Income Inequality?

[lilpixieofterror]

Cow Poke is arguing that a solution for income inequality is some sort of vocational training.

Right out of the military, I could make at least twice the current min wage or even 3 times as much the current min wage. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me or is that still not good enough for you?

I'm noting that such training, while meritorious, isn't reducing income inequality, as even middle-class wages have stagnated while the top percentage's incomes have grown. Thus, income inequality continues to increase, even for people who move up from minimum wage to median wage.

In other words, you'll not be satisfied until you can tell other people how to spend their money. Nice, now when you done running off the rich to another place, what do you plan on doing next?

[Sam]

You sound rather jealous. I did vocational training and seem to be doing rather well. Is there something wrong with training in a vocation Sam?

No. In fact, I'm one of the people here advocating that vocational training leads to higher real wages, rather than lower real wages. If you want the people arguing the opposite, that'd be CP, Sparko, seer, et al.

[Cow Poke]

Cow Poke is arguing that a solution for income inequality is some sort of vocational training.

No, I'm not. It's a whole bunch of things, ONE of which was vocational training. I think it makes a whole lot more sense to DO something than to endlessly post charts and graphs and link to articles. What, exactly, do you think you're going to accomplish, Sam? Maybe Obama will read your posts, and the light will go on, and he'll solve the problem?

I'm noting that such training, while meritorious, isn't reducing income inequality,

Neither is your bloviating.

[Sam]

Right out of the military, I could make at least twice the current min wage or even 3 times as much the current min wage. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me or is that still not good enough for you?



In other words, you'll not be satisfied until you can tell other people how to spend their money. Nice, now when you done running off the rich to another place, what do you plan on doing next?

You'd better hit the first page and read the thread through. You're not even clear on what the topic of discussion is. It's not about minimum wage earners making more than they're worth or higher-wage earners making less. It's about a widening gap of income inequality that makes the real wages of both those groups stagnate or decline over time while the top 1% of earners accumulate hugely disproportionate amounts of wealth.

[Cow Poke]

No. In fact, I'm one of the people here advocating that vocational training leads to higher real wages, rather than lower real wages. If you want the people arguing the opposite, that'd be CP, Sparko, seer, et al.

That's an outright lie, Sam. Or you're not paying attention. I gave examples in my own community where vocational training has INCREASED wages --- the welders and diesel mechanics were my examples.

[Sam]

No, I'm not. It's a whole bunch of things, ONE of which was vocational training. I think it makes a whole lot more sense to DO something than to endlessly post charts and graphs and link to articles. What, exactly, do you think you're going to accomplish, Sam? Maybe Obama will read your posts, and the light will go on, and he'll solve the problem?

Neither is your bloviating.

That is the only proposal you've put forth for reducing income inequality. If you have others, you haven't shared them or explained how they address the problem.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, and I meant to post this chart:

Your graph is misleading again.

First, it doesn't start at zero (a sure sign of data manipulation).

Second, it measures household income and not individual income. Remember, in the past 20 years, people have been waiting to get married till later, so of course household income is going to show a drop on your chart.

[Sam]

That's an outright lie, Sam. Or you're not paying attention. I gave examples in my own community where vocational training has INCREASED wages --- the welders and diesel mechanics were my examples.

You're not paying close enough attention to be accusing people of lying. If you had been paying attention (or even read the last graph), you would have noticed that I've repeatedly demonstrated that wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined in the past decades. So even though vocational training increases a wage compared to a recent wage, wages on the whole are declining compared to past decades. That decline is the relevant factor in increasing income inequality. That you can make higher than minimum wage with training isn't a contested premise.

Somebody fetch a child of five.

[lilpixieofterror]

You'd better hit the first page and read the thread through.

I have and thus far, you seem to be stuck in your ways. What do you propose to do, once the rich decided to simply pack up and move away. Remember, unlike the poor and the min wage earners, they can move away quite a bit more rapidly than you or I can. What do you propose to stop that from happening?

You're not even clear on what the topic of discussion is.

Sure, you're talking about taking money from some people and giving it to other people. You're also talking about trying to cap the rich's earnings, while being totally unaware that they could move away. Sorry Sam, but disagreeing with you and daring to point out the errors in your logic, doesn't mean I don't know what the discussion is about. I've read all 66 pages of this thread thus far. Believe it or not, it is possible to read your stuff and not end up agreeing with you.

