Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by rubato »

What's Fair?

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/
__________________________
Consider the Evidence

Lane Kenworthy

« Should income growth over the life course lessen concern about the great decoupling?
Is decoupling real?
March 11, 2012

Since the 1970s, income growth for middle-class American households has become decoupled from growth of the economy. The chart below offers one way to see this. It shows trends in GDP per capita and median family income, with each series displayed as an index set to equal 1 in the initial year. From the late 1940s through the mid-to-late 1970s, the two moved in lockstep. After that, GDP per capita continued its steady upward march (through 2007), but median income rose much less rapidly.

Image

This is disappointing, but seemingly not surprising. After all, income inequality increased sharply during these years. The share of income going to the top 1% of households jumped from 8% in 1979 to 17% in 2007. With a larger and larger portion of economic growth going to those at the top, a divorce between growth of the economy and growth of middle-class incomes is exactly what we would expect to see.

But according to some (here, here, here, here), this picture may significantly overstate the degree of decoupling.

One objection is that the price deflator typically used to adjust GDP per capita for inflation differs from the deflator used for median family income. I’ve addressed that here by using the same deflator for both.

A second concern has to do with GDP per capita as an indicator of economic advance. Since the 1970s a larger portion of GDP has gone to replace old capital equipment and therefore can’t go to household income. Also, the number of persons has increased less rapidly than the number of households, so a per capita (per person) measure of GDP could mislead.

A third worry is that the income measure used to calculate median family income is too thin. If a growing portion of GDP has gone to employer benefits, that would help middle-class households, but it wouldn’t show up in these income data.

To address these second and third concerns, we can turn to a more encompassing measure of household income. The data are from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The measure includes all sources of cash income. It adds in-kind income (employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid benefits), employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans, and employer-paid payroll taxes. Tax payments are subtracted.

We can use average household income in these data as a substitute for GDP per capita. The CBO data set doesn’t tell us the median income, but it provides something quite similar: the average income of households in the middle quintile of the distribution (from the 40th percentile to the 60th). The following chart adds these two series. The story is virtually identical.

Image

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by dgs49 »

Of course, the more rational analysis is that absent criminal activity or massive violation of applicable regulations (for which the law provides remedies/penalities), the income of private citizens is none of the government's business. Most importantly, the Government has no authority to define "income inequality" as a "problem," or to do anything whatsoever to "solve" it. It is not a problem. It is the normal and natural result of the fact the people have different talents, abilities, and luck. And since people who are intelligent and talented tend to mate with each other (and the same goes for people at the other end of the Bell Curve), it is only natural that each generation's high achievers will be somewhat more superior to the norm than the last generation's high achievers.

Current generations, and apparently future generations, will have to deal with not only a lack of intelligence and talent holding down the lower classes (and the averages, no matter how they are calculated), but also a culture of horrific lifestyle choices, typified by rampant illegitimacy, which make things even worse. The fact is, it is possible for a below-average couple to make a good life for themselves, but make one of them a single mother and you are talking Shit City.

Cogent adults (not that this applies to rubato) know that ALL government is responsible for is providing a legal and regulatory framework where private economic activity can thrive, and keeping bad guys from killing or injuring us, or taking our stuff. There is nothing in the Constitution or anyplace else that allows or justifies using the Internal Revenue Code as a tool to alleviate the "problem" of income inequality.

Any time Government gets a chance to pick winners and losers, the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head. Go ahead. Raise the top marginal tax rate to 70%. See what happens.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by Econoline »

Set aside for a moment the question of whether "the Government" should--or even can--do something about growing income and/or wealth inequality.

If--*IF*--these two categories of inequality are indeed growing (rather than shrinking or remaining stable), is this a trend that should worry us as U.S. citizens? And if there were not only growth but acceleration in the rate of growth, would that make it more worrisome?

I'd like to see the conservatives on this board address these questions before even starting to address the proper or improper role of government.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by Grim Reaper »

dgs49 wrote:It is the normal and natural result of the fact the people have different talents, abilities, and luck.
Except not really. It's the normal and natural result of bribing elected officials so they can keep making more money and keeping more of what they do earn.
dgs49 wrote:Raise the top marginal tax rate to 70%.
I see Captain Strawman is on the job.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17264
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by Scooter »

Growing income inequality leads to a growing inability to absorb the nation's productive capacity, because marginal propensity to consume is greater at lower income levels than at higher income levels.. That was a major cause of the Great Depression. There was insufficient growth in income among the bulk oif the population to sustain economic growth. The same trend is emerging again, as real incomes for the bulk of the population have stagnated for the last decade.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17264
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by Scooter »

dgs49 wrote:There is nothing in the Constitution or anyplace else that allows or justifies using the Internal Revenue Code as a tool to alleviate the "problem" of income inequality.
It's called the Taxing and Spending Clause.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by Andrew D »

dgs49 wrote:There is nothing in the Constitution or anyplace else that allows or justifies using the Internal Revenue Code as a tool to alleviate the "problem" of income inequality.
The Constitution does not justify the government's exacerbating the problem.
dgs49 wrote:Go ahead. Raise the top marginal tax rate to 70%. See what happens.
Anyone up for an economic boom?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by dgs49 »

Scooter, are you really that out of touch?

