Languish.org

 :alberta:

Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) — Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax reduction, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far. He said some people described as poor live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

"There's no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen," Rector said. "As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work."

Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many formerly middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold — roughly $45,000 for a family of four — because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job.

States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million.

The struggling Americans include Zenobia Bechtol, 18, in Austin, Texas, who earns minimum wage as a part-time pizza delivery driver. Bechtol and her 7-month-old baby were recently evicted from their bedbug-infested apartment after her boyfriend, an electrician, lost his job in the sluggish economy.

After an 18-month job search, Bechtol's boyfriend now works as a waiter and the family of three is temporarily living with her mother.

"We're paying my mom $200 a month for rent, and after diapers and formula and gas for work, we barely have enough money to spend," said Bechtol, a high school graduate who wants to go to college. "If it weren't for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn't have been able to survive."

About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure.

The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs as well as taxes. Doing that pushed the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from the 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.

Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income — about 57 percent — followed by seniors 65 and over. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites.

Even by traditional measures, many working families are hurting.

Following the recession that began in late 2007, the share of working families who are low income has risen for three straight years to 31.2 percent, or 10.2 million. That proportion is the highest in at least a decade, up from 27 percent in 2002, according to a new analysis by the Working Poor Families Project and the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.

Among low-income families, about one-third were considered poor while the remainder — 6.9 million — earned income just above the poverty line. Many states phase out eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, tax credit and other government aid programs for low-income Americans as they approach 200 percent of the poverty level.

The majority of low-income families — 62 percent — spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth when a mother works.

Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000.

A survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale.

Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs.

Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo.; Nashville, Tenn.; Sacramento, Calif.; and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations. Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.

Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.

"People who never thought they would need food are in need of help," said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness.

I'd say this isn't really news, you just needed to have been curious about the real conditions of many of your fellow citizens over recent years to find this reality, rather than to living in the stock/housing market bubble.

iirc are there whole rafts of blue collar jobs that have seen no real and often significant falls in renumerations over the last 20 or 30 years ?   

There's your Republican base!  :)

America is dying America is facing some challenges,  I know.

We need to correct the insane contractionary policies foisted upon us by illiterate anarchists mistakes made in the past two years, while we still have a chance and do what we should have done to begin with: put Republicans in camps increase government spending to boost aggregate demand, put inflationary balm on private debt, and assuage unemployment and wage decline; nuke Beijing deal with PRChina's currency manipulation; and guillotine the rich and seriously rethink the efficacy of a low tax burden.

And of course, educatio delenda est we should reconsider the market-distorting effects of federally guaranteed student loans untied to any price controls or meaningful oversight, as well as the choices we've made regarding how education should be conducted below the college level.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
There's your Republican base!  :)

Sad but true. These people will vote for the party that doctors and lawyers vote for, as if somehow their interests are inclusive.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg822.imageshack.us%2Fimg822%2F3355%2Finvisiblehand.jpg&hash=62015ad4f4c6e1029deb689468467494f16499d6) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/invisiblehand.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Quote from: Josephus on December 15, 2011, 05:32:35 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
There's your Republican base!  :)

Sad but true. These people will vote for the party that doctors and lawyers vote for, as if somehow their interests are inclusive.

First of all, it's a bit silly to say there's no overlap in interests.

Secondly, what's wrong with doctors and lawyers?

...

Okay, what's wrong with doctors?

What isn't wrong with doctors?

Quote from: fahdiz on December 15, 2011, 05:36:56 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 15, 2011, 05:32:35 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
There's your Republican base!  :)

Sad but true. These people will vote for the party that doctors and lawyers vote for, as if somehow their interests are inclusive.

First of all, it's a bit silly to say there's no overlap in interests.

Secondly, what's wrong with doctors and lawyers?

...

Okay, what's wrong with doctors?

Nothing is wrong with doctors. I even let one of them stick his finger up my butt. I'm just saying that a doctor makes a lot of cash, an unemployed labourer not so much, and their interests are not very similar.

I hate doctors.

Concur.  Medical professionals are the only people who can falsely imprison you and lawfully bill you for it.

Quote from: Josephus on December 15, 2011, 05:39:37 PM
Nothing is wrong with doctors. I even let one of them stick his finger up my butt.

And oh man, was the bartender ever surprised!

Quote
$45,000 for a family of four

Let's make it $380,000. Then the whole 99% can be poor.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2011, 06:11:14 PM

Quote
$45,000 for a family of four

Let's make it $380,000. Then the whole 99% can be poor.

I'm not really sure what you mean here.

That $45,000 isn't low income?  I mean, it wouldn't be for an individual.  But for a family of four it certainly qualifies (I know there are deflation fears, but since when has wages of $10 or $11/hr been more than a subsistence wage, especially with dependents?).

Well, duh. That's why they are in the bottom half.  :rolleyes:

Next: Half of teams lose a match. Film at 11.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 06:14:42 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2011, 06:11:14 PM

Quote
$45,000 for a family of four

Let's make it $380,000. Then the whole 99% can be poor.

I'm not really sure what you mean here.

That $45,000 isn't low income?  I mean, it wouldn't be for an individual.  But for a family of four it certainly qualifies (I know there are deflation fears, but since when has wages of $10 or $11/hr been more than a subsistence wage, especially with dependents?).

No, I think MiM's beef is with the 99% rhetoric, which I too find annoying.

Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2011, 06:15:32 PM
Well, duh. That's why they are in the bottom half.  :rolleyes:

Next: Half of teams lose a match. Film at 11.

Sigh.

Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
No, I think MiM's beef is with the 99% rhetoric, which I too find annoying.

I think his beef is that 45K, while not exactly rolling in it, doesn't seem like grinding poverty either.

It's not, but it's basically a life on the razor's edge, one medical emergency or layoff away from utter destitution.  It's not a "good" amount of money to earn.  It's barely sufficient.

Particularly--maybe even solely, though I am not pinning myself to that--when you factor in children.  Korea and I made about $35-40k in 2007, and lived pretty decently that year, although far from extravagantly. But we did not have two children, which is what we're talking about.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 06:24:40 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
No, I think MiM's beef is with the 99% rhetoric, which I too find annoying.

I think his beef is that 45K, while not exactly rolling in it, doesn't seem like grinding poverty either.

Yes but that total family income for four, so presuable might cover two wage earners + any state subsidies, rebates etc.

It's both. Well, mostly I think 99% was chosen to make it seem like the majority is as big as it can be, and that's dumb. Because you know, math. It's just a rhetorical trick that diminishes and distracts from the real message.

And 45k is not that bad for a single income--like Ide said if a family of 4 makes that it's two incomes of 20 grand plus two kids presumably. Which is pretty poor, but not as poor as my family when I was a kid. Not by a long shot. If they live in Manhattan it's a different thing. 45k for a Somali family of four probably means dad is a warlord. You have to have perspective.

Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2011, 06:15:32 PM
Well, duh. That's why they are in the bottom half.  :rolleyes:

Next: Half of teams lose a match. Film at 11.

Definitely not in cricket or football, or potentially rugby and quite a few other team sports.   ;)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2011, 06:30:47 PM
It's both. Well, mostly I think 99% was chosen to make it seem like the majority is as big as it can be, and that's dumb. Because you know, math. It's just a rhetorical trick that diminishes and distracts from the real message.

I don't think that's true.  I think it was a good thing that the message embraced people who are not conventionally poor, or not poor at all, but who face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different than the poor.  I think the real message is that late-stage capitalism fucks almost everyone up, turning out a whole society of people who gain less than they should have, and who lose more than they ought, given the amount of wealth actually generated by this country, and who feel powerless as they try to avoid the footfalls of amoral giants.

I thought the counter-response to it was in some ways almost insane.  That 53% tumblr, you know?  The guys on there who were talking about working three jobs and seventy hours a week to make like $50,000 a year.  Like, dude, I can appreciate you work your fingers to the bone; can't you appreciate you shouldn't have to?

QuoteAnd 45k is not that bad for a single income--like Ide said if a family of 4 makes that it's two incomes of 20 grand plus two kids presumably. Which is pretty poor, but not as poor as my family when I was a kid. Not by a long shot. If they live in Manhattan it's a different thing. 45k for a Somali family of four probably means dad is a warlord. You have to have perspective.

And in medieval Britain, my ability to conjure death with my boomstick would make me a great hero.  Perspective is important, but the assertion that a third world country is worse is cold comfort for people dealing with genuine problems and facing genuine fears.

In any event, it's not the U.S. government's responsibility to improve conditions in Somalia.  What I can't stand is some people's belief that it is not the U.S. government's responsibility to improve conditions in America.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
There's your Republican base!  :)

I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 06:41:02 PM
I don't think that's true.  I think it was a good thing that the message embraced people who are not conventionally poor, or not poor at all, but who face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different than the poor.

You really think people all the way up to the 99th percentile "face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different thant the poor?"  Seriously?

Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2011, 06:42:31 PM
I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

Because the other party wants to take their guns away.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 06:24:40 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
No, I think MiM's beef is with the 99% rhetoric, which I too find annoying.

I think his beef is that 45K, while not exactly rolling in it, doesn't seem like grinding poverty either.

Presumably that'd be why it's the definition of 'low income' rather than 'poverty', far less 'grinding poverty' which was something, like Polio, I thought we'd largely managed to wipe out.

QuoteAnd 45k is not that bad for a single income--like Ide said if a family of 4 makes that it's two incomes of 20 grand plus two kids presumably. Which is pretty poor, but not as poor as my family when I was a kid. Not by a long shot. If they live in Manhattan it's a different thing. 45k for a Somali family of four probably means dad is a warlord. You have to have perspective.

