The statement below......one that you made in your post to me........reflects that attitude:
"Yes they are getting richer faster. But as long as every group is getting richer that's hardly a major problem."
Neither that statement, not to my knowledge any other statement I have made in any context, reflects, implies, supports, accepts, or argues for a "let them eat cake" attitude.
By your own omission, the lowest quintile is not even mentioned by Reynolds/Henderson
False.
"By your own omission" doesn't make a lot of sense. I assume you mean "by your own admission". If that's what you mean, I make no such "admission" mainly because there is nothing to admit. It isn't true.
"But Reynolds shows that Krugman's statement is wrong for two reasons. First, CBO estimates go back only to 1979. Second, the CBO data show that between 1979 and 2000, average after-tax income in each quintile (fifth) of the household income distribution rose. For the lowest quintile, it rose from $13,500 to $14,600"
Message 23119031
And yet these are the slowest growing income groups out of a total of 5, meaning they are probably not keeping up with inflation.
The figures were adjusted for inflation.
Tim, once again, I must ask.......do you ever think with your heart? Have you ever tried to experience empathy?
I might feel bad for someone that's poor. But I don't feel bad about the fact that they have become somewhat less poor.
Do you know any poor people?
Yes. If I didn't it would hardly invalidate anything I've said but I know a very poor (at least by American standards) person quite well, and I know other poor people to a lesser degree.
And yet we don't care and we make up stories like the one you created which is that their lot in life is improving and that's more than good enough
Saying that overal things are getting better for Americans isn't makeing up stories.
Saying that if a broad section of society is doing better that is a good thing, isn't saying that poverty is not a problem, or that everything is good enough.
Saying that the rich are getting richer, but generally not at the expense of the poor is simply true, and it also isn't an attack on the poor, or a claim that society has no problems, or that things are not difficult for the poor.
As for a sense of guilt why should I (or the people I've quoted or linked to) feel a sense of guilt over the fact that while all broad segments of society are getting richer over time, some are getting richer faster then others?
Yeah, I can understand how you might feel that way, scrooge. Why don't you go look for a Tiny Tim to kick.
So not feeling guilty (note I didn't even say not feeling bad, just not feeling guilty) over the fact that some people are not increasing their wealth and income as fast as others is equivalent to kicking small crippled boys. I guess "argument" by non sequitur is your new style. |
