![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe video above was put out in February of this year, so it's not really in response to any current happenings as much as a statement of what appears to be true. Granted, I had some skepticism, and then I unrelatedly found this release:
Washington DC--The Treasury Department today released a study on income mobility of U.S. taxpayers from 1996 through 2005.
The study showed that, just as in the previous 10-year period, a majority of American taxpayers move from one income group to another over time. The study also recognizes that the dynamism of the U.S. economy significantly contributes to income mobility.
The study itself is quite illuminating - I was fairly accepting of the idea that income mobility generally doesn't happen, even if the framework exists for it, but the data appears to be completely destroying that viewpoint for me. Now, granted, the last few economic years have almost certainly slowed this, but this is new information for me, and it also puts into question about the overall stagnancy of wages - are we truly seeing stagnant wages, or are we simply seeing people replaced in income brackets as others move up?
Is everything we think we know about income mobility wrong?
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 16:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 16:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 16:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 17:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 17:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 17:06 (UTC)I don't see what the latter has to do with anything - if everyone's wages are rising, some can still rise faster than others.
The common wisdom is that wages are stagnant. That does not appear to be the case according to this study - what is the issue with it?
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 18:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 18:44 (UTC)With stagnant real wages and rising prices and continuing inflation money can rise by amount but the increase means nothing in a practical sense.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 20:30 (UTC)Trick questions.
Date: 14/10/11 20:34 (UTC)Truth.
Date: 14/10/11 20:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 20:39 (UTC)bottom quintile is defined as under 15k in 1996 then under 19k in 2005
the second as 15k then 19k,
the third as 25k then 33k,
the median as 32k then 42k,
the third as 39k to 51k,
and the fourth (apparently before it goes to top %) as 60k then 83k.
Hate it break it to you, but the first three categories are all poor people. Live in a big city, and I would say the first 5 categories are poor people. If mobility from poverty to working poor is the great example that the poor aren't getting poorer then I don't know what to say. I guess they should feel lucky they can afford a refrigerator AND a car.
Re: Trick questions.
Date: 14/10/11 20:44 (UTC)Re: Trick questions.
Date: 14/10/11 20:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 20:46 (UTC)I think you're just pasting my point right now, in any regard, and trying to paint it as something it's not.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 20:58 (UTC)"It’s possible to come up with a definition of what constitutes "middle income," but it will depend on how large a slice of the middle one prefers. If we look at U.S. Census Bureau statistics, which divide household income into quintiles, we could say that the "middle" quintile, or 20 percent, might be the "middle" class. In 2006, the average income for households in that middle group was $48,561 and the upper limit was $60,224. But we could just as reasonably use another Census figure, median family income. In 2006, the median – or "middle" – income for a family of four was $70,354. Half of all four-person families made more; half made less. "
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/defining-the-middle-class/
So basically your metric for defining the middle class is very partisan. I actually go by, you know, values in the middle, instead of values that are considered poverty in many states all the way up to this alleged 'third' quintile.
Re: Trick questions.
Date: 14/10/11 21:00 (UTC)Re: Trick questions.
Date: 14/10/11 21:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 21:07 (UTC)I'm constantly bringing up cost of living here - to automatically assume $33k is poor doesn't help your case at all.
So basically your metric for defining the middle class is very partisan. I actually go by, you know, values in the middle, instead of values that are considered poverty in many states all the way up to this alleged 'third' quintile.
Partisan toward what? Looks like we're talking individual returns anyway, not family income, so your comparison is off.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 21:12 (UTC)I'm sure it doesn't. It's no wonder you believe everything is fine when you consider families making 33k to be well-off.
Partisan toward what? Looks like we're talking individual returns anyway, not family income, so your comparison is off.
We are? I guess you didn't read the study you yourself linked. Individual tax returns are used, but households are very clearly compared.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 21:18 (UTC)In some places, they may be. To assume $33k = poor is folly.
We are? I guess you didn't read the study you yourself linked. Individual tax returns are used, but households are very clearly compared.
Both are compared in various places. You're moving the goalposts for...well, no, it's not a strange reason, I know exactly why.
Are you interested in circling back to the point that even you yourself, by pasting the data, admit, or are we going to have another diversion from you?
is everything we think we know wrong?
Date: 14/10/11 22:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 23:23 (UTC)If it's a household with any kids, then it's working poor. It's certainly not middle class. Middle class doesn't mean 'not poor', that's not what middle class means. It's hard to define it right now, but it has always been defined as people in the middle of a societal hierarchy. It's not just a tax bracket. They need to fall socioeconomically between the working class and the upper class. Many blue collar workers erroneously believe they're in the middle class. I'd say the vast majority of people in this country believe they're in the middle class when they're not by any definition of the term. The middle class is generally the lowest rung of owners.
Anyway, my point is that it's true that purchasing power depends on where you live, but even still there are certain baselines. A single professional raising a family making 60k would the lowball for middle class, to describe the absolute lower-bound for middle class that everybody but Americans consider middle class.
Are you interested in circling back to the point that even you yourself, by pasting the data, admit, or are we going to have another diversion from you?
They're talking about households, thanks. Look at your own link to confirm. Even if they're not talking about households, look at the data.
The first three quintiles are basically the same thing. The difference of the first and second quintile is the presence of a job. Going from first to second means someone got a job. Short term economic inequality is a smokescreen. The first three quintiles are squished down, it's almost an exponential scale.
If this data proves that most people move between the first three quintiles, it's stupid and misleading to suggest that this is some sort of social mobility.
http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29
Look. We still haven't recovered from the purchasing power of the average weekly wage from 1964.
The only way to measure this shit actually is using the Gini coefficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Also, your video is completely factually incorrect. If the numbers are allegedly adjusted for inflation (I see no mention of this), then they're obviously lying. Beware of ANY video in which they talk about how poor people are OK or how they're not ACTUALLY that poor.
The best part is the chart from 1979 to 1988. You know why so many people stopped being so poor? We recovered from the largest recession before 2008. 1980 was a huge recession and then we had a double dip recession, so traveling from the lowest quintile to the 2nd lowest quintile is trivial, since all that entails is going from no job to a job, which is just the natural result of moving out of a recession.
Basically, all your data is cherry-picked, wrong, and your metrics of a 'poor' person are deplorable. "Oh look at this, so many people moved from the bottom quintile to the 2nd bottom quintile, that means there's lots of economic mobility HURR"
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 23:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/11 23:41 (UTC)Look at table 1. 42% stayed at the lowest from the lowest. 28% moved to the second aka got a minimum wage job. 13.9% moved to the middle, the highest rung of the working class. Still blue collar. A paltry 9.9% gets to the fourth, which would be the lowest one would consider to be middle class, and that's only if you live in a rural-suburban area. In a city, that income still makes you poor as hell. Still blue collar, or at best entry-level professional. Basically, barely 15% make it to middle class.
From the second quintile, you got 17% dropping down, aka losing their minimum wage job, 33% keeping it, 26.7% getting a raise at McDonalds, and 15.1% actually graduating into the middle class, with a total of around 25% getting there or higher in total, from the status of 'having a job'.
This is seriously the best you got?