This is all true.  But perspective's of limited use to family's on that sort of income or to conversations about it.  You have to have perspective, but with an excessive amount we all die eventually.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 06:48:41 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 06:41:02 PM
I don't think that's true.  I think it was a good thing that the message embraced people who are not conventionally poor, or not poor at all, but who face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different than the poor.

You really think people all the way up to the 99th percentile "face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different thant the poor?"  Seriously?

That's not what he said at all.  This is why I don't like the 99% stuff.  It's a distraction, a constant waiting straw man.

Ide said people who are not conventionally poor or not poor at all facing the fears and pressures not that different from the poor.  I think that's undoubtedly the case.  Just look at Ide's list - one layoff, a medical emergency, I'd add trying to think of college for the kids, mortgage and debt repayments.  I think many people both the poor and people who were once middle class are facing very really fears and pressures.  Does that go up to 99th percentile?  Who can say, and who cares?

Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2011, 06:15:32 PM
Well, duh. That's why they are in the bottom half.  :rolleyes:

Next: Half of teams lose a match. Film at 11.

Have you read the article? Have you read?

Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2011, 06:42:31 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
There's your Republican base!  :)

I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

It's a result of America's de facto two-party system: because the Republicans are not a party, but rather an alliance of various factions that could never win many elections on their own, anarchists, theocrats, and corporatists go to the GOP (along with small-government/fiscal austerity gurus, like you find on Languish, that I tend to lump under anarchists but I won't right now because right now I actually want to have a conversation, not a bon mot match).  Together, those factions can on occasion outnumber Democrats.

Now what's interesting (and full-on terrifying) is that recently these factions have coalesced into a form that is far more coherent in practical results than they are in ideology.  So you have Biblical literalists who will vote for rich people, libertarians who will vote pro-lifers, and wealthy people who ride the wave and see their interests advanced by libertarians and not really threatened by theocrats.

I've always said what the Democratic Party needed to do was get just as mean as the GOP, in order to establish dominance in the public debate that sways the lumpenproletariat who decides elections to and fro.  But it's hard, I think--psychologically--because the Democratic Party is essentially a party of niceness.  That is, when you take a progressive and take the hatred out of him, you wind up with someone who is mellower and probably happier, but a far less imposing figure nevertheless.  The GOP has hate to spare--and I don't say this to score a cheap point, I think Republicans here would agree that in many instances the GOP operates, ideologically, in a "negative" fashion, e.g., government should not do this, government should not do that, and this is born of a hatred either of government services in themselves, or a hatred of the taxes needed to fund them.

And that hatred makes them stronger than they would otherwise be.

Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2011, 06:42:31 PM
I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

Different cultural issues.  But if you look at rural poverty in this country - which not enough people care about - then you'll find lots of people who'd never vote Labour.  Similarly why Labour supporters in South Shields vote for some think tank foetus with a red rossette rather than a local Tory who may care considerably more.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 06:57:40 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 06:48:41 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 06:41:02 PM
I don't think that's true.  I think it was a good thing that the message embraced people who are not conventionally poor, or not poor at all, but who face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different than the poor.

You really think people all the way up to the 99th percentile "face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different thant the poor?"  Seriously?

That's not what he said at all.  This is why I don't like the 99% stuff.  It's a distraction, a constant waiting straw man.

Ide said people who are not conventionally poor or not poor at all facing the fears and pressures not that different from the poor.  I think that's undoubtedly the case.  Just look at Ide's list - one layoff, a medical emergency, I'd add trying to think of college for the kids, mortgage and debt repayments.  I think many people both the poor and people who were once middle class are facing very really fears and pressures.  Does that go up to 99th percentile?  Who can say, and who cares?

Right.

I mean, what does Yi want from me?  To brand the 99% folks class-traitors and demand them purged? :P

But seriously, Yi, I guess you have a point.  Perhaps fear and pressure are cut off somewhere before the 99th percentile.  Perhaps the 97th.  Perhaps the 82d.  I don't think specific mathematics are the important part of the message, but rather that massive income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the U.S.--and an implication that the progressives in America are not out to destroy the middle class for the benefit of the poor, but to save it for the benefit of (mostly, roughly 99% of) everyone.

And on the lighter side:

Quote from: Sheilbhthink tank foetus with a red rossette

I know this is funny, but I have no idea what it means. -_-

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:06:20 PM
But seriously, Yi, I guess you have a point.  Perhaps fear and pressure are cut off somewhere before the 99th percentile.  Perhaps the 97th.  Perhaps the 82d.  I don't think specific mathematics are the important part of the message, but rather that massive income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the U.S.--and an implication that the progressives in America are not out to destroy the middle class for the benefit of the poor, but to save it for the benefit of everyone.

Then from a strategy standpoint, why present the 99% thing out there when it's clearly something that can be targeted as flawed? Wouldn't it be more effective to address the actual problem or create some other symbol that is less prone to mockery?

When I was 'po, I hated the Dems. Hated Barney Fag, hated Maxine Waters, hated that Conyers fuck up in Michigan. And still do. Had a stupid hate for Bill, but got over that.

But now that I'm saner, I just hate everybody.

Except for you Bayh and Harold Ford jr. Why won't you run?  :(

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:06:20 PM
But seriously, Yi, I guess you have a point.  Perhaps fear and pressure are cut off somewhere before the 99th percentile.  Perhaps the 97th.  Perhaps the 82d.  I don't think specific mathematics are the important part of the message, but rather that massive income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the U.S.--and an implication that the progressives in America are not out to destroy the middle class for the benefit of the poor, but to save it for the benefit of (mostly, roughly 99% of) everyone.

Have you ever asked yourself the question how exactly it is that income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the US?  Most progressives I have seen trying to advance the tax the rich argument are very careful about not making any explicit claims about causality (except for the defensible one about paying for political results) because they know they won't stand up.  Instead they just mention the two phenomena in tandem constantly, and hope people leave with the sure knowledge that income inequality *causes* an increase in poverty.

The thing that pisses me off about this whole 99% nonsense is it includes as good guys a whole shit load of people who are doing pretty fucking well for themselves.  A single guy earning $200K is a struggling, fearful member of the middle class being oppressed by millionaires and billionaires?  Give me a goddamn break.  If we're going to transfer wealth in this country, hit those guys up too so there's more to transfer.  There's a buttload more of them and taken together they have a lot more money that can be transferred than the 1%.

Quote from: MIMThen from a strategy standpoint, why present the 99% thing out there when it's clearly something that can be targeted as flawed? Wouldn't it be more effective to address the actual problem or create some other symbol that is less prone to mockery?

Well, check this.

Bringing in my personal experience: my parents made $130,000 a year together, putting them in the top 15% of wage earners in the United States.  They worry about their kids who make less, or are poised to make less, adjusted for inflation, than they did at the same age, with the same level of education* and with grossly higher debt burdens.  I gather that this is not at all an isolated case, a recession limited to me and my family alone.

So even the top flights of the 99% have to worry about the world their children will inherit and the downward social mobility of their families.

To more directly answer you:

1)everything is potentially subject to mockery.
2)trying to apply a descriptive label to a heterogeneous group is always going to be difficult unless you make it very abstract.  Take the X-Men, for example.  Not all men.  The United States: not all territory subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a state.  Bon Jovi: only 25% of the band actually named Bon Jovi.
3)the name is aspirational, not necessarily strictly descriptive, seeking to unite everyone who needs help, setting a liberal cutoff point at the 99th percentile, above which self-reliance (if not outright enmity) can be rightly assumed.
4)it still sounds good at first blush, and sounding good is not unimportant.

*My sister has a bachelor's like my stepmom, and I have a J.D. while my dad has an M.A. Barrister Boy, I will put a curse on you if you say this is not equivalent.

Quote from: YiHave you ever asked yourself the question how exactly it is that income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the US?  Most progressives I have seen trying to advance the tax the rich argument are very careful about not making any explicit claims about causality (except for the defensible one about paying for political results) because they know they won't stand up.  Instead they just mention the two phenomena in tandem constantly, and hope people leave with the sure knowledge that income inequality *causes* an increase in poverty.

Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor in that it directly created poverty; what I'm saying is that greater levels of poverty (comparative, to accept MIM's argument about Somalia) are a result of take-home income inequality, in that greater levels of poverty can be associated with a lower tax burden and inability to fund a social safety net.  I know you don't like to think that lack of a welfare program is an adverse result, so perhaps I chose my words poorly for these purposes, but that's our philosophical differences. :)

But, if I were to suggest any causal relationship, I would actually flip it on its head and suggest that wage depression (associated with poverty) causes income inequality.  The owning class (I'm getting a little tired, so imagine I used a less politically charged term here; one didn't come to me)--they wind up with cheaper labor that offsets either in part or in full or beyond any reduction in demand, while the lower socioeconomic classes simply make do with less real income.  The causes of wage depression are beyond the scope of this argument; but an increased tax burden (and the social safety net it buys) reduces that inequality and provides better outcomes for the vast majority of people when things go bad.

I don't actually care much about income inequality in an abstract way, but consider it a symptom of deeper problems.

QuoteThe thing that pisses me off about this whole 99% nonsense is it includes as good guys a whole shit load of people who are doing pretty fucking well for themselves.  A single guy earning $200K is a struggling, fearful member of the middle class being oppressed by millionaires and billionaires?  Give me a goddamn break.  If we're going to transfer wealth in this country, hit those guys up too so there's more to transfer.  There's a buttload more of them and taken together they have a lot more money that can be transferred than the 1%.

Hey, don't think I don't agree with this proposal. :punk:  But a single guy with $200k is up there, like top 3%.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:38:35 PM
Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor.

