Who gets the credit?

If you've been listening to Mike Huckabee or John Edwards on the Presidential trail, you may have heard that the U.S. is becoming a nation of rising inequality and shrinking opportunity. We'd refer those campaigns to a new study of income mobility by the Treasury Department that exposes those claims as so much populist hokum.

OK, "hokum" is our word. The study, to be released today, is a careful, detailed piece of research by professional economists that avoids political judgments. But what it does do is show beyond doubt that the U.S. remains a dynamic society marked by rapid and mostly upward income mobility. Much as they always have, Americans on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder continue to climb into the middle and sometimes upper classes in remarkably short periods of time.

The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.

Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010855

Source:
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/incomemobilitystudyfinal.pdf

========

So, who gets the credit or did the author have it all wrong? Or will this be slammed as just another "right wing talking point"? The devil is in the details, isnt it?

PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.

i would give the credit to god

i'll read it after i've had coffee, killed some nubs, then had 5 beers

I'd say capitalism.

Wait a sec. That can't be right. Capitalism only makes the poor get poorer and the rich richer.

It must be government then. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor to help them get into a higher income bracket.

Oh wait. That would mean higher taxes.

Must be a fluke.
Post edited by Buzzed at 11/13/2007 6:36:30 PM

should be an interesting search of data, i think what most likely happened is they cherrypicked data like they did iraq intelligence under the benevolent oversight of darth cheney.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

I can buy it, I could be one of those sampled.. in 1996 my family would have been in the low end, we had 1 child at the time, my husband was making $6/hr, and I was working in a restaurant for about the same... while going to school, in 2005 I was an RN, and my husband had went through a training program through his job and had almost tripled his pay. I know quite a few families that were doing the same. Not everyone in that low bracket wants to stay there and I can believe that around half did something about it over a 10 year span.

---

FWF|BooBoo
TeamWarfare Competition Staff
Email: BooBoo@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_vegas, #twl_rvs

Most people make progressively more money as they get older until they retire.

Hmmmm. Its never worked like that before.

The fact we generally all increase our incomes in our lives as we get older obscures the real comparisons that need to be made.

How does someone who is 35 compare to someone who was 35 thirty years ago, on average and job by job.

If I try to recollect the purchasing power of someone who had my same job 20-25 years ago, I'd say I don't have the same purchasing power. Yes, I have more purchasing power than when I was 15. Big Whoop.
Post edited by Stryk at 11/13/2007 7:45:11 PM

___________________________________________
"My answer is to burn all the fucking oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.” - R.D.

If anybody hasn't noticed. We're in competition with blackmarket labor from illegal aliens and $1/hr (sometimes $1/day) labor in China. And its starting to show.

I don't have anywhere near the retirement benefits of co-workers who have a hire in date about 1 year before mine. Those who hired in after me have have even less.

They've gutted my pension, unless I work until I'm 67.

My healthcare is turning into a joke.

This is happening all over.
___________________________________________
"My answer is to burn all the fucking oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.” - R.D.

Mostly the people who worked the jobs get the credit.

Originally posted by: [-NM-]-SS-

The devil is in the details, isnt it?

Yeah, and when you put this report in with some context the situation isn't quite as rosy.


My first problem with this is probably best explained by thinking of it in terms of the escalator metaphor brought up in the treasury departments study.

Yes, 58% of the bottom quintile have risen up the escalator. They've ran while others stould still. Good for them. An inspiration to all of us, blah blah blah. The problem is that the escalator is broken. The real earnings of the bottom quintiles has remained stagnant for the last twenty years and between 2001 and 2004 it actually dropped(arguably). People now(or if trends continue soon will) have to run against the escalator rather than with it.


Another problem I have with the study is that it does not include family and personal wealth in the mix. These tend to be far mor stagnant. The 25 year old son of a factory worker, the 25 year old son of a network analyst, and the 25 year old son of a major investor might all start out with entry level jobs and they can all work their way up the company ladder. But you're kidding yourself if you believe they have the same opportunities.

Elizabeth Paige Laurie got a degree from USC and access to any job she wanted. Elena Martinez got a degree form a community college and with hard work she might retire as middle management. That's just the way it is. I don't think that there is any way to legislate that type of shit away, but to me it does make all the "taxing the rich is unfair" or "evil liberalz are waging class warfare" arguments into complete jokes.



The third thing that jumps out at me is the report doesn't really say anything about standard of living. Health Care, education, housing, and energy all of these things cost are growing significantly faster than median income.

Originally posted by: enissRT
Mostly the people who worked the jobs get the credit.

