Poor people can turn around the sub-prime mortgage crisis…
by working harder.
4) Our society is really, really hostile to success. At the same time it’s shockingly indulgent of poor people.
A Republican president now wants to bail them out! I have a different solution. Debtors’ prison is obviously a little too retro, and besides that it would just use more taxpayers’ money. But the poor could work off their debts.
That is just a taste. (LINK)
Presumeably Jace…you caught the comic tone of the article.I mean you may be completely politically misguided (aka WRONG) but I don’t take your for stupid.
Trying to castigate (whomever your intended target was) with a snippet from an obvious spoof piece is decidedly disingenuous.
This man’s attitude isn’t shocking. Actually, it’s quite typical. Most of the elites feel this way as do their elected agents mostly in the Republican Party but a fair number of Democrats as well.
The only thing unusual about his article is that he didn’t conceal his contempt for the poor (which, if you the article carefully, includes the middle class) beneath the usual Orwellian slogans like “The USA is lagging in productivity” (i.e., the working class need to work harder and longer than their already overtime schedules).
This is the real attitude that lurks behind the elite proponents of economic individualism and “free” market philosophy. The only difference is that this creep’s article lacks the usual Friedmanesque paraphrases.
“from an obvious spoof piece”
LOL!!! Nice try. But it doesn’t wash. You might be embarrassed by this bit of honesty, but for you to spin it as a spoof is the only thing that makes it approach the ridiculous.
Dana, I think Chris is right on this. Check out here and here.
There is an “over the top” comic quality to it – but there are a great many people who hold these views. I hear “Our society is really, really hostile to success. At the same time it’s shockingly indulgent of poor people.” or some varient of that all the time. I think even chris has commented that poor people with cell phones need to stop bellyaching.
I think this essay is a bit of an ink blot test. If you are too quick to laugh it off, you failed the test.
That’s a fair point, Jase.
“I think this essay is a bit of an ink blot test. If you are too quick to laugh it off, you failed the test.”
Or how about a knee jerk test to expose anti-capitalistic liberals? In which case both you and Dana popped right to the top. The reality is comments like Dana’s:
“Most of the elites feel this way as do their elected agents mostly in the Republican Party but a fair number of Democrats as well.”
while trying to save face with the bit on Dems at the end, actually is a broad brush, and incorrect, generalization akin to when, as you have complained about in the past, a comment is made about “liberals secretly hoping for the defeat of America”. There are a tiny, tiny, tiny subset of individuals who may actually be described by these statements, but that nugget of truth is blown way beyond proportion for political propoganda.
And IF the wealthiest Americans thinks the middle class and poor should work harder, it may just be because they themseleves worked hard to get and STAY where they are. Look at the top 10 wealthiest Americans (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html)
The only ones on that list that didn’t create their own wealth, would be the Waltons (since dear Sam has passed). Two of them are active in the business interests. So while inherited, they are still working hard to keep the business going. The other two…not so much.
Continue on down the list and you will find a large percentage of the rich were self-made and worked damn hard to do it. So forgive them if they think others should actually work hard for their money too.
Lewis was a Wall Street insider for years and has written extensively about it and always a big supporter of it while carping about the margins of its crimes. So IF Lewis is joking, then he’s joking like the man who always seems to only tell racist jokes (while denying he is a racist).
That the attitude is pervasive and ever present, we only need Chris as evidence:
“And IF the wealthiest Americans thinks the middle class and poor should work harder….”
(Notice how he claimed Lewis’ article was only a joke but quickly defended the wealthiest Americans “IF” they had that attitude, which he knows perfectly well most of the wealthy elites do.)
Working people don’t work hard enough? Really, then how does one explain this:
“The United States makes more manufactured goods today than at any time in history, as measured by the dollar value of production adjusted for inflation — three times as much as in the mid-1950s, the supposed heyday of American industry. Between 1977 and 2005, the value of American manufacturing swelled from $1.3 trillion to an all-time record $4.5 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States is responsible for almost one-fourth of global manufacturing, a share that has changed little in decades. The United States is the largest manufacturing economy by far. Japan, the only serious rival for that title, has been losing ground. China has been growing but represents only about one-tenth of world manufacturing.”
http://jkn.com/View?j=847182.970771020785
Does that sound lazy to you? Does that sound like the rich are entitled to the view that the working class isn’t working hard enough?
