"Requiem for the American Dream"

Tinark

Active member
Why is education failing?

Define "failing".

Popl_indicator4.GIF


06_fig1.jpg


PPIC-wage-disparity-graph042114.png


Why have we become a "consumer society"?

Become? We've been one since the end of WWII. It's what happens when a country becomes prosperous like the US and the citizens have plenty of disposable income.

Why has wealth migrated to the upper 0.1%? Because wealth buys politicians who write tax and fiscal policy

Why did they write it to produce this outcome?

CBOtable2.jpg

Share_of_Taxes(1).jpg

Average_Federal_Tax_Rates_Top_1_Percent-thumb-615x480-109671.png


U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive

Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...axes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

and as policy shifts tax burden to the lower and middle classes from the wealthy, it give the wealthy even greater influence over the policy-makers, creating a vicious cycle creating wealth redistribution from the poorer to the rich.

Refuted with facts and data above. This is a factually false claim that you should not repeat until these facts change in the future, lest be labeled a blind ideologue.
 

Tinark

Active member
Wealth is accumulating into a greater and greater number of hands, not fewer like the ideologues would have you believe:

Market%20Insights%202015.png


wealth-inequality-usa-09.jpg
 

Tinark

Active member
Might the xenophobia and anti-immigrant stance of the 1950's-1970's be playing a part in the stagnating median income/wages/net-worth?

We have far more 1st generation immigrants overall and as a percent of the population today than we did in the 1970's, the so called "golden era" that leftists like to point to:

gkbPsLi_uiTRtl44WpOxqwWp8t-U59obQdcGwAmmClI_XbaRewRwlyLpJq13uYCkrCrqpVnIP2Yd4n7qK6W1bbbHRfWueNksIbbbarYbSwnIzrPSVNwMiz3OG3zI_T3-tQ


The median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and salary workers were $681 in 2015, compared with $837 for their native-born counterparts. (See table 5.)


The median foreign born immigrant earns less than the native population, about 20% less in fact. However, they earn far more than what they receive from where they come from.

It gives them an opportunity at a better life that was denied to them in their native countries. Might that not be playing a part in the data here given that a full 7% more of the total population is foreign born compared to the 60's and 70's?

Furthermore, they make up an even greater proportion of the total labor force:

In 2015, there were 26.3 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. labor force, comprising 16.7 percent of the total

They are also more likely to be employed than the native born:

From 2014 to 2015, the unemployment rate of the foreign born declined from 5.6 percent to 4.9 percent, and the jobless rate for the native born fell from 6.3 percent to 5.4 percent.

Very interesting how the slanted documentary in the OP completely failed to discuss this factor.

Another trend over the last 40 years is the decrease in household size and the decrease in the average number of income earners per household:

average-us-household-size.png


Figure%201%20B.jpg


earners1.png


In other words, the share of households having two earners has declined by 5% since 1980. This is going to affect data on median household income when you compare across time.

Also, beware another tactic of the leftists, focusing strictly on wages/income and not overall compensation that includes fringe benefits, the largest being health insurance. Benefits as a percent of overall compensation has increased over the past 35 years:

slide_4.jpg


It doesn't make a huge difference, but is something to keep into account when determining how much employers are paying their workers.

Let's also not forget that average weekly hours for employed persons has been trending downward:

Hb9cHIRQT7QQ1Iso_fEiH1MNQ1T-GuRo0_HssvUHJYUa4lHRPidrdOrcR_HRWDyh57VasI9qDkcGUooDW5I8w5flHXgoi0JeeMnKaolrvpxKASquc6wAJq7JRQJiQXWDLY4V_SWA


There's been a decline in average hours worked of about 7% from the mid 70's, from ~36 hours to ~33.5 hours. Fewer hours is also going to have an impact on median income and wealth, but this is in exchange for additional leisure time. Something unaccounted for in any of this data.

Another thing to consider:

retired.png


Retirees increased from 15% to 17% of the population. Incomes decline in retirement, but there are also fewer expenses (often the house is paid off/paid down substantially, no longer supporting dependents, etc.). More retirees will contribute to holding the income data down over time.

The failure to at least discuss these facts demonstrates the bias/agenda of the video in the OP.
 

Tinark

Active member
Another factor to consider: there has also been a marked rise in "assortative mating" over the past several decades.

These days, an investment banker may marry another investment banker rather than a high school sweetheart, or a lawyer will marry another lawyer, or a prestigious client, rather than a secretary. Whether measured in terms of income or education, there are more so-called power couples today than in the past, one manifestation of a phenomenon known as assortative mating, or more generally the pairing of like with like.

...

Money and talent become clustered in high-powered, two-earner families determined to do everything possible to advance the interests of their children. There is some long-term benefit for society, since many innovators and business creators will receive their initial boosts early in their lives, including the very best training in childhood, and that may enhance their eventual productivity.

But there are also serious economic costs. As it becomes harder for many people to “marry up” as a path for income mobility for themselves or their children, families that are not well connected may feel disengaged, and the significant, family-based advantages for some children may discourage others from even trying.

The numbers show that assortative mating really matters. One study indicated that combined family decisions on assortative mating, divorce and female labor supply accounted for about one-third of the increase in income inequality from 1960 to 2005. That result is from the economist Jeremy Greenwood, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and other co-authors.

A study of Denmark by Gustaf Bruze, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, showed that about half of the expected financial gain of attending college derived not from better job prospects but from the chance to meet and marry a higher-earning spouse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-power-couples-reinforce-income-inequality.html

And also:

In particular, if matching in 2005 between husbands and wives had been random, instead of the pattern observed in the data, then the Gini coefficient would have fallen from the observed 0.43 to 0.34, so that income inequality would be smaller. Thus, assortative mating is important for income inequality.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19829

Another factor the slanted video in the OP utterly failed to discuss, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the wealthy rigging the system in their favor.
 
Top