It's not about minimum wage earners making more than they're worth or higher-wage earners making less. It's about a widening gap of income inequality that makes the real wages of both those groups stagnate or decline over time while the top 1% of earners accumulate hugely disproportionate amounts of wealth.

And who are you to tell people what they can and can't do, with their own money?

[Cow Poke]

You're not paying close enough attention to be accusing people of lying. If you had been paying attention (or even read the last graph), you would have noticed that I've repeatedly demonstrated that wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined in the past decades. So even though vocational training increases a wage compared to a recent wage, wages on the whole are declining compared to past decades. That decline is the relevant factor in increasing income inequality. That you can make higher than minimum wage with training isn't a contested premise.

Somebody fetch a child of five.

I shall leave you to your endless knowed-up bloviation which does NOTHING to help poor people.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're not paying close enough attention to be accusing people of lying. If you had been paying attention (or even read the last graph), you would have noticed that I've repeatedly demonstrated that wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined in the past decades. So even though vocational training increases a wage compared to a recent wage, wages on the whole are declining compared to past decades. That decline is the relevant factor in increasing income inequality. That you can make higher than minimum wage with training isn't a contested premise.

Somebody fetch a child of five.

Like I said Sam, your graph is misleading, but don't worry. Google will help you find the answers you want to hear. Lots of people, on the web, are wealth redistributionist and ignore basic facts, such as people getting married later in life and thus contributing to lower total household incomes.

[lilpixieofterror]

I shall leave you to your endless knowed-up bloviation which does NOTHING to help poor people.

Don't worry CP, he has Google to tell him all the answers (even ignoring the critical problems with his chart and the changing demographics of American society).

[Darth Executor]

per month last year. Are you suggesting that wages be brought down to a low enough level to compete with a Bangladeshi laborer earning $0.21 per hour?

Productivity, as noted before, continues to increase, as does GDP. The argument that laborers are working less hard than some era prior is totally unsubstantiated.

Why are you still making the false claim that productivity has anything to do with how hard laborers are working?

[Sam]

Your graph is misleading again.

First, it doesn't start at zero (a sure sign of data manipulation).

Second, it measures household income and not individual income. Remember, in the past 20 years, people have been waiting to get married till later, so of course household income is going to show a drop on your chart.

It doesn't start at zero because this particular chart uses 1993 as a baseline. Therefore, 1993 is "100%" — what this chart shows is that both GDP and real median household income increased from 1993 to ~1998. GDP continued to increase but real median household income began to decline. If you track real household income back several decades, you'll find that most household incomes have experienced either no real growth (stagnation) or have actually declined (as has been shown on this thread by noting the minimum wage, in real dollars, has declined from a high of over $10/hour in the late 60s to its current $7.25/hour).

Wikipedia can explain what's measured in household income:

Source: Household Income In the United States. Wikipedia. Accessed 2014.10.28

A household's income can be calculated various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it the following way: the income of every resident over the age of 15, including wages and salaries, unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments received, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.[5]

The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[6] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sam]

I have and thus far, you seem to be stuck in your ways. What do you propose to do, once the rich decided to simply pack up and move away. Remember, unlike the poor and the min wage earners, they can move away quite a bit more rapidly than you or I can. What do you propose to stop that from happening?



Sure, you're talking about taking money from some people and giving it to other people. You're also talking about trying to cap the rich's earnings, while being totally unaware that they could move away. Sorry Sam, but disagreeing with you and daring to point out the errors in your logic, doesn't mean I don't know what the discussion is about. I've read all 66 pages of this thread thus far. Believe it or not, it is possible to read your stuff and not end up agreeing with you.



And who are you to tell people what they can and can't do, with their own money?

If you've read the whole topic and you think I'm arguing against vocational training or think that vocational training has anything substantial to do with the problem of income inequality then I'm sorry to have overestimated your ability to follow what I believe is a very simple argument. But as I've summarized it above and your response is "who are you to tell people what they can and can't do with their own money?" I imagine you do now understand the gist of the argument and we can put you in the set of people who have no real problem with very high levels of income inequality.