Ron Johnson thinks that Income Inequality is the American way

[emcee0]

http://news.groopspeak.com/republican-senator-says-that-income-inequality-is-the-american-way/
It's like he's purposely trying to lose.

[Zioneer]

Man, it's still so aggravating that Feingold lost to a tool like Johnson in the first place.

[Joe Republic]

Well, he's not wrong.  The difference is that to him and his kind, it's isn't a problem because Murica is right and you're wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Man, it's still so aggravating that Feingold lost to a tool like Johnson in the first place.

Yes, johnson is a tool and a dick, but he'll be castrated soon.

[MaxQue]

The premise of that thread is a lie. "Ron Johnson thinks..."

It implies he is able of thinking.

[Zioneer]

The premise of that thread is a lie. "Ron Johnson thinks..."

It implies he is able of thinking.

Oh, I'm sure he thinks. He thinks of how big his first paycheck from a Koch brothers thinktank will be.

[Badger]

The premise of that thread is a lie. "Ron Johnson thinks..."

It implies he is able of thinking.

Oh, I'm sure he thinks. He thinks of how big his first paycheck from a Koch brothers thinktank will be.

Nah, he already pisses gold. He's the kind of guy who contributes to AFP, not get paid by them.

[Young Conservative]

I love Ron Johnson... I think he'll pull a win out in 2016. Also i think this headline is misleading

[Zioneer]

I love Ron Johnson... I think he'll pull a win out in 2016. Also i think this headline is misleading

Ron Johnson is a corporate tool and everyone knows it, but okay. And how specifically is the headline misleading? He's comparing greater income equality to North Korea (which is inaccurate anyway due to the Kim dynasty and the military being uber-rich and everyone else being quite poor).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This graphfrom the OP's link is horrible at demonstrating the point it's trying to make:


It shows that all groups have had rising incomes but it's impossible to eyeball if the relative levels of income for the different groups have changed.

After all, if the lowest quintile in 1967 was making $2,000 and the Top 5% was making $20,000 (10 times as much) while in 2011 it was $20,000 and $180.000 (9 times as much) then income inequality would have decreased over that period.  But those numbers are rough eyeball estimates and likely are off a good bit.

Rather than scaling in dollars, a scale of a percentage of one of the datasets, say the Third Quintile since it's in the middle, would make the data easy to see.

[muon2]

Here's a better chart in response to Ernest. This is also from the historical household income data at the US Census. I found that the top of the second quintile (40%) was the most stable in real dollars, only increasing 5% from 1969 to 2014, so I used that to compare the other quintiles. The bottom quintile remained almost unchanged compared to the second quintile during that span of years and is very close to half the second quintile.

The growth is in the upper three quintiles. The middle quintile grew about 17% compared to the bottom two quintiles. Since the bottom two quintiles had little growth in real dollars, that 17% is close to the growth in real dollars since 1967.  The fourth quintile grew at 35% compared to the bottom two quintiles, or about double the rate of the middle. The limit for the upper 5% grew at 54% compared to the bottom two quintiles, or about triple the rate of the middle. My apologies for the year sequence which looked fine until the software rendered it to a bitmap.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thanks.  That definitely shows the change, tho it doesn't look as dramatic as the other graph, which is why I suspect the other was used.  It always peeves me when bad data representation is used to support a point, and it peeves me even more when it wasn't needed as is the case here.

Of course, there's still plenty of other things that could be done to massage the data, such as using a different definition of income, but at least then one is debating what should be measured, not how the resulting data is presented.

[Figueira]

If anything, it's actually worse than what the title suggests.

[muon2]

Thanks.  That definitely shows the change, tho it doesn't look as dramatic as the other graph, which is why I suspect the other was used.  It always peeves me when bad data representation is used to support a point, and it peeves me even more when it wasn't needed as is the case here.

Of course, there's still plenty of other things that could be done to massage the data, such as using a different definition of income, but at least then one is debating what should be measured, not how the resulting data is presented.

People looking for dramatic change like to show the actual dollars since the compounding effect of inflation will dominate the graph and the changes appear large. Once the result is controlled for inflation, as in my chart, more meaningful relationships can be seen. Personally I think my graph could make their case, but they would then have to dig deeper to say what had happened and what they would do to fix it.

As I noted on a similar thread on the Economics board, I think the data is quite telling. What it clearly shows is that income for unskilled and semiskilled work has lost value compared to skilled labor. I would like to see data from the first half of the twentieth century to see if the relationship was more stable during the era of heavy manufacturing and its need for semiskilled labor.