You said adversely affects.  If you meant the super rich adversely affect everyone elses' posture, or morals, or something else unrelated to income, then I withdraw the comment.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 07:42:20 PM
You said adversely affects.  If you meant the super rich adversely affect everyone elses' posture, or morals, or something else unrelated to income, then I withdraw the comment.

Income inequality adversely affects society.  It's one of a number of factors no doubt but it has a negative effect.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 07:42:20 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:38:35 PM
Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor.

You said adversely affects.  If you meant the super rich adversely affect everyone elses' posture, or morals, or something else unrelated to income, then I withdraw the comment.

I'm sorry.  I went and edited that as I realized the first draft looked stupid ("It's not a causal factor... but this is a result of.." :P ).  The new version:

QuoteWell, I didn't say it was a causal factor in that it directly created poverty; what I'm saying is that greater levels of poverty (comparative, to accept MIM's argument about Somalia) are a result of take-home income inequality, in that greater levels of poverty can be associated with a lower tax burden and inability to fund a social safety net.  I know you don't like to think that lack of a welfare program is an adverse result, so perhaps I chose my words poorly for these purposes, but that's our philosophical differences. :)

In the mid 90s my household had seven kids and an 18k/yr income. I suppose that affects my outlook a bit.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 07:44:10 PM
Income inequality adversely affects society.  It's one of a number of factors no doubt but it has a negative effect.

When Money comes in here burning me in effigy for daring to question that inequality causes lower incomes, which side will you be on?

Ide: I think we should transferring wealth at 80K.

Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2011, 06:42:31 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
There's your Republican base!  :)

I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

Low class consciousness.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 07:52:18 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 07:44:10 PM
Income inequality adversely affects society.  It's one of a number of factors no doubt but it has a negative effect.

When Money comes in here burning me in effigy for daring to question that inequality causes lower incomes, which side will you be on?

Ide: I think we should transferring wealth at 80K.

Per household or per dude?  And what do you mean by transfer?  Certainly an 80k household needs to be paying taxes, but not confiscatory ones.

I never really conceived of the 99% as a call that 99% of Americans no longer pay any income tax. :unsure:

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:54:02 PM
Per household or per dude?  And what do you mean by transfer?  Certainly an 80k household needs to be paying taxes, but not confiscatory ones.

I never really conceived of the 99% as a call that 99% of Americans no longer pay any income tax. :unsure:

Per dude.  Married couples we start at 120.  By transfer I mean whatever excellent ideas the Occupy folks, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Moore had, as long as I get my fair share.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 07:56:54 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:54:02 PM
Per household or per dude?  And what do you mean by transfer?  Certainly an 80k household needs to be paying taxes, but not confiscatory ones.

I never really conceived of the 99% as a call that 99% of Americans no longer pay any income tax. :unsure:

Per dude.  Married couples we start at 120.  By transfer I mean whatever excellent ideas the Occupy folks, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Moore had, as long as I get my fair share.

Rather unfair. New York is extremely expensive!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 07:52:18 PM
When Money comes in here burning me in effigy for daring to question that inequality causes lower incomes, which side will you be on?

:lol: I think Money'll win on style.

There is a correlation between inequality and things like crime, health problems and social mobility.  It's not the sole cause and may not even be a major one, but I think there's evidence that income inequality over a certain level does have a causal link to those and other social problems.  The UK's over that level, I imagine the US is too. 

Quote from: YiPer dude.  Married couples we start at 120.  By transfer I mean whatever excellent ideas the Occupy folks, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Moore had, as long as I get my fair share.

Disingenuity noted. :P

But I dunno.  80k seems a little too low for reaming--I'd say roughly 50% marginal rate.  (Which is meaningless without coming up with a whole stepped system on the fly, but let's say 50% between 60k and 100k.

At around 100k, I think we can start talking semi-confiscatory marginal rates, e.g. such as we had between 1940 and 1980.  80%, perhaps.  90% at 500k.  Perhaps even a true wage cap at 1m or 10m or whatever.

I somewhat dislike household income as a concept.  Each individual should be taxed on their income, rather than employing strategies which reduce tax burden (such as when the averaging effect when applied to grossly disparate incomes will knock the top earner into a lower bracket)--or which penalize.

Quote from: SheilbhThere is a correlation between inequality and things like crime, health problems and social mobility.  It's not the sole cause and may not even be a major one, but I think there's evidence that income inequality over a certain level does have a causal link to those and other social problems.  The UK's over that level, I imagine the US is too.

Well, I think it probably can be identified as a potential cause for reduced social mobility.  Perhaps crime (envy, perceived unfairness of system).

But generally I think the correlation is just that: when times become bad for other reasons, inequality shoots up along with poverty.  The question is, is that fair?  Of course it's not fair.

What I find interesting is that on occasion the same person will say that "life is not fair" when talking about the poor, then claim unfairness when discussing high tax rates.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2011, 06:30:47 PM
And 45k is not that bad for a single income--like Ide said if a family of 4 makes that it's two incomes of 20 grand plus two kids presumably. Which is pretty poor, but not as poor as my family when I was a kid. Not by a long shot. If they live in Manhattan it's a different thing. 45k for a Somali family of four probably means dad is a warlord. You have to have perspective.

Really?  Your parents were making less than $15k between them?  That's pretty poor.

QuoteWell, duh. That's why they are in the bottom half.  :rolleyes:

Next: Half of teams lose a match. Film at 11.

I would have thought even you knew that the economy isn't a zero sum game.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 08:17:06 PM
But generally I think the correlation is just that: when times become bad for other reasons, inequality shoots up along with poverty.  The question is, is that fair?  Of course it's not fair.

That doesn't necessarily bother me.  What worries me is how much inequality increased during the good times over the past few decades.  That and the relative decline of the middle class during the good times should be a cause for concern. 

Again for me high tax rates aren't the thing.  I want us to cut our 50% rate.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 08:17:06 PM
Disingenuity noted. :P

But I dunno.  80k seems a little too low for reaming--I'd say roughly 50% marginal rate.  (Which is meaningless without coming up with a whole stepped system on the fly, but let's say 50% between 60k and 100k.

At around 100k, I think we can start talking semi-confiscatory marginal rates, e.g. such as we had between 1940 and 1980.  80%, perhaps.  90% at 500k.  Perhaps even a true wage cap at 1m or 10m or whatever.

I somewhat dislike household income as a concept.  Each individual should be taxed on their income, rather than employing strategies which reduce tax burden (such as when the averaging effect when applied to grossly disparate incomes will knock the top earner into a lower bracket)--or which penalize.

The exact numbers can be negotiated later on.

I don't see the point of a wage cap.  That doesn't put any silver in my pockets.

Actually, what does put money in your pocket, Yi?

Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:31:00 PM
Actually, what does put money in your pocket, Yi?

We are all together now Raz.  We are the 75%! Tax the upper middle class and the millionaires!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 08:40:06 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:31:00 PM
Actually, what does put money in your pocket, Yi?

We are all together now Raz.  We are the 75%! Tax the upper middle class and the millionaires!

I don't actually make any money.  The government gives me cash so I don't chase people down and bite them.  So I'll repeat the question.

Yi has a job, doesn't he? :hmm:

Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 08:56:31 PM
Yi has a job, doesn't he? :hmm:

Official Languish Master of Questions.

Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 08:56:31 PM
Yi has a job, doesn't he? :hmm:

He did.  Who knows now.

HK is one of the most expensive cities on earth, yet the median household income is only about US$28k per year.  So it is hard for me to understand how a $45k income for four can be regarded as "low income."    That's definitely above average here. 

If I have to guess though, the guys making US$28k per year here qualify for basically free public housing.  And free universal health care.  And almost free education up until university. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 15, 2011, 10:30:17 PM
HK is one of the most expensive cities on earth, yet the median household income is only about US$28k per year.  So it is hard for me to understand how a $45k income for four can be regarded as "low income."    That's definitely above average here. 

If I have to guess though, the guys making US$28k per year here qualify for basically free public housing.  And free universal health care.  And almost free education up until university. 

Well, there's a ~$12,000 difference, right there, just from the housing.  And our healthcare is notorious. ;)

Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 11:41:56 PM
Well, there's a ~$12,000 difference, right there, just from the housing.  And our healthcare is notorious. ;)

The average housing cost in the USA is nowhere near $1,000/month.

It is very bad for the entire economy, disastrous even, to have so many people with such limited disposable income.  I wonder if there is anything to be done about it  :hmm:

I find it very disconcerting that as our wages and thus labor costs go down employment is not picking up because of the cheaper costs.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
We are all together now Raz.  We are the 75%! Tax the upper middle class and the millionaires!

Are people really serious about this as a solution?  Already the rich find ways to pay low taxes.  And further, since money is international, wouldn't high taxes on the richest just encourage them to take their capital someplace else?  I mean even more than they already do?  This is why the middle class is such an important source of public money and hey they are decreasing.  Bad news for the cash starved state and municipal governments.

Quote from: Habbaku on December 15, 2011, 11:51:16 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 11:41:56 PM
Well, there's a ~$12,000 difference, right there, just from the housing.  And our healthcare is notorious. ;)

The average housing cost in the USA is nowhere near $1,000/month.

For a house.  I should have been clearer about that.  I'm also in a bad spot to judge because the area where I live is actually more expensive than Center City in Philadelphia right now.

If you're comparing "a house" to "housing" you're still comparing apples to oranges, especially as "housing" in Hong Kong is not exactly something that you get a lot of return on your money.