Does that incredible economic activity sound like the working class should be getting screwed by not having their wages raised from their increased productivity while the upper classes reap the benefit in higher income from the efforts of the working class?
http://jkn.com/View?j=842612.154666598583
“The United States makes more manufactured goods today than at any time in history, as measured by the dollar value of production adjusted for inflation — three times as much as in the mid-1950s, the supposed heyday of American industry.”
Well to start, the US Population as increased by 80%. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html). During the same period of time the percentage of women working outside the home doubled (while the population was doubling). Add it up and there are a ton more people working today as in the 50’s. No great shock that we are producing more.
‘
You (and the articles author) also failed to take into account the fact that technology, particularly since the mid-50’s has had a HUGE impact on productivity. How many manufacturing processes are handled almost entirely by specialized machines and automated equipment, with just a handful of workers keeping an eye on things. So to state that Americans are working harder than ever just because of productivity numbers doesn’t wash.
“While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income in 2005 was $55,238, still nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new tax statistics show.”
As the article mentions, the White House explanation of the difference between 2000 and 2005 salaries is explained by the tech bubble burst. Look at the average income per person from 94-2000 showed significant increases over what it had been prior. While I know you all want to credit Clinton for that, you should rather credit Gore, I mean, he did invent the internet right? When the bubble burst, the salaries started sliding for a short time (read Correction).
But you need to be careful what you quote Dana, since the article does say that income has been increasing since 2002 (tax cuts anyone). Thanks for the confirmation that tax cuts are working.
“People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates”
Ok Dana…did you actually study math? Maybe they received the most savings because…well…they payed the most taxes. If a guy who pays a total of $1000 in taxes gets a 20% tax break, he saves $200. If someone who payed $100,000 in taxes gets on a 5% break, he or she saves $5,000. So who really got the most savings? If you need me to slow down my economic lesson…let me know.
This seems to be the best thread in the state right now, despite the few number of comments. Proof again that quality trumps quantity……
Since no one these days seems to have time to read the links posted, I wanted to pull up something from the link provided by Dana in comment #8.
What is at stake in this discussion is the question hanging over our heads since Reaganomics first appeared in 1980. Are the benefits of “Trickle Down” real, or….is this plan truly “Voodoo Economics?”
Thanks to the diamond-like quality of Delaware’s bloggers, who have nothing better to do on a Sunday than economic debate, we finally have our answer……….
Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000.
The number of taxpayers making more than $100,000 grew by nearly 3.4 million and accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the number of returns filed in 2005 compared with those in 2000.
The fact that average incomes remained lower in 2005 than five years earlier helps explain why so many Americans report feeling economic stress despite overall growth in the economy. Many Americans are also paying a larger share of their health care costs and have had their retirement benefits reduced, adding to their out-of-pocket costs.
There you have it. Both Republicans and Democrats were both right, simultaneously.
The tax cuts are good for the economy….but very, very bad for the two thirds of the nation earning under $50,000.
They are very, very good for people having incomes over 10 million, all 11433 of them. They averaged 1.9 million in tax savings.
The political point that needs to be stressed by the Democrats, who tended to sleep though their Econ 101, is that tax cuts are very good for individuals, but very, very bad for the country. That 21.7 billion could have been used for better things…….
Often, when at a loss for an answer, Republicans pull out the old phrase that they, like Donna Summer, “Worked Hard for their Money.” As Dana points out, with over ninety percent working at less than 100,000 a year, ….shouldn’t they be rewarded (according to the “Chris” doctrine) for their hard work, and not some fat ass too lazy to drive a car, mow his lawn, clean his own room, even turn on his TV?
lol
“Well to start, the US Population as increased by 80%. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html).”
See, what I mean. He throws up a smoke screen, a logical howler, to support his elitist conclusion that Americans aren’t working hard enough.
OK, let’s pull this apart. Here’s the problem: the USA isn’t the only country whose population grew during the same period. What do you think happened? The people of the other major industrialized nations and the emerging developing nations undergoing rapid industrialization stopped having babies? Only the USA produced more babies? Son, you need to think things through a bit more before you post them.