That was exactly what I was thinking.

Originally posted by: enissRT
Yeah, and when you put this report in with some context the situation isn't quite as rosy.

My first problem with this is probably best explained by thinking of it in terms of the escalator metaphor brought up in the treasury departments study.

Yes, 58% of the bottom quintile have risen up the escalator. They've ran while others stould still. Good for them. An inspiration to all of us, blah blah blah. The problem is that the escalator is broken. The real earnings of the bottom quintiles has remained stagnant for the last twenty years and between 2001 and 2004 it actually dropped(arguably). People now(or if trends continue soon will) have to run against the escalator rather than with it.

Provide proof that the escalator is broken. Bear in mind you are taking into account the economy during Clinton and Bush. Otherwise you are saying there wasnt any economic expansion during those 10 years.

Originally posted by: enissRT
Another problem I have with the study is that it does not include family and personal wealth in the mix. These tend to be far mor stagnant. The 25 year old son of a factory worker, the 25 year old son of a network analyst, and the 25 year old son of a major investor might all start out with entry level jobs and they can all work their way up the company ladder. But you're kidding yourself if you believe they have the same opportunities.

Elizabeth Paige Laurie got a degree from USC and access to any job she wanted. Elena Martinez got a degree form a community college and with hard work she might retire as middle management. That's just the way it is. I don't think that there is any way to legislate that type of shit away, but to me it does make all the "taxing the rich is unfair" or "evil liberalz are waging class warfare" arguments into complete jokes.

Interesting. Seems you are willing to give people credit for their own growth / change and then turn around and say this? Odd you would presume people stay static in any field instead of seeking better employment after acknowledging they have bettered themselves. Hell, the study describes it as "income mobility", therefore it shows people are not static. Adding "taxing the rich" and "evil liberalz" is empty rhetoric designed to support a fallacy.

Originally posted by: enissRT
The third thing that jumps out at me is the report doesn't really say anything about standard of living. Health Care, education, housing, and energy all of these things cost are growing significantly faster than median income.

I disagree. Seems to me they have taken into account the rise of inflation during the 10 year study due to adjusted Dollars.

PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.

Ron Paul also believes there is a disparty and feels it's going in the wrong direction. To me, he is the best Republican candidate....maybe the best overall.

Another important indicator is the percentage of the population living in poverty.

For example, from 1993-2001 the US economy was "booming" and we had strong GDP growth year after year. However, what those glowing stats do not tell you is that during that boom period, the percentage of the population living in poverty remained almost entirely unchanged, at approximately 13%.

That would indicate that while people were moving out of poverty, people were also falling through the cracks into poverty - and as we all know, it is more difficult to escape poverty once you are in it.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: Abaques
If Snake and Cimat agree on something then I think its case closed.

^^^ it could mean that the poor where just having more babies to keep that percentage higher. I am just being a little funny but that statement is sadly true. Seems like the poorer people i come in contact with through my businesses seem to have a different mentality than others that seem to succeed in life. Seem to not understand birth control is needed if you cant afford the kids you already have. just my 2 cents

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Ron Paul also believes there is a disparty and feels it's going in the wrong direction. To me, he is the best Republican candidate....maybe the best overall.

If you read the article, that is exactly what they are debunking. Or should I say challenging these candidates on. Is it really as bad as they claim?

I dont think it is. It's a scare tactic in my eyes and both parties are guilty of it. In essence, put the data out there for people to look over and decide for themselves.

Originally posted by: cimat1984
Another important indicator is the percentage of the population living in poverty.

For example, from 1993-2001 the US economy was "booming" and we had strong GDP growth year after year. However, what those glowing stats do not tell you is that during that boom period, the percentage of the population living in poverty remained almost entirely unchanged, at approximately 13%.

That would indicate that while people were moving out of poverty, people were also falling through the cracks into poverty - and as we all know, it is more difficult to escape poverty once you are in it.

I have no illusions that poverty doesnt exist. Let's get that out right from the jump. What bothers me is how it is exploited -especially by the democrats. Are there some valid points? Sure. All of them? HELL NO.

Example: LBJ started the war on poverty [The Great Society]. It's 40 years later and guess what? We still have poverty. We spend billions and billions to fight that and it has been as successful as the war on drugs. Throwing money at a problem isnt the way to fix it. All that creates is fraud, waste, and abuse.

So who decides the fate of the people? The people themselves or the government?

I'll put stock in people over some gvt asshole anyday and this report supports that. If the gvt does anything, it should provide incentives for businesses or their creation in our poor and urban areas. That would include education too. An educated workforce is a force to be reckoned with.

PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Ron Paul also believes there is a disparty and feels it's going in the wrong direction. To me, he is the best Republican candidate....maybe the best overall.

If you read the article, that is exactly what they are debunking. Or should I say challenging these candidates on. Is it really as bad as they claim?

I dont think it is. It's a scare tactic in my eyes and both parties are guilty of it. In essence, put the data out there for people to look over and decide for themselves.

Originally posted by: cimat1984
Another important indicator is the percentage of the population living in poverty.

For example, from 1993-2001 the US economy was "booming" and we had strong GDP growth year after year. However, what those glowing stats do not tell you is that during that boom period, the percentage of the population living in poverty remained almost entirely unchanged, at approximately 13%.

That would indicate that while people were moving out of poverty, people were also falling through the cracks into poverty - and as we all know, it is more difficult to escape poverty once you are in it.

I have no illusions that poverty doesnt exist. Let's get that out right from the jump. What bothers me is how it is exploited -especially by the democrats. Are there some valid points? Sure. All of them? HELL NO.

Example: LBJ started the war on poverty [The Great Society]. It's 40 years later and guess what? We still have poverty. We spend billions and billions to fight that and it has been as successful as the war on drugs. Throwing money at a problem isnt the way to fix it. All that creates is fraud, waste, and abuse.

So who decides the fate of the people? The people themselves or the government?

I'll put stock in people over some gvt asshole anyday and this report supports that. If the gvt does anything, it should provide incentives for businesses or their creation in our poor and urban areas. That would include education too. An educated workforce is a force to be reckoned with.

LBJ's war on poverty was obviously a failure. However, I think that will add'l investments in people (not handouts)- we can lower the number of people living in poverty dramatically.

Should the government help make these investments via schools, healthcare, etc? That is up to the voters to decide. I believe that it not only a moral duty to fight poverty in our nation, but an economic duty as well.

Handouts are never the long-term solution to anything. People should be able to support themselves by the fruits of their own labor.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: Abaques
If Snake and Cimat agree on something then I think its case closed.

SS, you've responded to everyone but stryk, and i feel he brings up a very important point.

Originally posted by: Stryk
Most people make progressively more money as they get older until they retire.

Hmmmm. Its never worked like that before.

The fact we generally all increase our incomes in our lives as we get older obscures the real comparisons that need to be made.

How does someone who is 35 compare to someone who was 35 thirty years ago, on average and job by job.

If I try to recollect the purchasing power of someone who had my same job 20-25 years ago, I'd say I don't have the same purchasing power. Yes, I have more purchasing power than when I was 15. Big Whoop.

seems like stryk has pointed out a major flaw in this study. how can you continue to defend the information you posted without first addressing this?
Post edited by questionmark at 11/14/2007 10:16:41 AM

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
Ron Paul also believes there is a disparty and feels it's going in the wrong direction. To me, he is the best Republican candidate....maybe the best overall.

If you read the article, that is exactly what they are debunking. Or should I say challenging these candidates on. Is it really as bad as they claim?

I know, I was only pointing out that there are more candidates saying it than you posted, that's all. But it's not just the candidates saying this, I've heard this for the last several years from financial experts too.

I've always thought that the best use for the word "Hokum"
was the Russian attack helicopter....the KA-50.

---

TWL|Lord Skeletor
TeamWarfare Competition Staff
Email: Skeletor@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_GRAW, #twl_rvs

Cool copter......unless its coming after you.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: Abaques
If Snake and Cimat agree on something then I think its case closed.

Originally posted by: questionmark
SS, you've responded to everyone but stryk, and i feel he brings up a very important point.

Originally posted by: Stryk
Most people make progressively more money as they get older until they retire.

Hmmmm. Its never worked like that before.

The fact we generally all increase our incomes in our lives as we get older obscures the real comparisons that need to be made.

How does someone who is 35 compare to someone who was 35 thirty years ago, on average and job by job.

If I try to recollect the purchasing power of someone who had my same job 20-25 years ago, I'd say I don't have the same purchasing power. Yes, I have more purchasing power than when I was 15. Big Whoop.

seems like stryk has pointed out a major flaw in this study. how can you continue to defend the information you posted without first addressing this?

Because I viewed it as sarcasm with the rolled eyes not aimed at me. If anything, it seems more of a preemptive condescension to others. If I am wrong, then I am confident he will point it out. Stryk doesnt seem like the kind of person who will put up with much shit.

