Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (51737)	1/27/2006 2:43:31 PM
From: Mike Johnston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Grace, you are confused, really confused. Your understanding of cause and effect is backwards. 1. You claim that incomes are exceeding inflation, wrong. Real wages have declined. No economist would agree with you. 2. You claim that the richest 20% income group contains the most population. No comment necessary. 3. You claim that any inflation we have is caused by rapid income growth. Wrong. It is high inflation that allows some professions to experience high income growth while others lag. 4.You claim that money is being pumped into real estate. Wrong. It is just the opposite. Record amounts of home equity "wealth" have been monetized and spent. It is all debt, not savings.

To: GraceZ who wrote (51737)	1/27/2006 2:48:03 PM
From: anachronist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

what they continuously fail to point out is that people don't stay in one particular income quintile over the period of the study You state things like this as a fact. However, there are some that dispute your assertions: "Gottschalk (1996) finds (using a different data set) that of those individuals who were in the lowest quintile of incomes in 1974, more than two-fifths remained in this same relative position in 1991. Similarly, more than half of those who were in the top quintile in 1974 were still there in 1991. These results imply less relative income mobility than Cox and Alm claim and thus more reason to be concerned about rising inequality." More at frbsf.org