The point is that worldwide population increases notwithstanding and outsourcing notwithstanding and rapid industrialization in developing countries notwithstanding, the USA worker STILL OUTPRODUCES other workers in the world.
Sorry, but that means your lazy American worker prejudice has no basis in fact.
“You (and the articles author) also failed to take into account the fact that technology, particularly since the mid-50’s has had a HUGE impact on productivity”
We didn’t because it’s irrelevant. These other nations whose industries are both financed and mostly owned by foreign capital headquartered in major industrialized nations put the SAME technology in those countries as well. When I call Microsoft and someone answers the phone in India, I can hear the tapping of what sounds like computer keys on the other line. I highly doubt it is an abacus.
“As the article mentions, the White House explanation of the difference between 2000 and 2005 salaries is explained by the tech bubble burst.”
Yea, yea. So then there has been no Bush recovery. Is that what you are saying. Oh, wait, I know the answer. Income growth is a lagging indicator. Funny how it has lagged for 6 years and only for the working class. It hasn’t lagged for the elites who–now get this–who had their money tied up in the tech bubble. That’s just another indication that the so-called tech bubble, although real–nearly microscopically so, has been wildly exaggerated to give an excuse to the Bush regime’s redistribution of wealth for the benefits of elites.
“But you need to be careful what you quote Dana, since the article does say that income has been increasing since 2002 (tax cuts anyone).”
And you need to more closely since the article points out in unmistakable language that in REAL TERMS the wages for the working class are on the skids. You can pretend that inflation doesn’t exist if you want, but just know that you dwell in gaga land if you think so.
“Ok Dana…did you actually study math?…If a guy who pays a total of $1000 in taxes gets a 20% tax break, he saves $200. If someone who payed $100,000 in taxes gets on a 5% break, he or she saves $5,000. So who really got the most savings?”
I don’t know what math you studied–although it looks some Republican voodoo-math to me–but using your numbers, I can tell you who got more savings in his pocket:
$5,000 savings (rich person)
$200 savings (poor person)
Now if you REALLY think that $200 is more money in someone’s pocket than $5,000, then I suggest that you stop wondering about the math skills of others unless you love humiliation.
Unless, mathematics has gone completely off the rails since I was in school, it seems to me that the rich person has a trippingly obvious $4,800 advantage.
“Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000.”
You conveniently left out this part: “The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.”
Sounds like trickle down is starting to work to me.
The key component missing here too is the phenomenon of dual income homes. Both partners may make under $50,000, but times two puts them on par with on person making nearly $100,000.
Found this in the latest census report:
“Real per capita income rose for all
race groups and Hispanics between
2005 and 2006, with Asians experiencing
the largest increase. Overall
per capita income rose by 1.9 percent.
The per capita income of non-
Hispanic Whites, Blacks, and Asians
increased by 1.8 percent, 2.7 percent,
and 8.0 percent, respectively. The per
capita income of Hispanics rose by
3.1 percent. The last time all race
groups experienced a simultaneous
increase in per capita income was
in 1999.”
Tough economy….
Yes i did leave it out (poverty decreases) because it was extra to the argument I then was making. It is good news. But considering half or all income tax returns are below 30,000, it makes one wonder how much money over 25,000 those 3.2 million made. ($10, $15, $20?)
As to quell speculation that some of those families may be of dual income, the data mentioned was compiled off of Income Tax returns. Only if both partners filed separately, would the double up effect occur. Filing jointly would count as one. Any doubt can be erased by cross referencing those IRS figures with the Household Census Data you use in your rebuttal.
Again the problem is that the excessive amount of wealth on the high end of the income spectrum, drives up the averages for all.
Bill Gates walks into a bar and the average income of each patron soars 2 Billion….That is how averages work.
According to the Census Data, in 2006 our total household income amounted 5.45 Trillion dollars….out of which the top third, was earned by 6.8% of the income earning population. That leaves two thirds or 93.2% of Americans diving up a pot of 3.64 trillion.
That drops the average household income to $34,518. That is a big difference from the medium of $48,201.