Nah, you guys are right.  This is why I shouldn't try to score any points when I'm half-asleep. :P

Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:35:11 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg822.imageshack.us%2Fimg822%2F3355%2Finvisiblehand.jpg&hash=62015ad4f4c6e1029deb689468467494f16499d6) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/invisiblehand.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

I wish that people would stop giving money to the gypsy beggar gangs. Sure they don't really bother me when they sit silently in the cold but you have to be a moron to believe that giving them money is a good deed.

These arbitrary "a family of four needs x amount" are somewhat self-defeating in my view. The figure is often disturbingly large and also obscures some of the issues.

A campaigning group in the UK (I forget which), for example, recently revealed that for a family of 4 in the UK poverty occurred at household income after tax of £600-and-odd per week or below  :hmm:

I was confused, we spend only slightly more than that and, essentially, if we want something we buy it. But, OTOH, our house is paid off, we live in the North and only one of us works so there are no childcare expenses. Compare this to a hypothetical family living in London, paying rent to a private sector landlord and in receipt of two lowish incomes. For a place the size of ours they would have to pay about £1500 rent and childcare could easily eat up most of the rest of their "poverty" wages. So the "poverty" level can easily include people who are actually well-off as well as people who are genuinely struggling  :hmm:

QuoteThe average housing cost in the USA is nowhere near $1,000/month.

True, I think it's a quite a bit higher.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 12:17:54 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
We are all together now Raz.  We are the 75%! Tax the upper middle class and the millionaires!

Are people really serious about this as a solution?  Already the rich find ways to pay low taxes.  And further, since money is international, wouldn't high taxes on the richest just encourage them to take their capital someplace else?  I mean even more than they already do?  This is why the middle class is such an important source of public money and hey they are decreasing.  Bad news for the cash starved state and municipal governments.

I can think of various ways to encourage Americans not to engage in capital flight.

Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it. :mellow:

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 05:22:40 AM
Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it. :mellow:

Ok two points:

1. The world was a much different place 1940-1980.  Particularly the 1940-1960 part.

2. They generally avoided paying those taxes through tax breaks and incentives.  The tax code was actually set up in a way that encouraged them to do certain things, like be landlords for instance, rather than actually raised revenue through the high tax rates.  At least that was my understanding.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 05:22:40 AM
Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it. :mellow:

JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:39:50 AM
JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 09:42:17 AM
Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes.  70? 80?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:44:10 AM
Yes.  70? 80?

I am amazed by that.  I mean I know what the technical tax rate was but it is pretty remarkable that actually worked as designed.

Especially when you consider the rather amazing extent of black market shenanigans going on with wartime rationing that people would be so eager to sacrifice almost their entire income in a time of peace.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 09:42:17 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:39:50 AM
JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes. Tea-partiests who pine for the good old days forget this.

Quote from: Josephus on December 16, 2011, 10:02:00 AM
Yes. Tea-partiests who pine for the good old days forget this.

No wonder no jobs were created in the 50s :(

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:03:08 AM
No wonder no jobs were created in the 50s :(

Jobs were created in the 50s because American consumers had 15 years of pent up demand and international competition had been eliminated by superior firepower.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 10:05:34 AM
Jobs were created in the 50s because American consumers had 15 years of pent up demand and international competition had been eliminated by superior firepower.

But what would be the motivation for filling that demand with those sorts of tax rates?  'Yeah I sold lots of goods.  Pity I made no money'?

Besides how was consumer demand being pent up in 1935?

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:12:47 AM
But what would be the motivation for filling that demand with those sorts of tax rates?  'Yeah I sold lots of goods.  Pity I made no money'?

I expect a lot of that demand was being met by corporations.

QuoteBesides how was consumer demand being pent up in 1935?

Great Depression.  No money to spend.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 10:17:49 AM
Great Depression.  No money to spend.

Right...so there would be no pent up demand because there was no cash.  Unless impoverished countries are just waiting to explode in orgies of consumerism.  And if you are tracing this back to the depression for the cause of 50s prosperity why does it start in 1935?

QuoteI expect a lot of that demand was being met by corporations.

Yes and they would find people to manage these corporations how?  Did executives and managers enjoy working for free in the 1950s?  They would not find loopholes for their taxes at all and just pony up 70% or 80% of it?

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:12:47 AMBut what  would be the motivation for filling that demand with those sorts of tax rates?  'Yeah I sold lots of goods.  Pity I made no money'?

Probably lingering 'all in this together' from the war.  Sense of community and common purpose helped - a couple of conservative writers argued that the right and left idealise the 50s.  The left for the economy, the right for the 'family values', they basically argued the two were linked - which is an interesting idea.  Maybe there was a stronger sense of civic responsibility? 

What's more weird is that top tax rate was cut after the war and then raised again in the 50s.

Having said all that I don't like confiscatory rates.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:22:07 AM
Right...so there would be no pent up demand because there was no cash.  Unless impoverished countries are just waiting to explode in orgies of consumerism.  And if you are tracing this back to the depression for the cause of 50s prosperity why does it start in 1935?

I don't follow.  Are you saying people didn't have any cash in the 1950s?

It doesn't start in 1935.  It starts in 1929.

QuoteYes and they would find people to manage these corporations how?  Did executives and managers enjoy working for free in the 1950s?  They would not find loopholes for their taxes at all and just pony up 70% or 80% of it?

Beats me.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 10:22:25 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:12:47 AMBut what  would be the motivation for filling that demand with those sorts of tax rates?  'Yeah I sold lots of goods.  Pity I made no money'?

Probably lingering 'all in this together' from the war.  Sense of community and common purpose helped - a couple of conservative writers argued that the right and left idealise the 50s.  The left for the economy, the right for the 'family values', they basically argued the two were linked - which is an interesting idea.  Maybe there was a stronger sense of civic responsibility? 

What's more weird is that top tax rate was cut after the war and then raised again in the 50s.

Having said all that I don't like confiscatory rates.

I wonder if having a high degree of wealth inequality tends to undermine social solidarity generally.

The pros of allowing a high degree of wealth inequality = allows more scope for innovation

The cons = tends to undermine social solidarity, can undermine meritocracy over time

Mind you, social solidarity is a not unmixed blessing itself - can appear as stifling conformity. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 10:32:55 AM
I don't follow.  Are you saying people didn't have any cash in the 1950s?

Yes but the pent up demand would come entirely from the war.  That is when people had money and couldn't buy stuff (well they did...but you know)

But I was saying I do not really think taxing the rich is the answer.  You seem pretty determined to show me that, in fact, it does work perfectly fine.  Which confuses me.  But sometimes I do not understand what you are getting at or what your point is when you start asking me questions.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:36:29 AM
Yes but the pent up demand would come entirely from the war.

But I was saying I do not really think taxing the rich is the answer.  You seem pretty determined to show me that, in fact, it does work perfectly fine.  Which confuses me.  But sometimes I never understand what you are getting at or what your point is when you start asking me questions.

WTF?

I'm not determined to show you anything.  I'm explaining how things worked back then to the best of my understanding.  I'm asking you questions when I don't know what you mean.

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 10:34:37 AMI wonder if having a high degree of wealth inequality tends to undermine social solidarity generally.

The pros of allowing a high degree of wealth inequality = allows more scope for innovation

The cons = tends to undermine social solidarity, can undermine meritocracy over time

Mind you, social solidarity is a not unmixed blessing itself - can appear as stifling conformity.

That's very possible, I think.  It's another of those issues which each society will deal with in their own way.  Scandinavians will always be more egalitarian than Anglo-Saxons.

My view is that inequality's become more of a problem in the UK in recent years and has gone too far.  I think we're getting more of the negative effects than the positive.  We should work to reduce it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 05:22:40 AM
Also, did that happen a lot in the period 1940-1980?  Because high marginal rates were a feature of American life for nearly half a century, yet our population of rich people grew along with our middle class and economy as a whole.  It was pretty sweet to hear people tell it. :mellow:

JFK is the one who dropped the confiscatory war time top rates.

JFK and LBJ (or Congress under JFK and LBJ) moved it from ~90% to ~70%, but it dropped slower until Reagan, when it fell to ~50%.  Evidently, the GHW Bush administration is the first since the Depression to have the miniscule marginal tax rates of ~30%.  Then up again with Clinton, to ~40%.  Then down, down, down, although never to the nadir of GHW.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 10:22:07 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 10:17:49 AM
Great Depression.  No money to spend.

Right...so there would be no pent up demand because there was no cash.  Unless impoverished countries are just waiting to explode in orgies of consumerism.  And if you are tracing this back to the depression for the cause of 50s prosperity why does it start in 1935?

QuoteI expect a lot of that demand was being met by corporations.

Yes and they would find people to manage these corporations how?  Did executives and managers enjoy working for free in the 1950s?  They would not find loopholes for their taxes at all and just pony up 70% or 80% of it?

That's not what marginal rate means, Val.  At absolute worst, it represents a salary cap.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 12:05:13 PM
JFK and LBJ (or Congress under JFK and LBJ) moved it from ~90% to ~70%, but it dropped slower until Reagan, when it fell to ~50%.  Evidently, the GHW Bush administration is the first since the Depression to have the miniscule marginal tax rates of ~30%.  Then up again with Clinton, to ~40%.  Then down, down, down, although never to the nadir of GHW.

You sure?  I thought JFK dropped it a buttload.

I thought GHWB raised taxes?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:44:10 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 09:42:17 AM
Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes.  70? 80?

I wouldn't go so far as to put rates like that on anybody. Even the hyper-rich. It would hurt my conscience. I'd stop around 50 or so probably.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 12:41:17 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 12:05:13 PM
JFK and LBJ (or Congress under JFK and LBJ) moved it from ~90% to ~70%, but it dropped slower until Reagan, when it fell to ~50%.  Evidently, the GHW Bush administration is the first since the Depression to have the miniscule marginal tax rates of ~30%.  Then up again with Clinton, to ~40%.  Then down, down, down, although never to the nadir of GHW.

