroy the world for future generations.

[BigBallinStalin]

Player, you can't reasonably compare your preferences to the preferences of people in China. It's a very different story there. If a factory job pays significantly more than toiling in the fields, then it's no surprise people will flock to manufacturing. Recall the US experience when people increasingly shifted from agriculture to manufacturing. At those times, there was comparatively better options in manufacturing than in agriculture. There are choices, and they make them, but please distinguish a "truly given choice" from a "falsely given choice."

India, not China.

Yeah, and the same still applies.

In either case, the situation is a LOT more complicated than you present. What people really want is to make something other than poverty wages in their chosen profession, whatever it is.

Right, and which pays more? Agriculture or manufacturing? Manufacturing. Thank you, and good bye.

As per the rest, you are almost certainly descended from people who made the choice you describe and who were happy about it. I am not. Sometimes people don't miss what they have until its already gone. As much as people flocked to the cities, our folk songs and stories are also full of people who regretted making that choice, IF it even was a true choice at all!

Sure, player. Please continue speaking for billions of people based solely on your imagination.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, player, if you create something, why is it not yours to do whatever you want with it?

Because you don't live in isolation and because we always have a responsibility to not harm others and to ensure that we don't destroy the world for future generations.

Sure, if one causes harm, the issue can either be settled between the two parties or through the legal system. Still, I don't understand your contention that someone doesn't deserve one's wealth which he earned/created through his labor.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll bite:

Inheritance should be taxed and in no way does it discourage savings.

You want to pass on all that hard earned wealth to whomever you choose? Well the state, who so helpfully handles a lot of the overheads that helped you earn that wonderful pile of wealth would like to also take a cut. Sure your children deserve the majority of said pile, and the state isn't going to get greedy now, but we think that since you get such a easy and helpful leg up in the wealth ladder, so should others who happen to have jackasses and losers as parents as well, afterall, it's not their fault their parents were chumps.

Obviously this leg up for the sons of losers isn't going to compare to what you get, so you'll likely be able to generate much more wealth, and have a significantly easier time doing so; therefore I wouldn't worry too much about us taking some of your fathers/mothers hard earned savings.

With respect,
The State.

Even so, my other points stand. Think of it as enforced charity. Deal with it, since it's a good thing to do.

You're right. Thank god that money went to bailouts and wars. Gotta keep America's corporate interests healthy!

Suppose there was no tax, and that the government didn't provide so many of these inefficiently provided services. Basically, think back 130 years ago with social clubs and charitable organizations which did the brunt work of today's government services. The system work, but the government over the years slowly subsidized these activities and/or muscled out the competition. This enables certain politicians to funnel money to their voter markets, thus securing their careers and all of those benefits. There's nothing within your argument that justifies the government's actions compared to previous alternatives.

It's just the "nature of the state," or "political incentives" which keep the money beyond our autonomy.

[Lootifer]

I just view the government as the natural place to hold such functions.

Now don't get me wrong I am talking about an ideal, well functioning, government, certainly not the US one (nor many others including my own countrys').

I think there HAS to be a reorginisation of the incentives for politicians and people in power.

My own pet theory is to abandon democracy and have government positions filled like any other job: Employ the best person of the job. Strip away all political affiliations, and just get the work (managing a country) done aas efficiently and effectively as possible.

You would still hold general elections, but you wouldn't vote for people, you should never vote for people. You'd vote for your ideals: Left, right, conservative, liberal. The people who are employeed in government then operate in a way that meets the desires of the population (for example say there was an overwhleming left sentiment: Taxes are higher, there is more public spending etc; say there is more right sentiment: Taxes are lower and goverment spending is restrained; say there is massive liberal support: AoG gets to marry! etc etc).

[radiojake]

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

I hate this reasoning - Do you think it is ok to use poor communities for toxic waste dumps and E-waste recycling plants also? Do you think the carcinogens that are released into the poorer communities are fair and equitable compensation? The communities that have little to no participation with destructive consumption patterns are the ones who invariably have to pay the costs -


Economic Imperialism at its finest -

[thegreekdog]

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

I hate this reasoning - Do you think it is ok to use poor communities for toxic waste dumps and E-waste recycling plants also? Do you think the carcinogens that are released into the poorer communities are fair and equitable compensation? The communities that have little to no participation with destructive consumption patterns are the ones who invariably have to pay the costs -


Economic Imperialism at its finest -

I don't understand how BBS's post gets to your post. Did I miss a post in between where BBS talked about compensation given to Chinese or Indian farmers for dumping toxic waste onto their land?

[radiojake]

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

I hate this reasoning - Do you think it is ok to use poor communities for toxic waste dumps and E-waste recycling plants also? Do you think the carcinogens that are released into the poorer communities are fair and equitable compensation? The communities that have little to no participation with destructive consumption patterns are the ones who invariably have to pay the costs -


Economic Imperialism at its finest -

I don't understand how BBS's post gets to your post. Did I miss a post in between where BBS talked about compensation given to Chinese or Indian farmers for dumping toxic waste onto their land?

Yeah sorry, my response is more in line with a theme that BBS and I have discussed over numerous threads -