Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Faked census to show higher employer data pre election 2012

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
    You've got to be kidding me. You're lumping Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in with a family making 75k living in the NY Metropolitan area. Try telling that family they're making too much and need a 20% tax increase. Try explaining the inequality argument to them and see how that goes. A household income of 75k/year in this neck of the woods isn't going very far at all. They're not likely even homeowners, and they're not sure how they're going to pay for their kids' college or how to cover that 100% medical insurance premium raise they just got hit with, because they sure don't qualify for subsidies. You can double their income to 150k (top 5%) and in this area they're getting by, but not much more than that.

    These charts and blanket arguments never take cost of living into account. 150k in NY is not the same as 150k in South Bumblefuck, LA.
    No, wooglin, I am not kidding you. :)

    You ask, how can I lump Buffett and Gates into a group that includes people making only $75k. First, they both fit into top 20% of income earners. That would include the top 1%, etc. Second, the chart set the categories, not me. Third, by roping off the top 20%, which as group experienced an income growth rate of 95% and higher between 1979-2007, I could show the low-growth range was the remaining 80%. I was not saying that the lower end of the 20% was well-off or not struggling, just that their incomes did run ahead of inflation by a pretty good clip. So your NY friends have no bone to pick with me. I feel for them because I was in the top 5% and stuggling. Asty wants to tax me more.
    Last edited by JAD_333; 25 Nov 13,, 20:06.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by bonehead View Post
      I say the better solution is to give the middle class their jobs/wages back. More taxes only goes to the government.
      Agree. I think it will happen, but not by government fiat. It will happen when 1) industry dislocations and automation peak out and 2) when the number of people looking for jobs shrinks significantly. Then employers will have have a harder time than today finding qualified people to fill vacancies and to beef up their work force. They will have to compete with their competitors for a small number of available workers and that will drive up incomes. Lower the corporate tax rate could help too, since corporations might then be more willing to repatriate money held in foreign accounts and put it to work in expanding operations.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
        No, wooglin, I am not kidding you. :)

        You ask, how can I lump Buffett and Gates into a group that includes people making only $75k. First, they both fit into top 20% of income earners. That would include the top 1%, etc. Second, the chart set the categories, not me. Third, by roping off the top 20%, which as group experienced an income growth rate of 95% and higher between 1979-2007, I could show the low-growth range was the remaining 80%. I was not saying that the lower end of the 20% was well-off or not struggling, just that their incomes did run ahead of inflation by a pretty good clip. So your NY friends have no bone to pick with me. I feel for them because I was in the top 5% and stuggling. Asty wants to tax me more.
        Yeah, I'm aware you didn't create the chart... did I suggest otherwise somewhere? I didn't attack the chart, rather the blanket idea that families with an income of 75k need to be taxed more regardless of any fact other than they fall within the top 20% where incomes grew the most. It's not that simple, or at least it certainly shouldn't be. It would only drag millions down while the very wealthy are still going to be very wealthy, and the poor are still going to be poor, and the extra billions collected in taxes thrown away on wasteful spending.

        Comment


        • #64
          No you didn't, but you didn't approve of my interpretation. Anyway, that doesn't matter.

          I also did not say anyone should be taxed more. You got me mixed up with someone else. In fact, I would argue the opposite given the current state of affairs. Those could change.

          I agree on your final point re wasteful spending.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #65
            JAD,

            I feel for them because I was in the top 5% and stuggling. Asty wants to tax me more
            nah. unless you were making all yer money off of dividends. :)

            plus, if you ask my better half, she sez we're struggling even tho we're in the top 10% and we've no children...
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
              No you didn't, but you didn't approve of my interpretation. Anyway, that doesn't matter.

              I also did not say anyone should be taxed more. You got me mixed up with someone else. In fact, I would argue the opposite given the current state of affairs. Those could change.

              I agree on your final point re wasteful spending.
              I didn't get it mixed up with anyone else...

              Originally posted by JAD_333
              The obvious cure for inequality is to increase taxes on the top 20%. We did it once; we could do it again. If the inequality truly begins to have harmful effects, we can be sure of one thing: Lower income people, who vastly outnumber the rich at the polls, can change it.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                JAD,



                nah. unless you were making all yer money off of dividends. :)

                plus, if you ask my better half, she sez we're struggling even tho we're in the top 10% and we've no children...
                I understand your better half, and that's what got my attention in this thread. We fall into the top 5% of that chart and have no kids and we are not what anyone would consider wealthy by any stretch. It's just damn expensive to live around here and I often wonder how many people, particularly with kids, manage it. I'd love to move, but then there's the salary difference... anyway, cost of living differences matter.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                  I didn't get it mixed up with anyone else...