You sure?  I thought JFK dropped it a buttload.

Well, he did (or LBJ did, JFK getting capped in 1963, but I imagine he had some say in what happened in 1964 viz. tax policy).  91 to 77.  Granted, I just looked at a chart.  I guess it could be wrong, but here goes:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taxpolicycenter.org%2Ftaxfacts%2FContent%2FGIF%2Ftoprate_historical.gif&hash=dce46f477ea924034737d152129e9a18adae9ffd)

It's from the Tax Policy Center, "a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 12:41:17 PM
You sure?  I thought JFK dropped it a buttload.

I think he cut tax rates lower down as well which would have had a cumulative effect and have had most impact on the middle class - which makes sense as a politician.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2011, 12:51:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:44:10 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 09:42:17 AM
Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes.  70? 80?

I wouldn't go so far as to put rates like that on anybody. Even the hyper-rich. It would hurt my conscience. I'd stop around 50 or so probably.

The 40% rate we had in the UK seems to have maximised the total tax take..........more than that and people avoid/evade it.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2011, 12:51:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 09:44:10 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 09:42:17 AM
Were rich people really paying rates that high in the 50s?

Yes.  70? 80?

I wouldn't go so far as to put rates like that on anybody. Even the hyper-rich. It would hurt my conscience. I'd stop around 50 or so probably.

Like, if they made $110k and actually paid 70% of their total income, I'd be concerned.  But let's take a made up tax schedule like so

Quote0-25,000: no liability
25,000-50,000: 20%
50-75,000: 30%
75,000-100,000: 50%
100,000+: 70%

and Hypothetical Man 1 making $110,000 a year.

He'll pay 5k + 7.5k + 12.5k + 7k, for total liability of 32k.

He's only paying 32% of his income.  Leaving him with 78k to spend on comic books, hookers and blow.  The horror?

Now, yeah, with Hypothetical Man 2 making $500k, the percentage of income taken is far different.  He'll pay 5k + 7.5k + 12.5k + 280k, or 305k in total.  That's 61% of his total income.

But he still has 195k to spend on yachts and personal security forces.

And my belief is at those rarefied heights, it's more of a matter of social signaling or prestige of the position or creating a little empire than actually buying shit.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 12:58:57 PM
The 40% rate we had in the UK seems to have maximised the total tax take..........more than that and people avoid/evade it.

Yeah that was what I was trying to get at...even through my ignorance of how marginal rates work.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:01:21 PM
But he still has 195k to spend on yachts and personal security forces.

And my belief is at those rarefied heights, it's more of a matter of social signaling or prestige of the position or creating a little empire than actually buying shit.

What about the NFL star with 9 kids with 9 different mothers?  He needs that money for child support!

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 01:06:32 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:01:21 PM
But he still has 195k to spend on yachts and personal security forces.

And my belief is at those rarefied heights, it's more of a matter of social signaling or prestige of the position or creating a little empire than actually buying shit.

What about NFL star with 9 kids with 9 different mothers?  He needs that money for child support!

Of course our numbers here are presented without any deductions for dependents, charitable contributions, student loan payments, party membership, etc.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2011, 06:30:47 PM
And 45k is not that bad for a single income--like Ide said if a family of 4 makes that it's two incomes of 20 grand plus two kids presumably. Which is pretty poor, but not as poor as my family when I was a kid. Not by a long shot. If they live in Manhattan it's a different thing. 45k for a Somali family of four probably means dad is a warlord. You have to have perspective.

:yeahright:

I live in a smallish city in Middle America and that's a pretty tight budget. Like Ide says, that's a razor's edge. One medical emergency, one week without pay, and the family is in dire straights. Trust me... I've been there.  <_<

Quote from: merithyn on December 16, 2011, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2011, 06:30:47 PM
And 45k is not that bad for a single income--like Ide said if a family of 4 makes that it's two incomes of 20 grand plus two kids presumably. Which is pretty poor, but not as poor as my family when I was a kid. Not by a long shot. If they live in Manhattan it's a different thing. 45k for a Somali family of four probably means dad is a warlord. You have to have perspective.

:yeahright:

I live in a smallish city in Middle America and that's a pretty tight budget. Like Ide says, that's a razor's edge. One medical emergency, one week without pay, and the family is in dire straights. Trust me... I've been there.  <_<

Waking up in the morning to get ready for school and not having the electricity on or hot water for a shower were regular occurrences for me as a kid. I hear ya. Hell, I didn't have a phone my senior year in high school. That fucks up the social life.

My dad had five heart attacks in the 90s, and three of those without insurance.

All that said, 45k would have seemed like a million dollars.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:01:21 PM

and Hypothetical Man 1 making $110,000 a year.

He'll pay 5k + 7.5k + 12.5k + 7k, for total liability of 32k.

He's only paying 32% of his income.  Leaving him with 78k to spend on comic books, hookers and blow.  The horror?

Now, yeah, with Hypothetical Man 2 making $500k, the percentage of income taken is far different.  He'll pay 5k + 7.5k + 12.5k + 280k, or 305k in total.  That's 61% of his total income.

But he still has 195k to spend on yachts and personal security forces.

And my belief is at those rarefied heights, it's more of a matter of social signaling or prestige of the position or creating a little empire than actually buying shit.

The first, no biggie. The second, too much. Nobody taking home 195 is buying yachts. You have to go way higher than that I think.

I fully concede I do not know how much a yacht costs. :P

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:35:28 PM
I fully concede I do not know how much a yacht costs. :P

Not to mention any personal security force that can be had for such a low post-yacht price is likely to be one meth-head with a sharp stick.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:01:21 PM

But he still has 195k to spend on yachts and personal security forces.

:lmfao:

*Sniff* I needed a laugh.  :D

Quote from: fahdiz on December 16, 2011, 01:37:16 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:35:28 PM
I fully concede I do not know how much a yacht costs. :P

Not to mention any personal security force that can be had for such a low post-yacht price is likely to be one meth-head with a sharp stick.

I keep my men addicted to the White.

Anyway, I actually looked.  You could totally buy a yacht (low-end, about $400k, but a yacht) with $195k take-home.

You might have to make some decisions about what else you buy but OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
:lmfao:

*Sniff* I needed a laugh.  :D

Malthus can only afford one yacht and one personal body guard.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 01:43:55 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
:lmfao:

*Sniff* I needed a laugh.  :D

Malthus can only afford one yacht and one personal body guard.

The only yacht I can afford is one that fits inside my bathtub, and the only body guard to protect it is my kid's rubber ducky.  :D

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:43:34 PM

Quote from: fahdiz on December 16, 2011, 01:37:16 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:35:28 PM
I fully concede I do not know how much a yacht costs. :P

Not to mention any personal security force that can be had for such a low post-yacht price is likely to be one meth-head with a sharp stick.

I keep my men addicted to the White.

Anyway, I actually looked.  You could totally buy a yacht (low-end, about $400k, but a yacht) with $195k take-home.

You might have to make some decisions about what else you buy but OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.

With all your money tied up in your yacht hope you don't plan to live anywhere or eat anything :P

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:50:23 PM
With all your money tied up in your yacht hope you don't plan to live anywhere or eat anything :P

Well you live on your yacht and get a fishing pole.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 01:51:53 PM

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:50:23 PM
With all your money tied up in your yacht hope you don't plan to live anywhere or eat anything :P

Well you live on your yacht and get a fishing pole.

Driving your yacht to work could pose some problems, though.

You know, I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of Veblen goods like yachts and handbags and $2000 strollers simply started costing less under a high TMR regime.  Those things are not priced according to any intrinsic value (blah blah market determines value, you know what I mean).

Then again, if they didn't, who gives a shit?

Quote from: HVCWith all your money tied up in your yacht hope you don't plan to live anywhere or eat anything :P

$40k a year over ten years with 8% interest is perfectly affordable by a guy making $195k take-home. :wacko:  He can't go out and buy another big-ticket item like a Lamborghini or a helicopter, but he's still got $135k (take-home) to spend on shit.  If he can't live in a really nice house, and eat basically whatever he desires, it's because he chose other things.

Shit, he could buy one of those $22,000 gold puddings and still have enough left over for rent in a really decent place--even in NYC.

I think you guys are ignoring that I'm using take-home figures here.  Or jerking my chain. :hmm:

a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

as an aside of sorts, law school has turned our younger lawyers into stary eyed commies. it's sad really. Still, once they start making money it'll all change. it's the way of things. as the saying goes "it's only too much money when you're paying it or someone else is making it".

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:58:30 PM
a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

So you'd have to make choices, like the rest of us. You could rent instead of buying that trophy wife, for example. I'm sure you can shave quite a bit there, if nothing else on VISA charges.

Quote from: HVCa ten year payment plan on a boat?

Or 80k over five years, which would be comparable to a car loan.

Or he could save for it.

Or he could not buy a yacht.  It would hurt us if the Nazis ever trapped an expeditionary force against the English Channel, but how likely is that to happen twice?

Also, give me dictatorial powers, as I would need to actually see this tax plan through, and private school shall be abolished.  That's a first-day enactment.

I'm not saying 175 in take home pay isn't a lot, it is, i'm saying it isn't private yacht money.

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 02:01:03 PM
as an aside of sorts, law school has turned our younger lawyers into stary eyed commies. it's sad really. Still, once they start making money it'll all change. it's the way of things. as the saying goes "it's only too much money when you're paying it or someone else is making it".