[Torie]

Here's a better chart in response to Ernest. This is also from the historical household income data at the US Census. I found that the top of the second quintile (40%) was the most stable in real dollars, only increasing 5% from 1969 to 2014, so I used that to compare the other quintiles. The bottom quintile remained almost unchanged compared to the second quintile during that span of years and is very close to half the second quintile.

The growth is in the upper three quintiles. The middle quintile grew about 17% compared to the bottom two quintiles. Since the bottom two quintiles had little growth in real dollars, that 17% is close to the growth in real dollars since 1967.  The fourth quintile grew at 35% compared to the bottom two quintiles, or about double the rate of the middle. The limit for the upper 5% grew at 54% compared to the bottom two quintiles, or about triple the rate of the middle. My apologies for the year sequence which looked fine until the software rendered it to a bitmap.

Does this chart exclude transfer payments from its numbers? My assumption is that the ratcheting up of income by the top quintile has generated more revenue to finance increased transfer payments for the poor. Over time, some are worried that the ever increasing percentage of the population getting substantial transfer payments, will take on a life of its own, ala Greece, leading to severe macro-economic problems. The fix of course, is to destroy the teachers' unions, and professionalize the teacher class, but I digress. Until then, I expect current trends to continue. Which is a great tragedy, at once immoral, and ultimately destabilizing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Income inequality is a naturally occurring thing and shouldn't be considered necessarily bad, but yes, this isn't the type of statement you want to make when seeking reelection.

[muon2]

The data in my chart is from the Census. Here's their description of income.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you now joined the artful trollers with your teacher union rant?

[Simfan34]

This is a bad thread that became a good thread.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The focus on "income inequality" is misplaced; there should be a larger focus on wealth inequality and income inequality. In truth, the two cannot be separated and when economic inequality is perceived as a function of wealth and income, the problem is rendered very severe.

[muon2]

The focus on "income inequality" is misplaced; there should be a larger focus on wealth inequality and income inequality. In truth, the two cannot be separated and when economic inequality is perceived as a function of wealth and income, the problem is rendered very severe.

I agree that inequality in both wealth and income are at play here. The perceptions may also be closely linked. However, the causes are quite separate and the means to address them are also quite separate. Conflating the two tends to block solutions since it's easy to poke holes by showing how a proposal wouldn't address either the income inequality or the wealth inequality.

[Torie]

The focus on "income inequality" is misplaced; there should be a larger focus on wealth inequality and income inequality. In truth, the two cannot be separated and when economic inequality is perceived as a function of wealth and income, the problem is rendered very severe.

I agree that inequality in both wealth and income are at play here. The perceptions may also be closely linked. However, the causes are quite separate and the means to address them are also quite separate. Conflating the two tends to block solutions since it's easy to poke holes by showing how a proposal wouldn't address either the income inequality or the wealth inequality.

Aside from the estate tax, a wealth tax would be hard to administer, and would raise a host of policy problems. Folks would tend to buy unproductive assets that they can secret, like jewelry and gold. They would tend to favor non publically traded assets where games can be played with valuation. None of that would be good for the economy. We want folks to invest in stuff that will help the economy grow. And for really rich people, it would tend to cause them to renounce their citizenship and decamp to some pleasant place that does not levy a wealth tax. It's one thing to have assets taken away after you and your spouse die. It's another to have them taken away while alive. If the wealth tax were Draconian enough, partner Dan and I might move to Halifax and move next to DC Fine or something. Dan of course would agitate to move to independent Samoa.

I quite enjoy my anti teachers' unions rants. Expect more of them!

[Landslide Lyndon]

That reminds me of Lindsay Graham who tried to defend Romney back in 2012 by saying that trying to avoid pay your taxes is as American as apple pie.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aside from the estate tax, a wealth tax would be hard to administer, and would raise a host of policy problems.

This is the case with all taxes, Torie.

[Torie]

Aside from the estate tax, a wealth tax would be hard to administer, and would raise a host of policy problems.

This is the case with all taxes, Torie.

It's a matter of degree. Everything is a balancing test. The "best" taxes are sales taxes, but they're regressive.

[DC Al Fine]

Aside from the estate tax, a wealth tax would be hard to administer, and would raise a host of policy problems.

This is the case with all taxes, Torie.

It's a matter of degree. Everything is a balancing test. The "best" taxes are sales taxes, but they're regressive.

Precisely.  As Tories has noted, wealth taxes are notoriously hard to administer compared to income taxes or a VAT.