                  Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333
                  The obvious cure for inequality is to increase taxes on the top 20%. We did it once; we could do it again. If the inequality truly begins to have harmful effects, we can be sure of one thing: Lower income people, who vastly outnumber the rich at the polls, can change it.
                  Ah, yes. But you'll notice I said 'could' tax. I didn't say I was in favor of doing it, at least not as things stand today. A year or two from now, who knows? Never say never. Remember Bush Sr...'Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES". And he went right ahead a did support new taxes to save Social Security, which was the right thing to do. It took guts, knowing he could lose re-election, and lose he did. I'm nor running for anything so I say 'no new taxes' unless the wheels start coming off...
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                    I understand your better half, and that's what got my attention in this thread. We fall into the top 5% of that chart and have no kids and we are not what anyone would consider wealthy by any stretch. It's just damn expensive to live around here and I often wonder how many people, particularly with kids, manage it. I'd love to move, but then there's the salary difference... anyway, cost of living differences matter.
                    A lot depends on life style. 'Struggling' with 2 houses, 3 cars and an expensive taste in wine is somewhat laughable. Struggling with far less gets my sympathy. Yeah, I am thinking of a move down south where the COL is lower and I can indulge in a few non-essentials. What city do you live in? NY?
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                      A lot depends on life style. 'Struggling' with 2 houses, 3 cars and an expensive taste in wine is somewhat laughable. Struggling with far less gets my sympathy. Yeah, I am thinking of a move down south where the COL is lower and I can indulge in a few non-essentials. What city do you live in? NY?
                      I work in NYC, but I live in central NJ. About a 90 minute total commute each way. To live closer to NYC you either have to pay much more, or accept much less for the same money.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                        I work in NYC, but I live in central NJ. About a 90 minute total commute each way. To live closer to NYC you either have to pay much more, or accept much less for the same money.
                        That's true everywhere. Here in HK it can be 10x extra rent to cut 45 minutes off of the one-way commute.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                          Is it employment graph or is it participation in labor force graph?

                          If it's the later what's confusion and why you relate it to the stimulus? It was never designed to somehow make US workers younger.
                          I am talking about Astralis idea that somehow - despite a rising population the ratio of people working compared to the population fell suddenly between 2008-10;



                          Astralis would have us believe that suddenly - quite independent of any banking collapse or Obama stimulus - all the 'baby boom' generation suddenly retired then and yet none of the growing population has since really got into work. Something doesn't add up with astralis' idea that the employment rate always falls. I mean it must have risen at one point right? Why was that different to now? It also shows pretty clearly that the US employment data not entirely showing the true picture. Just because you don't count people who aren't actively seeking work doesn't mean they're employed - clearly they are not as this and the food stamp recipient numbers suggest. They've given up and are living on benefits or via the black market - or both. It amounts to a deception.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            That's true everywhere. Here in HK it can be 10x extra rent to cut 45 minutes off of the one-way commute.
                            Commute from where? You're already there. :) Just making fun. I was there and remember the horrible traffic.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                              I work in NYC, but I live in central NJ. About a 90 minute total commute each way. To live closer to NYC you either have to pay much more, or accept much less for the same money.
                              Tell me about it. My son just moved his family out of NYC across the river in NY. Twice the size condo and good preschool for half the price.
                              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                snapper,

                                Astralis would have us believe that suddenly - quite independent of any banking collapse or Obama stimulus - all the 'baby boom' generation suddenly retired then and yet none of the growing population has since really got into work. Something doesn't add up with astralis' idea that the employment rate always falls. I mean it must have risen at one point right? Why was that different to now? It also shows pretty clearly that the US employment data not entirely showing the true picture. Just because you don't count people who aren't actively seeking work doesn't mean they're employed - clearly they are not as this and the food stamp recipient numbers suggest. They've given up and are living on benefits or via the black market - or both. It amounts to a deception.
                                did you not read my post addressing this?

                                http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ame...tml#post939757

                                i addressed your point about the rising population; simply put, the size of the boomer population is such that their retirements en masse lowers the overall participation rate, despite Gen Y joining (in reduced numbers, due to both pure size as well as a weak economy).

                                i also mentioned technology and globalization as drivers in reduction of the rate. i also put up a graph showing the rate since the 40s, and pointed out that women joining the workforce accounts for the one-time big expansion throughout the 60s-70s.

                                finally, i also did NOT say that "employment rate always falls".

                                despite all this, you ignored everything i wrote on the subject, and repeated your opening argument. why?
                                Last edited by astralis; 26 Nov 13,, 15:05.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X