Well, I was radical when I went in, mellowed somewhat during, and radicalized double in the months after graduation.

I doubt I'll ever be mellow again.

Who're the other data points?  Faeelin's kinda obligated to vote Democrat, 'cause he's gay, but he's never struck me as particularly leftist.  Stjaba I barely know.  Mihali is a raving hippie, but I appreciate his energy.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:55:41 PM
You know, I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of Veblen goods like yachts and handbags and $2000 strollers simply started costing less under a high TMR regime.  Those things are not priced according to any intrinsic value (blah blah market determines value, you know what I mean).

Then again, if they didn't, who gives a shit?

Quote from: HVCWith all your money tied up in your yacht hope you don't plan to live anywhere or eat anything :P

$40k a year over ten years with 8% interest is perfectly affordable by a guy making $195k take-home. :wacko:  He can't go out and buy another big-ticket item like a Lamborghini or a helicopter, but he's still got $135k (take-home) to spend on shit.  If he can't live in a really nice house, and eat basically whatever he desires, it's because he chose other things.

Shit, he could buy one of those $22,000 gold puddings and still have enough left over for rent in a really decent place--even in NYC.

I think you guys are ignoring that I'm using take-home figures here.  Or jerking my chain. :hmm:

Naw, I have actual experience speaking of that here. You can afford a lot of stuff on that kind of salary, but you have a lot of expenses too. You can't really afford a yacht, lamborgini, or helicopter.  :D Not if you ever plan to, say, stop working at some point.

I well remember being a student without a dime myself, so I can imagine that amount of money would appear to promise unimaginable luxuries. What it does is provide a very comfortable lifestyle combined with the promise of a comfortable retirement. Sadly, for many these days that in itself falls into the category of "unimaginable luxuries".  :(

But no, you cannot have all of (1) comfortable lifestyle (2) enough for retirement and (3) stuff like yachts, fancy sports cars, or helicopters, all on that income.

If I bought me a Lamborghini, I don't think it'd be reasonable to plan on living too long.

Anyway, fine, I'll back off on the yacht shit.  If the point is that a 70% top rate past 100k would destroy the yacht business--and besides, I was pulling those numbers out of the ether just to demonstrate a mathematical point about how truly confiscatory such top rates would be--well, the point's taken (but I feel that would be a minor objection).

I've never owned a yacht, but my understanding is that there are a lot of necessary expenses that go with it - dock space, maintenance, winterizing costs, astronomical fuel costs, etc. I think that's why a lot of people who buy boats end up selling them - they're a lot more expensive than just the sticker price of the boat.

Then all the Yacht companies fold and all associated with the industry are driven into the proletariat, who then can be the vanguard of the revolution?

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 02:19:13 PM
Then all the Yacht companies fold and all associated with the industry are driven into the proletariat, who then can be the vanguard of the revolution?

Sailing onward to victory!

Quote from: Josephus on December 15, 2011, 05:32:35 PM
Sad but true. These people will vote for the party that doctors and lawyers vote for, as if somehow their interests are inclusive.

Lawyers tend to vote democratic
Once income gets above certain levels, other goods become important.  Like personal freedom for example.  The parties take different views on that.  The GOP is really good on liberties like the freedom to dump toxic chemicals, or the freedom to stockpile submachineguns, or the right to build 40,000 square foot houses on one acre lots witout PITA zoning boards getting in the way, or the right of large multinational corporations to "speak" (i.e. buy elections with massive wads of cash).  The Democrats are better with things like freedom from intrusive government surveillance, having government abide by rule of law, freedom from torture, or the speech rights of actual breathing human beings.  Lots of lawyers tend to think the latter sorts of things actually matter, even at the cost of sending a few more bucks to the Feds.

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 02:13:35 PM
Naw, I have actual experience speaking of that here. You can afford a lot of stuff on that kind of salary, but you have a lot of expenses too.

Expenses growing to match available funds *can* be avoided. Look at Mono, for example. He prioritizes early retirement, so he saves the money. The same can happen if someone really wants a boat, or a nice car, or expensive vacations, etc.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 02:09:18 PM
Who're the other data points?  Faeelin's kinda obligated to vote Democrat, 'cause he's gay, but he's never struck me as particularly leftist.  Stjaba I barely know.  Mihali is a raving hippie, but I appreciate his energy.

That stings :weep: :P

but then again is that anyway to live? :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 02:36:27 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 02:09:18 PM
Who're the other data points?  Faeelin's kinda obligated to vote Democrat, 'cause he's gay, but he's never struck me as particularly leftist.  Stjaba I barely know.  Mihali is a raving hippie, but I appreciate his energy.

That stings :weep: :P

I thought the question implicitly referred to American lawyers. :)

But fair enough: Sheilbh likes poems, which is pretty leftist I guess. :P

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 02:45:25 PM
I thought the question implicitly referred to American lawyers. :)

And here was me thinking lawyerdom was an international brotherhood  :Embarrass:

I don't think they're an intranational brotherhood.

Here's your doom for the day.

Quote
#1 A staggering 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be "low income" or are living in poverty.



#2 Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be "low income" or impoverished.



#3 If the number of Americans that "wanted jobs" was the same today as it was back in 2007, the "official" unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.



#4 The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is now over 40 weeks.



#5 One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.



#6 There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.



#7 Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.



#8 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006.  Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.



#9 A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that approximately one out of every five Americans that do have a job consider themselves to be underemployed.



#10 According to author Paul Osterman, about 20 percent of all U.S. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty-level wages.



#11 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs.  Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.



#12 Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job.  In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.



#13 One recent survey found that one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.



#14 The Federal Reserve recently announced that the total net worth of U.S. households declined by 4.1 percent in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone.



#15 According to a recent study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.



#16 As the economy has slowed down, so has the number of marriages.  According to a Pew Research Center analysis, only 51 percent of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married.  Back in 1960, 72 percent of all U.S. adults were married.



#17 The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than 5 billion dollars over the past year.



#18 In Stockton, California home prices have declined 64 percent from where they were at when the housing market peaked.



#19 Nevada has had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for 59 months in a row.  (Ed--W00T! We're #1!)



#20 If you can believe it, the median price of a home in Detroit is now just $6000.



#21 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant.  That figure is 63 percent larger than it was just ten years ago.



#22 New home construction in the United States is on pace to set a brand new all-time record low in 2011.



#23 As I have written about previously, 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 are now living with their parents.



#24 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.



#25 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980.  Today they account for approximately 16.3%.



#26 One study found that approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.



#27 If you can believe it, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.



#28 The United States spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.



#29 It is being projected that the U.S. trade deficit for 2011 will be 558.2 billion dollars.



#30 The retirement crisis in the United States just continues to get worse.  According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.



#31 Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line.



#32 According to a study that was just released, CEO pay at America's biggest companies rose by 36.5% in just one recent 12 month period.



#33 Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever.  The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.



#34 The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have a net worth that is roughly equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined.



#35 According to an analysis of Census Bureau data done by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth for households led by someone 65 years of age or older is 47 times greater than the median net worth for households led by someone under the age of 35.



#36 If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.



#37 A higher percentage of Americans is living in extreme poverty (6.7%) than has ever been measured before.



#38 Child homelessness in the United States is now 33 percent higher than it was back in 2007.



#39 Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.



#40 Sadly, child poverty is absolutely exploding all over America.  According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4% of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1% of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6% of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6% of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.



#41 Today, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.



#42 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income.  Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income.



#43 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits.  Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.



#44 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP.  Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.



#45 For fiscal year 2011, the U.S. federal government had a budget deficit of nearly 1.3 trillion dollars.  That was the third year in a row that our budget deficit has topped one trillion dollars.



#46 If Bill Gates gave every single penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for about 15 days.



#47 Amazingly, the U.S. government has now accumulated a total debt of 15 trillion dollars.  When Barack Obama first took office the national debt was just 10.6 trillion dollars.



#48 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.



#49 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.



#50 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2011, 03:02:19 PM
Here's your doom for the day.

On the upside it looks like the US is starting to recover.  The American consumer's spending and will now drag us all out of this morass.  Right? :)

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 01:55:41 PM
$40k a year over ten years with 8% interest is perfectly affordable by a guy making $195k take-home. :wacko: 
. . .
Shit, he could buy one of those $22,000 gold puddings and still have enough left over for rent in a really decent place--even in NYC.

$3500 a month in NYC buys you about 800 square feet in Manhattan below 96th and maybe 1100-1300 or so in Brooklyn or the more marginal Manhattan neighborhoods.  Which is OK if Yachtman is single, but pretty untenable if he has a family.

What you are also failing to take account of is that Yachtman also has to pay state income tax (and in NYC additional city income tax) plus property taxes if he owns rather than rents.  If Yachtman is a banker large portions of his pay may be deferred or subject to vesting or clawback.  If he is a lawyer, he probably has to pay all of his health insurance, etc costs out of pocket without subsidy, and may be subject to mandatory captial contributions.  There are all sorts of costs you may not be aware of which bring down the "take home" before it can spent on gold pudding and diamond strollers.

Contrariwise a lot of people on quite modest means own yachts, provided they are are obsessed. They buy old boats and do them up, have them berthed in unfashionable places, you can charter them out as well.

Quote from: MIM#35 According to an analysis of Census Bureau data done by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth for households led by someone 65 years of age or older is 47 times greater than the median net worth for households led by someone under the age of 35.

Lost Generation, indeed.

As for the list entire, I hate to say I told you all so.  I'm a regular cassandra.

Quote from: Joan$3500 a month in NYC buys you about 800 square feet in Manhattan below 96th and maybe 1100-1300 or so in Brooklyn or the more marginal Manhattan neighborhoods.  Which is OK if Yachtman is single, but pretty untenable if he has a family.

