Obama's most Conspicuous Failing

[eyeball]

That's how they think. That the economy is one static figure that they must divide equally according to their ideology. They don't understand that generally the economy grows constantly.

What they understand is that the real world is not some external abstract concept that exists outside of the economy. They don't subscribe to the Cornucopian fantasy that the economy can constantly grow without taking the limits that reality imposes into account, like the impact that constant unsustainable growth has on ecosystems for example.

[cybercoma]

No, but apparently someone needs to explain growth to you. The "whole" is not one static quantity. Proportion is irrelevant, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. The vast majority of economic growth in the last 35 years has disproportionately benefitted a tiny percentage of the population. Even as the "whole" keeps growing, the proportion of that whole that is held by the top 1% (in fact the top 0.1% is even worse) also continues to grow. When their proportion grows that by definition means there's less for everyone else.

[cybercoma]

That's how they think. That the economy is one static figure that they must divide equally according to their ideology. They don't understand that generally the economy grows constantly.

Do you need proportion explained to you as well?

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you need proportion explained to you as well?

He does, but good luck with that!

[Bryan]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you.

You're not going to explain it, because you don't understand it.

When their proportion grows that by definition means there's less for everyone else.

That is categorically false.

[cybercoma]

This isn't even worth the time. I have no idea how grown adults could be so ignorant.

[Smallc]

Let's say we have a pie which you have 10% of. That pie increases in size by 50%, and in the process you end up with 8% of it.

He's not wrong. It's very possible.

[cybercoma]

Sure. Let's use fake numbers. Say you start with 10%, then the whole grows and you're left with only 9%, grows again and you only have 7%, grows again and you only have 4%. That's what's happening now. Is it sustainable? Hell no. The end game is either a police state or violent revolution and it's pretty clear that police are being militarized.

Edited November 12, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

The middle class has not gained or lost ground (well theyve actually gained a very small amount), yet at the same time we've added half of the population (women) to the workforce.

The point was that it wasn't impossible as you said. It is very much possible.

[cybercoma]

Go take a look at that graph and stay on topic, instead of splitting hairs about it being "possible." Your point is entirely irrelevant. Because that's not what's happening, despite Bryan and Shady arguing that it is.

[Smallc]

Any study done shows that the North American middle class has stated in basically the same place for 40 years. Creating more wealth at the top, in that reality, is far from a bad thing.

[cybercoma]

Oh really? Growing inequality is far from a bad thing? Have you read any studies on that?

[On Guard for Thee]

Any study done shows that the North American middle class has stated in basically the same place for 40 years. Creating more wealth at the top, in that reality, is far from a bad thing.

Oh yeah, another 5 million dollar bonus for a bank manager who in fact creates dog dick is really good for everybody.

[Moonlight Graham]

That isn't how it works. The line by which we judge what is "poverty" today would have made people exceptionally wealthy in decades past. Things that used to be considered luxury items for the rich are now considered basics that even people on welfare expect. Everyone's piece is getting bigger. It's not a cliche, a high tide absolutely does float all boats.

Much of that is because things have become cheaper to produce, because (among other reasons): 1. this is the nature of technology (a computer costs much less now than 20 years ago), 2. North American jobs have moved to developing countries, reducing labour costs, and 3. big box stores like Walmart and Costco buy in bulk at cheaper costs. This has raised most people's standard of living in developed countries.

However, adjusted for inflation, the bottom 90% of incomes since 1980 have seen negative 5% loss, while the very top percentiles have seen incredible gains. After 30+ years of GDP growth, the vast majority of people have seen little to no or negative income gains, yet they're the ones producing and buying most of the products and services.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Distributional shares is an obvious spin game....income growth by actual quintiles is more informative...for real and inflation adjusted growth. Lower quintiles actually outperformed highest earners year over year from 1960's through 1980's. Of course, nobody cried for the rich as they suffered "income inequality" !

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-incomes-growth-real-annotated.gif

Edited November 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

We used to hunt those quintles up in the swamps in Manitoba. They'd spin like crazy on the way down if you just knocked one wing off. It was quite a game.

[Bonam]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. The vast majority of economic growth in the last 35 years has disproportionately benefitted a tiny percentage of the population. Even as the "whole" keeps growing, the proportion of that whole that is held by the top 1% (in fact the top 0.1% is even worse) also continues to grow. When their proportion grows that by definition means there's less for everyone else.

