In before page 10

 

Originally Posted by cmval

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-...ts-2012-6?op=1

Long article but a lot of charts.

Personally I dont have much to add to this article. This is stuff I have been bishing about since I have been posting again in OT. Just interested in reading a good discussion on this.

If Romney is elected I see this only getting worse considering he basically doesnt give a fuck about anyone unless you are rich. IMO

Two things to think about with these studies. One is that they don't account for the fact that those who are rich today most likely won't be in ten years while those who are poor today also most likely won't be in ten years. The other thought is that this article is wrong when it frames it as a "capital vs labor" struggle when in fact it is a "free market vs socialism" struggle. And I agree with you about Romney but see no difference with Obama.

 

Originally Posted by (oIo)

That article is just same bullshit. Confuse issues with charts and statistics. It oversimplifies just about everything. Blah, blah, blah.

Yep, never have I read such a confusing oversimplification.

Oh, wait a sec.

 

Originally Posted by NUTZREALHUGE

care to elaborate on the "rich wont be rich in 10 years and poor wont be poor in 10 years" theory?

it seems like the opposite has been true over the last 50 years

 

So what does that mobility look like? Take the top earners in America. Using IRS data, the Tax Foundation has shown that of the 675,000 taxpayers who reported $1 million in pre-tax income at some point between 1999 and 2007, only about half remained millionaires just one year later (see figure). A tiny 6 percent, or 38,000 people, retained their millionaire status for all nine years. In other words, most top earners are likely to lose their membership in the millionaires club.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/1...and-for-poorer

I call bullshit, because I have evidence to the contrary:

http://www.pocketfives.com/f13/how-a...thread-665353/

It is rare to stay in any one group for a long time.

of course.. but i dont think that is the point and i think u are skewing it.

for instance if there were 10 distinct levels labelled 1-10, u do agree that u would see people switching groups but that it would be more likely to not deviate a ton.

like a 10 year listing for a person is going to look like:

1-1-1-2-3-2-2-2-1-3

and not:

1-7-3-9-1-5-9-9-1-2

so while u may drop out of the top or bottom 10%, it is very rare that when u leave that group one year, u would likely be within a level or two of it in the next.

or do u really think there is a lot of volatilty in which group u fall into from year to year?

 

Originally Posted by ennzo

Yes, this country needs lots more entitlement programs IMO, everyone knows those rich bastards didnt work for what they got

Stop dumbing down the conversation or just go back to posting in the comments section on foxnews.com

 

Originally Posted by AmSlim22

or do u really think there is a lot of volatilty in which group u fall into from year to year?

There seems to be more volatility as to which group you are in by decade than by year. To some extent I would expect that since I would assume that most young people start out at the bottom and within a decade or two many have climbed up into the middle class or even higher. And most young people that inherit a bunch of money but have no business sense don't stay in the upper class for long.

Solution?

Or are we just gonna keep on bitching like the piece of shit people in the Occupy movement.

 

Originally Posted by Prestonluv

Solution?

Or are we just gonna keep on bitching like the piece of shit people in the Occupy movement.

End the FED, return to some form of sound money, simplify the tax code, get government to stay within a budget and quit giving everyone free everything and stop starting wars? Oh and legalize marijuana and online poker.

 

Originally Posted by cmval

If Romney is elected I see this only getting worse considering he basically doesnt give a fuck about anyone unless you are rich. IMO

Good point. Clearly policies that fund social welfare without regarding to productivity and economic output, and those which punish the wealthy and corporations with higher taxes are the correct model for a country's economic growth.

How's the American economy performing under Obama, by the way? Speaking of countries that favor worker's rights and expansive government-funded social welfare provisions, how is Europe getting along?

 

Originally Posted by resilient

Good point. Clearly policies that fund social welfare without regarding to productivity and economic output, and those which punish the wealthy and corporations with higher taxes are the correct model for a country's economic growth.

How's the American economy performing under Obama, by the way? Speaking of countries that favor worker's rights and expansive federally-funded social welfare provisions, how is Europe getting along?

Im not happy with Obama either. Never said I was. Never defended him at all. In fact if you read my post history you will see I dislike Obama as much as anyone.