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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (10411)	10/14/2009 10:28:57 AM
From: John Koligman	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

From Wikipedia: Income inequality in the US. Those numbers must be skewed at the top by that CEO from United Healthcare <ggg>. Regards, John In the early half of the 20th century, both the border closure movement and high school movement taking place in the United States shifted out the supply of skilled work. As a result, the country experienced falling inequality due to falling wages of skilled workers relative to unskilled workers. Despite a decrease in inequality during the 1940s, 50s and 60s, inequality has been increasing since.[14] While income increased among all demographics,[18] the upper-most earners saw substantially larger increases.[19] According to economist Janet Yellen "the growth [in real income] was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent."[20] A 2006 analysis of IRS income data by economists Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley and Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics showed that the share of income held by the top 1% was as large in 2005 as in 1928. The data revealed that reported income increased by 9% in 2005, with the mean for the top 1% increasing by 14% and that for the bottom 90% dropping slightly by 0.6%.[12] Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.[21] For the same time span the aggregate share of after-tax income held by the top percentile increased from 7.5% to 14%.[21] The diminishing political clout of labor unions, resulting from declining union membership rates, and less government redistribution as well as decreased expenditure on social services are commonly cited as the main causes of this trend.[17] Economists Timothy Smeeding summed up the current trend of rising inequality on the pages of the Social Science Quarterly:[22] “ Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution. ” While education and increased demand for skilled labor is often cited as a cause of increased inequality,[23] many social scientists, such as economists Paul Krugman and Timothy Smeeding and political scientists Larry Bartels and Nathan Kelly, point to public policy and partisan politics as an important cause of inequality. They point out that education, labor force, and demographic changes cannot be the sole cause of the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and that the U.S. is unique in having experienced such a rise in inequality - a trend that, if caused by education, labor force, and demographic factors, would have manifested itself in other developed nations.[24][25][22] In addition, there is strong evidence that the party of the president and the ideological content of public policy have powerfully shaped the path of income inequality over time.[24][26] While expertise, productiveness and work experience, inheritance, gender, and race had a strong influence on personal income,[27][28] household income was largely affected by the number of income earners, contributing to inequality between households based on the number of earners in them.[14] Yet, other causes for income inequality, especially some of those behind its recent rise, likely remain unknown.[20] en.wikipedia.org

To: Road Walker who wrote (10411)	10/14/2009 12:16:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

This is a deeper recession then the one early in this decade, so probably not, absent extraordinary disasters (on a scale that Katrina doesn't qualify), a major war (Iraq doesn't qualify), or a strong increase government policies that get in the way of growth (which is probably the most likely risk), then its very likely that average folks will be better off at the trough of the next recession then in 2001, and average folks now are better off then at the trough of the last similarly deep recession (early 80s). Measuring from the trough of the last recession, at least means the starting point isn't cherry picked to make things look worse, but it makes the time frame even shorter. Shorter term economic swings dominate at this time frame, not real trends.