The government has the taxing power in order to fund the legitimate functions of government. Period. The taxing power is not in place to confiscate wealth from those who have abundance and give to those who have less. That is commonly referred to as Marxism, which the United States has expressly rejected.

Can't speak for Canada or Western Europe. But taxing is this country is solely for the purpose of funding the legitimate expenses of government.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17264
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by Scooter »

U.S. v. Butler. The power of Congress to tax and spend is "a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated" and "is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them." Period.

What does that make, 30, 40 times that this has been pointed out to you and you have pretended to ignore it?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by rubato »

dgs49 wrote:Scooter, are you really that out of touch?

The government has the taxing power in order to fund the legitimate functions of government. Period. The taxing power is not in place to confiscate wealth from those who have abundance and give to those who have less. That is commonly referred to as Marxism, which the United States has expressly rejected.

Can't speak for Canada or Western Europe. But taxing is this country is solely for the purpose of funding the legitimate expenses of government.
If the constitution allowed Reagan and Bush II to shift taxes from the very very rich to the poor then, logically, it must allow the opposite.

yrs,
rubato

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by rubato »

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/03/s ... ality.html


Image

ehavior: The long term trend in goods and government vs. everything else I think also shows part of what has happened to the American middle class. Goods and Government are what we might have thought about as backbone jobs. These are police officers, fire fighters, school teachers, factory workers, construction workers. When you think of a stereotypical 1950s American, they are doing one of these jobs. And, in the 1950s half of Americans were employed in these sectors. Yet, since then the labor market has radically shifted.

Notice these two are plotted on the same axis so from 1939 to 1965 – not including the war boom – goods and government was roughly half of the nonfarm labor force. Then a rapid falling off. One thing I hadn’t considered but is probably true is that goods (via the magic of boxes) and government via transfers between jurisdictions, is not as dependent on urbanization as the rest of the economy. This probably supported the stagnation in land rents that occurred over this period, which also supported real wages.

http://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f0 ... 21b970d-pi

Anatomy of a Recession and a Recovery Modeled Behavior

And:

Anatomy of a Recession and a Recovery « Modeled Behavior: The following chart I have found useful in analyzing the baseline for this entire recession and seeing past lots of what I would consider noise about the causes and consequences. Here I basically split the labor market into two parts: Goods and Government and everything else.

Everything else hit a wall in 2008 but as you can see it was a nice natural V. It was not even the job-less U of 2000. And since the beginning of 2010 everything else has been growing just as fast as the last recovery. As we moved into 2012 job growth seems to be speeding up faster than anything we saw last time around.

The difference this time was goods and government. To cut it down to the micro-level I like we are largely talking about construction workers, metal and automotive workers, and school teachers. These workers are massively influenced by credit constraints. One cannot build a building without credit. One cannot buy a vehicle without credit and state and local governments have very little credit room by statute. So what we need for job growth to really hit its stride is for construction to comeback, cars to comeback and school teachers to come back.

The process is well on its way with cars, though could be derailed. Construction is building and my best guess is that school teachers will start to be rehired in about 12 – 18 months. Though again because these sectors respond so much to liquidity the job recovery is still fragile.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Something for Occupy Wallstreet to chew over.

Post by rubato »

The latest data reveal that the top 1 per cent of earners got 93 per cent of all increases in after-tax personal income in 2010.


http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/03/r ... ation.html
_______________________________
Roger Altman: The U.S. Needs a More Progressive Income Tax System and More Public Investment in Education

By coincidence, exactly what I told my Econ 1 students yesterday:

No more inaction on income inequalitym: Two solutions stand above the rest. The US needs a more progressive tax system and one that raises more revenue. The latest data reveal that the top 1 per cent of earners got 93 per cent of all increases in after-tax personal income in 2010. That reflects, among other things, low effective tax rates for much of this group, which are largely explained by the high percentage of their income that consists of capital gains and dividends…. In the longer term, it is imperative to raise education levels. This means better secondary-school completion rates, which lead to increased university attendance. And it also means higher university completion rates, with the greater lifetime earnings that follow. In America, wide-ranging public school reforms are necessary to achieve the first goal, including better methods for teacher training, evaluation and compensation, improved curriculums and upon graduation, as a minimum, assured admission to community colleges. Fortunately, this reform movement is finally showing some signs of life. We need a big initiative to make university affordable and inclusive.

These steps are not impossible. Far from it. They are readily attainable with the right leadership. Mr Obama’s welcome focus on the problem should now be coupled with genuine solutions.

____________________________________

yrs,
rubato

Post Reply