======

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major
I know, I was only pointing out that there are more candidates saying it than you posted, that's all. But it's not just the candidates saying this, I've heard this for the last several years from financial experts too.

No worries man, just going off what the article pointed out for names. After I replied to you and left for work, I felt bad in the way I responded because you are a good dude and rarely engage in skullduggery that is generally the standard and uncalled for on my part. For that, I apologize.

BTW, what do you think of Ben Stein? I heard he thinks the economy isnt in the dire straights that is being portrayed through the media.

PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

No worries man, just going off what the article pointed out for names. After I replied to you and left for work, I felt bad in the way I responded because you are a good dude and rarely engage in skullduggery that is generally the standard and uncalled for on my part. For that, I apologize.

BTW, what do you think of Ben Stein? I heard he thinks the economy isnt in the dire straights that is being portrayed through the media.

I didn't take any offense to your post, just figured you were in a hurry. I do like and respect Ben Stein, I haven't heard him speak about this issue per se; but he's usually very logical in his assesments. I just know in talking to several advisors, that they are predicting a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Meaning, fewer middle class. My accountant also believes this to be true, so I don't know what to tell you other than I do believe it to be true. This will ramifications for the rich and the poor alike because right now, the middle class is the back bone of the IRS.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: questionmark
SS, you've responded to everyone but stryk, and i feel he brings up a very important point.

Originally posted by: Stryk
Most people make progressively more money as they get older until they retire.

Hmmmm. Its never worked like that before.

The fact we generally all increase our incomes in our lives as we get older obscures the real comparisons that need to be made.

How does someone who is 35 compare to someone who was 35 thirty years ago, on average and job by job.

If I try to recollect the purchasing power of someone who had my same job 20-25 years ago, I'd say I don't have the same purchasing power. Yes, I have more purchasing power than when I was 15. Big Whoop.

seems like stryk has pointed out a major flaw in this study. how can you continue to defend the information you posted without first addressing this?

Because I viewed it as sarcasm with the rolled eyes not aimed at me. If anything, it seems more of a preemptive condescension to others. If I am wrong, then I am confident he will point it out. Stryk doesnt seem like the kind of person who will put up with much shit.

i don't really care how stryk meant it or how you interpreted his post. what he says is true, and until you address it this report you've posted is worthless because all it does is reinforce something thats been happening since capitalism was put into practice and in no way indicates any growth or upswing in the economy.

the only thing this study shows is that people make more money as they get older. It says nothing about the state of our economy.

Originally posted by: questionmark
i don't really care how stryk meant it or how you interpreted his post. what he says is true, and until you address it this report you've posted is worthless because all it does is reinforce something thats been happening since capitalism was put into practice and in no way indicates any growth or upswing in the economy.

the only thing this study shows is that people make more money as they get older. It says nothing about the state of our economy.

Haha, ok. Did you read the Treasury report via the link I provided?

If you had read the article and the report it was based on, then you would know it isnt really about the economy per se, it is more about people being mobile in their income. See that part that says "..what it does do is show beyond doubt that the U.S. remains a dynamic society marked by rapid and mostly upward income mobility."? So if the economy wasnt that good, then people wouldnt do as well and move up as competition becomes tighter for scarce higher paying jobs. What it points to is that a few candidates are saying is untrue. Now whether you agree or not, you need to decide.

If you dont like the %, then go show the Treasury dept how it should be done. Ask for access to all of those tax returns so you can compile a report and get back to me. I prefer to think the report is fairly accurate and is about as unbiased as it gets. So trying to grandstand that this is all about the economy is moot. The focus is on people moving on up.

PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Haha, ok. Did you read the Treasury report via the link I provided?

I think you've totally missed that point.

What does it matter if people make more money when the dollar is worthless?

Weeee I got a 5% raise last year but the dollar is down 30%. I'm really raking it in now! If I try not to think about it, I can fool myself into thinking that I'm making more money instead of realizing I actually got a 25% cut in pay.

Originally posted by: Digm

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Haha, ok. Did you read the Treasury report via the link I provided?

I think you've totally missed that point.

What does it matter if people make more money when the dollar is worthless?

Weeee I got a 5% raise last year but the dollar is down 30%. I'm really raking it in now! If I try not to think about it, I can fool myself into thinking that I'm making more money instead of realizing I actually got a 25% cut in pay.

Interesting point.

The way I read it is that even though the Dollar is worth less then 10 years ago, people have still managed to move out of the lowest / lower brackets and moved into higher brackets. So, by your admission, then you would fall into one of the % that didnt increase their "quintile".

So no, I dont think I missed anything.

PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.