What you are also failing to take account of is that Yachtman also has to pay state income tax (and in NYC additional city income tax) plus property taxes if he owns rather than rents.  If Yachtman is a banker large portions of his pay may be deferred or subject to vesting or clawback.  If he is a lawyer, he probably has to pay all of his health insurance, etc costs out of pocket without subsidy, and may be subject to mandatory captial contributions.  There are all sorts of costs you may not be aware of which bring down the "take home" before it can spent on gold pudding and diamond strollers.

Yeah, I was assuming Yachtman is single.  If not, I'd have had to take into account wifey's income, complicating the example without elucidating the point.

And I was sliding over sales and property taxes, as I hate them.  But they probably are significant costs.

The renting angle is a good one though.  Why shouldn't Yachtman just rent?

And anyway I was counting 800-1000 sq. ft. as really decent, given the area. :P

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 16, 2011, 02:30:03 PM

Expenses growing to match available funds *can* be avoided. Look at Mono, for example. He prioritizes early retirement, so he saves the money. The same can happen if someone really wants a boat, or a nice car, or expensive vacations, etc.

Well, yeah, if you are really obsessed you could own a yacht on that salary, or even less for that matter.

Hence the jokes about living on your boat, etc.

But this is of course not what is usually meant by "that guy is so rich, he can afford to own a yacht". You sorta picture a guy living the good life with the yacht as evidence of his massive disposable income, not some schlub living a Mono-like existence huddled in a boat moored off of a malarial floodplain (because that's where he can afford the mooring fees), wondering when he'll be able to afford another month's supply of ramen noodles and sterno cans.  ;)

Mmm, Sterno.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 03:42:17 PM
Mmm, Sterno.

If you are eating it, you are using it wrong.  ;)

I don't really get the point of boats in general.  They must be fun places to get drunk on during the summer, but otherwise they seem like all hassle. 

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 16, 2011, 03:47:33 PM
I don't really get the point of boats in general.  They must be fun places to get drunk on during the summer, but otherwise they seem like all hassle.

You're pretty much right.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2011, 03:02:19 PM
#5 One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.

#8 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006.  Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

These are particularly worrying.  Wages are down, less disposable income, less money for small businesses.  Less money for business in general.  Are the big boys going to be hiring alot soon?  I had a point earlier about declining wages should be leading to more hiring here stateside right?  Then we would get more earners and thus enable more consumers and thus more of a chance for the small businesses to make it.

But it just is not happening.  Heck wages have been declining or low for at least a decade now but unemployment has only increased  :hmm:

We should reduce interest rates.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 16, 2011, 03:47:33 PM
I don't really get the point of boats in general.  They must be fun places to get drunk on during the summer, but otherwise they seem like all hassle.

Having been on plenty, I love other people's boats, but would never own one myself.

Before I get too worried about that #5 stat I would like to know what the historical average is.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 03:54:30 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2011, 03:02:19 PM
#5 One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.

#8 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006.  Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

These are particularly worrying.  Wages are down, less disposable income, less money for small businesses.  Less money for business in general.  Are the big boys going to be hiring alot soon?  I had a point earlier about declining wages should be leading to more hiring here stateside right?  Then we would get more earners and thus enable more consumers and thus more of a chance for the small businesses to make it.

But it just is not happening.  Heck wages have been declining or low for at least a decade now but unemployment has only increased  :hmm:

Things are like that over here as well. Hiring anyone else is verboten even when there's too much work. Current employees have to cope, with frozen salaries.

But at least we have work. Many small firms and self-employed have gone under.

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:58:30 PM
a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

the cheapest part of owning a yacht is the cost to buy it

i promise that to be so

Swimming pools fall into that category for me, too - just seems like something that causes endless hassle and expense, for the very occasonal use.

Quote from: Rasputin on December 16, 2011, 04:05:28 PM

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:58:30 PM
a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

the cheapest part of owning a yacht is the cost to buy it

i promise that to be so

Boat is an acronym of Bust Out Another Thousand. and that's fro cheap pleasure craft :P

I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

:lol:

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Swimming pools fall into that category for me, too - just seems like something that causes endless hassle and expense, for the very occasonal use.

Hot tubs now......

Quote from: Rasputin on December 16, 2011, 04:05:28 PM

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:58:30 PM
a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

the cheapest part of owning a yacht is the cost to buy it

i promise that to be so

Yacht ownership has been compared to having an icy-cold shower whilst tearing up £20 notes  :P

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Swimming pools fall into that category for me, too - just seems like something that causes endless hassle and expense, for the very occasonal use.

Especially in Canada.  At least in the 51 weeks of winter it doubles as an ice rink.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 04:22:26 PM

Quote from: Rasputin on December 16, 2011, 04:05:28 PM

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:58:30 PM
a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

the cheapest part of owning a yacht is the cost to buy it

i promise that to be so

Boat is an acronym of Bust Out Another Thousand. and that's fro cheap pleasure craft :P

that's just to fill the tanks :contract:

add in dockage, insurance, engine services, generator services, sattelite radio and tv bills, hull waxing, etc,  and you are looking at 20,000 per year on an inexpensive yacht

then once you hit 50 feet you're looking at crew expenses and the price increases exponentially

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

:lol:

The fucking ones cost extra.

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 05:08:54 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

:lol:

The fucking ones cost extra.

Rasputin can vouch for that  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

To hazard a completely out-of-my-ass guess, I'd say the shift to a service economy.  In a more industrial economy, decreased wages would lead to cheaper goods, and greater demand.  And to a degree, since service sector wages are in part reflected in prices, that may be true.  However, when the manufacturing costs of the goods we purchase don't fall, and therefore prices do not fall to the same degree as wages, demand does not rise to stabilize the fall in wages.

Could be totally full of shit.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

I don't know that there's the demand, or that businesses are sure there will be the demand in the future (which is more important).  The Eurozone's on a knife-edge, India's falling, China's got even more fearful rumours than normal.  It's still too uncertain a time.

Again the best hope is the American consumer.  There's positive signs there and, from what I've read, the last few jobs reports are on the up.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 05:40:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

To hazard a completely out-of-my-ass guess, I'd say the shift to a service economy.  In a more industrial economy, decreased wages would lead to cheaper goods, and greater demand.  And to a degree, since service sector wages are in part reflected in prices, that may be true.  However, when the manufacturing costs of the goods we purchase don't fall, and therefore prices do not fall to the same degree as wages, demand does not rise to stabilize the fall in wages.

Could be totally full of shit.

My guess.  Your labout costs maybe decreasing, but it is still expensive relative to China or automation.  Actually, the relatively good US employment figures in the past decade or so were fueled by the housing bubble.  Now that the bubble is gone, employment just reverted back to its natural state. 

Quote from: Rasputin on December 16, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
that's just to fill the tanks :contract:

add in dockage, insurance, engine services, generator services, sattelite radio and tv bills, hull waxing, etc,  and you are looking at 20,000 per year on an inexpensive yacht

then once you hit 50 feet you're looking at crew expenses and the price increases exponentially

My grandfather docked at the St Francis Yacht Club in San Francisco, took his 68 foot ketch out every weekend in the winter - long cruises in the Spring and Summer, and always had at least 1 full time boat guy to do the brightwork, sails, engine work, etc.

He loved sailing, and thankfully he had the funds to do it, but damn it can get costly.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 05:48:26 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

I don't know that there's the demand, or that businesses are sure there will be the demand in the future (which is more important).  The Eurozone's on a knife-edge, India's falling, China's got even more fearful rumours than normal.  It's still too uncertain a time.

Again the best hope is the American consumer.  There's positive signs there and, from what I've read, the last few jobs reports are on the up.

This is one of my major concerns where is the consumer growth that is required for the markets to sustain their current levels; if total world demand is going to all but flatline for a few years then how is market bubble going to be sustained, within which financial players, both large and tiny, expect to be able to make a percent or two per month ?   :unsure


PS Shelf, did you get my email/PM ?

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

it's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.
Given that firm balance sheets have improved and profits remain pretty decent, this would be a logical time for firms to react by hiring labor and competing for extra market share.  It's not happening.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2011, 05:54:11 PM
it's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.

What are the major theories?

Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2011, 05:53:59 PM
PS Shelf, did you get my email/PM ?

No :mellow:

Which is odd.  Try the PM again and hopefully it'll get through.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 05:58:14 PM
What are the major theories?

Greed and uncertainty.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2011, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

it's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.
Given that firm balance sheets have improved and profits remain pretty decent, this would be a logical time for firms to react by hiring labor and competing for extra market share.  It's not happening.

Uncertainty?

To me the stockmarket seems full of bargains, but the firms and investors seem scared that something exceptionally appalling may happen.

Quote from: MonoriuMy guess.  Your labout costs maybe decreasing, but it is still expensive relative to China or automation.  Actually, the relatively good US employment figures in the past decade or so were fueled by the housing bubble.  Now that the bubble is gone, employment just reverted back to its natural state. 

Other than "reverted," I fear I agree with you.  I think 7% unemployment is probably the "natural rate" at this point in time, and it will get worse.  I remember talking to Joan about this a few weeks ago, but I don't remember how we came to either agree or agree or to disagree. :unsure:

To add a little to the "service sector" theory: the service sector, I think, requires some "basic competence" in the economy in order to function.  I.e., if none of us are making things, then we cannot live off simply selling services to one another, unless we are also selling services abroad to people who do make things.