Say the size of the whole is "100 units" and the "rich" control 90% of it (90 units). That leaves 10 units for the "poor".

Now let's say we have some years of growth, but the proportion that the rich control also has grown. Say the size of the whole is now "200 units" but the rich control 94% of it (188 units). That leaves 12 units for the poor, they still are 2 units better off than before. (Let's say these numbers are already adjusted for inflation and population growth).

Yes, the rich benefited "disproportionately". But everyone is still better off than before. That's the very simple point people have been making here. You can't really argue with the math: when the economy grows overall, it is entirely possible for the top 1% to get the majority of the benefit, but everyone else to still get some benefit. In Canada, that is indeed precisely what has happened over the last several decades.

Now, you can certainly argue such a scenario is not ideal. That the rich should not control an ever greater % of overall wealth. And I would tend to agree with that argument. But to make the statements you have been making is just mathematically wrong.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

....Yes, the rich benefited "disproportionately". But everyone is still better off than before. That's the very simple point people have been making here. You can't really argue with the math: when the economy grows overall, it is entirely possible for the top 1% to get the majority of the benefit, but everyone else to still get some benefit. In Canada, that is indeed precisely what has happened over the last several decades.

Another valiant effort to explain what is obvious to all but those who refuse to understand because of another agenda.

[Bonam]

Another valiant effort to explain what is obvious to all but those who refuse to understand because of another agenda.

Yes, explaining the obvious does tend to get tiresome.

[Bonam]

Oh really? Growing inequality is far from a bad thing? Have you read any studies on that?

Let's say your country is 2 guys.

In scenario #1, guy 1 has $100k, and guy 2 has $120k.

In scenario #2, guy 1 still has $100k, but guy 2 has $100 million.

Which is the better scenario for the country? #2 is certainly much more unequal. However, the overall economic power/influence/ability of your country is much bigger in scenario #2. If the government can tax both these guys at say 10%, then it can get a lot more done in scenario #2. With the $100 million around, your country could afford a lot more than without it.

I would vote for scenario #2.

Certainly it might be even better in scenario 3, if guy 1 has $50 million and guy 2 has $50.1 million. But scenario 2 is still better than scenario 1.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Let's stop dealing with irrelevant hypothetical asides. The graphs have been posted. Inequality is growing and there's a ton of problems associated with that. Account for that.

No one has ever argued for equity, so your example is equally irrelevant and also a strawman.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no income inequality...because there is no income equality. It has never and will never exist.

Edited November 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Let's stop dealing with irrelevant hypothetical asides. The graphs have been posted. Inequality is growing and there's a ton of problems associated with that. Account for that.

No one has ever argued for equity, so your example is equally irrelevant and also a strawman.

In other words, let's stay away from mathematical clarity so we can deal with an ideological agenda. No thanks.

As for the posted graphs, they clearly show income growth across all quintiles up until ~2000. Since 2000, it's been stagnant or slightly dropping across all quintiles (the "lost decade"). Even the "top 0.01%" saw stagnation from 2000 onward.

So neither basic math nor the presented data support your assertions.

[Bob Macadoo]

Let's say your country is 2 guys.

In scenario #1, guy 1 has $100k, and guy 2 has $120k.

In scenario #2, guy 1 still has $100k, but guy 2 has $100 million.

Which is the better scenario for the country? #2 is certainly much more unequal. However, the overall economic power/influence/ability of your country is much bigger in scenario #2. If the government can tax both these guys at say 10%, then it can get a lot more done in scenario #2. With the $100 million around, your country could afford a lot more than without it.

I would vote for scenario #2.

Certainly it might be even better in scenario 3, if guy 1 has $50 million and guy 2 has $50.1 million. But scenario 2 is still better than scenario 1.

You'd be a fool then as Mr. Million has the influence.....there is no we. The gov't won't tax you equally.....guess who pays more for the "collective good"? This isn't about math.....these examples were just as inane in the "Harper isn't reducing payments to health care need." If you think your Grade 9 algebra has anything to do with socio-economics then I bet your knowledge of plant dissection in Biology will solve that whole genome research thing.

[Michael Hardner]

You'd be a fool then as Mr. Million has the influence.....there is no we. The gov't won't tax you equally.....guess who pays more for the "collective good"?

If you're concerned that the top earners are not given enough recognition for paying more for programs, don't be. Government has been on a multi-decade campaign to ensure that economic gains go almost exclusively to the top earners, so rest assured that government works for them more than for others.