As I mentioned before, the wealthy are doing great. They should be loving this economy. But as the energy, pharmaceutical, and insurance executives pocket huge untaxed bonuses, those people on the bottom two thirds, are sweating without AC, skipping their medications, and not seeking medical care…..because they cannot afford it……
No complaint on how well the economy is doing. The complaint is that it is not being shared by all, and the data shows it, once you skim all the butter off the top…..
Here’s the thing:
Even when rich people make lots and lots of money, what do they do with it? They don’t keep it around in huge piles like Scrooge McDuck. They either spend it or invest it. Either way, they end up employing people. Remember when Carter added huge taxes to the yacht industry in the 70’s? No more US yacht builders. Those who went out of business weren’t zillionaires. They worked for a living.
They either spend it or invest it. Either way, they end up employing people.
Unsupported opinion.
Do rich people help the economy by spending and investing?
My opinion? I doubt it. Maybe the economy of the Cayman Islands.
And one more opinion. Class mobility has stalled – which means the rich are doing less and less to be rich. They simply are. The other side of the coin is that it is now more difficult for a middle class person to get rich. If you are not rich in 2007 – then tough luck. You and your kids better get used to not having much money.
it is pretty bad now, but when you take the estate tax or “death tax” down to zero you will really see class mobility become a thing of the past.
If their money is invested in physical things, such as “let’s build a manufacturing plant,” then it truly does help the economy. More people are employed. But if it is invested in the stock market, (a metaphor for Scrooge McDucks room) it just increases the paper worth of those stocks already there. Their value exists only if you sell high; no extra person becomes employed.
Now if you tax the wealthy at 45% (to pick an arbitrary figure), and say “you know, all the money you spend on research and development, you can write off against you taxes, then instead of giving to the Government with no gain, they invest it in physical resources that indirectly help themselves. Jobs are created. The economy grows. Opportunity exists for all to move up.
That is why Clinton’s economy was widely successful. It put money into the hads of people who buy. That is why all intelligent republicans should either convert now, or quit.
lol
you seem to have a comment in moderation.
In comment #12 Chris says,”You conveniently left out this part: “The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.”
Using 2006 Census Data also provided by Chris, we see that the poverty level fell 2005-2006 from 12.6% to 12.3%. Two concurring trends that prove the economy is trickling down……Bush Reaganomics work.
In typical republican fashion he assumes all evidence existing before 2004 does not matter. If the poverty levels are looked at over the past 7 years, we see that in 1999, the poverty level was 11.3 %. If the current hopeful trend continues, by 2012, the economy should be as good for the poor as it was during the Clinton years…….The Bush legacy of tax cuts is responsible for pushing the poverty level from 11.3% up to 12.7%, a high from which it is descending now, amidst all the “hoopla”: whoopee.
(Here is the copy of the comment that got lost. It is also not showing up on my WordPress widget, so I will take the chance and send it again…..)
If their money is invested in physical things, such as in “let’s build a manufacturing plant,” then it truly does help the economy. More people are employed. But if it is invested in the stock market, (a metaphor for Scrooge McDuck’s room) it just increases the paper worth of those stocks already there. Their value exists only if you sell high; no extra person becomes employed.
Now if you tax the wealthy at 45% (to pick an arbitrary figure), and say “you know, all the money you spend on research and development, you can write off against your taxes”, then instead of giving to the Government with no gain, those rich souls will invest it in physical resources that directly help themselves. Jobs are created. The economy grows. Opportunity exists for all to move up.
That is why Clinton’s economy was widely successful. It put money into the hands of people who buy. That is also why all intelligent republicans should either convert now, or quit.
lol
But if it is invested in the stock market, (a metaphor for Scrooge McDuck’s room) it just increases the paper worth of those stocks already there.
To head off a wingnut argument:
When a company’s stock price goes up it does not follow that the company will invest their new found liquidity in creating new jobs.
Recent history shows that the “investments” that comapneis are willing to make are in China or the CEO’s paycheck.
don’t forget to blame the unions for all of this.
“According to the Census Data, in 2006 our total household income amounted 5.45 Trillion dollars”
And to think that Bush has already spent 1/2 trillion on Iraq. That doesn’t include the long-term costs nor keeping the troops in Iraq until the end of his term.
Bet this will be a trillion dollar war: approximately 20% of what Americans make in a year.