Obviously, this simplifies the situation a bit--to a degree, Americans do still make a lot of stuff (food, computer hardware, medicines, cars, sorta), and to some degree we do sell services abroad (educational services, medical services, engineering services, paramilitary services).  But I think it's clear that to some degree or another we've been living on credit for goods, while transitioning to an economy dominated by service without any basic foundation, and that was unsustainable, and in 2008 or thereabouts it suddenly stopped being sustained.

Quote from: Joanit's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.
Given that firm balance sheets have improved and profits remain pretty decent, this would be a logical time for firms to react by hiring labor and competing for extra market share.  It's not happening.

I still say that's because even with a fall in demand, reduced wages mean less loss or even increased absolute profits for firms.  However, without any obvious increase in demand on the horizon, hiring makes no sense.

We should probably cut interest rates.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 06:05:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2011, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

it's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.
Given that firm balance sheets have improved and profits remain pretty decent, this would be a logical time for firms to react by hiring labor and competing for extra market share.  It's not happening.

Uncertainty?

To me the stockmarket seems full of bargains, but the firms and investors seem scared that something exceptionally appalling may happen.

What could possibly go wrong now? Except for the Euro declining, or a host of European nations going bankrupt- Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland. Or a number of French and other banks having lowered credit ratings. US banks like Bank of America in trouble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continuing to need billions of tax payer cash to shore them up, along with a weak housing market over all. The dollar decline, or a feared wave of inflation to hit with all the money being printed? Still anemic US economic growth rate. Seems a lot for businesses to worry about, and that's just some things off the top of my head.

The Empire is failing and the barbarians are non-Germanic.

Quote from: KRonn on December 16, 2011, 06:13:42 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 06:05:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2011, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

it's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.
Given that firm balance sheets have improved and profits remain pretty decent, this would be a logical time for firms to react by hiring labor and competing for extra market share.  It's not happening.

Uncertainty?

To me the stockmarket seems full of bargains, but the firms and investors seem scared that something exceptionally appalling may happen.

What could possibly go wrong now? Except for the Euro declining, or a host of European nations going bankrupt- Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland. Or a number of French and other banks having lowered credit ratings. US banks like Bank of America in trouble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continuing to need billions of tax payer cash to shore them up, along with a weak housing market over all. The dollar decline, or a feared wave of inflation to hit with all the money being printed? Still anemic US economic growth rate. Seems a lot for businesses to worry about, and that's just some things off the top of my head.

It is late here and my post was unclear. I absolutely agree with you, fear is crippling our economies, it is the obverse of the ludicrous over-confidence of the early years of this millenium. Many firms, however, are actually in a strong position.

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2011, 06:24:12 PM
The Empire is failing and the barbarians are non-Germanic.

And contemporary maps will call the territory "Slavonia."

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 06:30:19 PM

Quote from: KRonn on December 16, 2011, 06:13:42 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 06:05:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 16, 2011, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
Yeah I don't think I am ever going to get that discussion going as to why decreasing labor costs are not increasing employment :P

it's a really good question and I have yet to hear a totally convincing answer.
Given that firm balance sheets have improved and profits remain pretty decent, this would be a logical time for firms to react by hiring labor and competing for extra market share.  It's not happening.

Uncertainty?

To me the stockmarket seems full of bargains, but the firms and investors seem scared that something exceptionally appalling may happen.

What could possibly go wrong now? Except for the Euro declining, or a host of European nations going bankrupt- Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland. Or a number of French and other banks having lowered credit ratings. US banks like Bank of America in trouble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continuing to need billions of tax payer cash to shore them up, along with a weak housing market over all. The dollar decline, or a feared wave of inflation to hit with all the money being printed? Still anemic US economic growth rate. Seems a lot for businesses to worry about, and that's just some things off the top of my head.

It is late here and my post was unclear. I absolutely agree with you, fear is crippling our economies, it is the obverse of the ludicrous over-confidence of the early years of this millenium. Many firms, however, are actually in a strong position.

Yeah, things are in an odd way right now. Firms that are doing well aren't moving much on hiring, expanding and such. I was just pointing out in general that I feel it shouldn't be a surprise that corps are sitting still, with all the stuff going on, while we seem to be constantly waiting for the next crisis or two to emerge. Also, I see polls that people have lessening confidence in goverment, at least in the US, so that has to play into things too, the overall mood/confidence.

Back when I was an undergrad econ text books agreed that "full employment" was in fact around 7%.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2011, 06:41:09 PM
Back when I was an undergrad econ text books agreed that "full employment" was in fact around 7%.

Hrm.  Well, when I say 7%, I mean U3, official rate (despite my antipathy toward it).  If the more apt U5 or U6 numbers were 7%, and this was considered the natural rate, I'd be somewhat okay with it.

Put another way, does that old-school full employment rate mean 93% of total potential labor force (working age population) are full-time and permanently employed, or 93% of job-seekers seeking work in past whatever-it-is months are employed in full-time, part-time or temporary positions?

Also I suspect your old-school economics profs (just as many, too many, are today) were afeared of the inflashun.

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Swimming pools fall into that category for me, too - just seems like something that causes endless hassle and expense, for the very occasonal use.

I agree completely.  From now on, we are going to specifically avoid houses with swimming pools.  I will certainly never pay to have one put in.

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 06:48:55 PM
Hrm.  Well, when I say 7%, I mean U3, official rate (despite my antipathy toward it).  If the more apt U5 or U6 numbers were 7%, and this was considered the natural rate, I'd be somewhat okay with it.

Put another way, does that old-school full employment rate mean 93% of total potential labor force (working age population) are full-time and permanently employed, or 93% of job-seekers seeking work in past whatever-it-is months are employed in full-time, part-time or temporary positions?

Also I suspect your old-school economics profs (just as many, too many, are today) were afeared of the inflashun.

I remember a similar number from my economics classes, though I remember it being about 5%.  The definition of natural unemployment I remember was based on the concept that, at any given time, some number of people would always be looking for work due to churn in seasonal and temporary jobs, new entrants and re-entrants to the labor market, those transitioning from one job to another for personal reasons (generally due to long-distance moves), and people who just flat out get fired.  It was also related to the rate at which the economy could grow; its hard to add jobs if the unemployment rate is too low.

Yeah, I remember being taught 4.6% or something like that.  We're younger than Yi, though--iirc, you're only a few years older than me--so maybe a 5% figure was more en vogue than when he was in undergrad (like 1990 or so I guess).

But my point is that there's a big gulf between 5% and 7%.  About three or four million people.  And a big difference between 7% "unemployment rate" as is conventionally reported and an employment rate that more fully reflects reality.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 16, 2011, 06:54:58 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Swimming pools fall into that category for me, too - just seems like something that causes endless hassle and expense, for the very occasonal use.

I agree completely.  From now on, we are going to specifically avoid houses with swimming pools.  I will certainly never pay to have one put in.

My fear was that if I had a swimming pool, I'd wake up one morning a neighbor's kid would be floating face down in it. It would be like a party at Tommy Lee's house.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 06:00:28 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2011, 05:53:59 PM
PS Shelf, did you get my email/PM ?

No :mellow:

Which is odd.  Try the PM again and hopefully it'll get through.

Still haven't received mongers.  I'll PM you my e-mail, you may have an old one.

45k was a lot more money back in the day.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 07:37:49 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 06:00:28 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2011, 05:53:59 PM
PS Shelf, did you get my email/PM ?

No :mellow:

Which is odd.  Try the PM again and hopefully it'll get through.

Still haven't received mongers.  I'll PM you my e-mail, you may have an old one.

It's because of the economy... even email has slowed down.   :(

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2011, 07:31:49 PM
My fear was that if I had a swimming pool, I'd wake up one morning a neighbor's kid would be floating face down in it. It would be like a party at Tommy Lee's house.

:lol: 

But I think you're absolutely right, it seems like if you have a home swimming pool these days you have to fence it all around or maybe put in one of those kid alarms they sell on TV.  My dad's friend moved into a suburban development where all the houses had small in-ground pools in the backyard, and he just bricked his up immediately for that reason.  To his neighbors' delight.   :D

So has anyone asked the important question? Why are all these people choosing poverty? Sounds dreadful!

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 04:50:14 PM

Quote from: Rasputin on December 16, 2011, 04:05:28 PM

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 01:58:30 PM
a ten year payment plan on a boat?

I think what you're ignoring is to get to the point of a yacht you have several other expenses. house, private school, trophy wife. So while plausable to get the boat it's unlikely unless he's willing to give up quite a bit.

the cheapest part of owning a yacht is the cost to buy it

i promise that to be so

Yacht ownership has been compared to having an icy-cold shower whilst tearing up £20 notes  :P

in florida thatd be a hot shower, but the cost of marine gas coupled with a 22 gallon per hour burn rate has certainly affected how much i take her out

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2011, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 16, 2011, 05:08:54 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 04:25:59 PM
I'm really sorry I off-handedly mentioned a fucking yacht.

:lol:

The fucking ones cost extra.

Rasputin can vouch for that  :lol:

the girls are free accessories :)

Quote from: PDH on December 16, 2011, 05:53:23 PM

Quote from: Rasputin on December 16, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
that's just to fill the tanks :contract:

add in dockage, insurance, engine services, generator services, sattelite radio and tv bills, hull waxing, etc,  and you are looking at 20,000 per year on an inexpensive yacht

then once you hit 50 feet you're looking at crew expenses and the price increases exponentially

My grandfather docked at the St Francis Yacht Club in San Francisco, took his 68 foot ketch out every weekend in the winter - long cruises in the Spring and Summer, and always had at least 1 full time boat guy to do the brightwork, sails, engine work, etc.

He loved sailing, and thankfully he had the funds to do it, but damn it can get costly.

sounds like a wonderful way to spend a summer