I'm tired of the liberal media giving any time to conservatives

I actually posted such a number above. In 1983, the top 1% of the population had 33.8% of the wealth. In 2004, they had 34.3% - virtually unchanged. And since the recession hit the wealthy very hard, my guess is that their share is now lower than it was 25 years ago.

The notion that the middle class is shrinking is largely not true. Or rather, the unstated part of the claim that the middle class is shrinking is that the rich are taking everything, and the middle class is being pushed down into the lower classes. In fact, the middle class is slightly smaller today than it has been in the past, but that’s mostly because people have moved UP out of the middle class, not down. And that’s only if you measure the middle class by hard income categories, rather than by characteristic measures.

This graph is a good indicator of what’s been going on. The lines represent the various income quintiles, showing whether they have grown over time. You can see that the percentage of people in the lower income quintiles is not getting much bigger - if there’s a trend there, it’s only worth a percentage point or two. The ‘gap between the rich and poor’ has certainly grown substantially, and that’s what the left likes to go on about, but if you examine the chart you’ll see that it’s not the result of wealth clustering at the top. Rather, the lowest two quintiles have stayed relatively fixed, while everyone else, including the middle class quintiles, have improved. In other words, the income share has spread out more across all but the lowest quintiles. This increases the gap between top and bottom, but only because of clustering at the top, but because of wider variance of income across the top 80% of the population.

So the best description of what has happened is that the lower classes are not growing, but they are being left behind by everyone else as people from the middle classes on up are improving.

Median household income, in constant dollars, has risen from $35,000 in 1965 to $46,000 in 2005. And while it did decline slightly from 1996 to 2003, it has been rising since.

In addition, much depends on how you define the middle class. If you insist on simply using income brackets, you can see some shrinkage (but again, mostly because of movement upwards, not downwards). But if you ask what the various income classes are really supposed to represent, you get something like this:

Poor - unable to sustain themselves without societal aid. Lacking in the basic necessities or conveniences common to everyone else.

Middle Class - Self-reliant, but still having to work for a living. Capable of living the ‘American Dream’ of home ownership, sending the kids to college, owning good personal transportation and access to recreation and vacationing to desirable places.

Upper Class - Capable of living a high lifestyle without the need to work. Availability of personal servants to take care of mundane chores.

By those definitions, the middle class has grown much bigger in the past few decades. Because many of the people considered ‘rich’ now are the working wealthy - engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. They still live middle class lives, although with the trappings of luxury. And the ‘poor’ have access to the things that would have been considered middle class just a couple of decades ago - air conditioning, private cars, homes, computers, televisions, DVD players, automatic washing machines and dishwashers, etc.

This Cite will give you your answer, and given what you obviously think the answer is, you’re in for a surprise.

The share of wealth held by the top 1% in America in 1922 was 36.7%. The share of wealth held by the top 1% actually peaked in 1929, when it was 44.2%. The low point was actually 1976, when the top 1% had 19.9% of the wealth.

There is NO upward trend. What the data shows is that wealth owned by the top 1% fluctuates around the 30-40% range, depending on factors like the business cycle. It’s been this way for at least 80 years. And if you look at figure 4 in that cite, you’ll see that the current concentration of wealth at the top is actually historically low, and has been on average lower over the past ten years than in any other ten year period since 1940. Class warriors, take note.

What’s really been happening is that the power and wealth of the middle class has increased, because technology and capital investment have made the middle class more productive. The real story is that there is a widening gap not between the rich and poor, but between the educated and the uneducated. All the income quintiles below the lowest generally have access to good educations, so they have been doing better and better. The poorest, least educated are staying where they are because they exist on government benefits and are generally lacking in education.

The top 1% of earners have more than doubled their share of national income since 1980. The last time their share was so high was 1928, just before the last big financial meltdown. Over a third of all pay is earned by about 0.1% of the population. This disparity is getting greater all the time now although admittedly the meltdown has put a brake on the snowballing wealth of a tiny fraction of the population.

Show your working.

This is a good example of how to lie with statistics.

Note that the above author deliberately chose the year of the lowest historical wealth concentration of the past 80 years from which to draw his conclusion. If he had chosen 1965, he could conclude that in 44 years the wealth of the top 1% has actually declined. He could also have concluded that wealth concentration has gone down had he used 1939, 1989, 1992, 1995, or 1998 - all years in which the top 1% held a higher percentage of the nation’s wealth than they do today.

I hope you have a cite for that, because the number I’ve got is that in 2003 1% of the population earned 17% of the income. Unless there has been a change of more than an order of magnitude in six years, you’re wrong.

Cite? Again, the numbers I’ve got show that the income of the upper 1% has fluctuated between 15% and 20% of total income for the past 25 years. It was higher in 2000 than it is today, and about as high in 1988. But it’s all just variance. The income of the top group is very much affected by asset values and stock fluctuations and average profitability, since a higher percentage of their pay comes from bonuses, percentages of profits, stock options and the like. I’ll bet it will look pretty dismal this year.

If the rich are taking such a huge percentage of income, how come their share of wealth isn’t increasing?

You really need me to give you a lesson in how to calculate compound interest?

Do the math yourself. It’s good exercise.

I chose 1980 because Reagan slashed income taxes then and it’s the starting point of the growth of income for top earners.
*The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

…He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.

The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The nation’s wealth gap is widening amid an uproar about lofty pay packages in the financial world.

Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data – without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries.

Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007, the latest figures available. The compensation numbers don’t include incentive stock options, unexercised stock options, unvested restricted.

Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data – without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries.

Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007, the latest figures available. The compensation numbers don’t include incentive stock options, unexercised stock options, unvested restricted stock units and certain benefits.

Or, in a word, “Oink!”.

In their eyes there’s something lacking
What they need’s a damned good whacking!

  • St. John of Liverpool

You’re using a ridiculous interet rate level to get to those numbers, more than double the historical interest rate paid on savings accounts over the past 40 years. An honest calculation would give you a final figure of only a fraction of what you’re dishonestly claiming. And I’d like to see your working to see if you can actually workit out yourself and didn’t copy that nonsense from some equally clueless right wing pundit.

The whole news as talking heads, wanker punditry is really disgusting on both sides.

Oh let’s get a bunch of folks to talk about an issue and resolve nothing.

From the article previously linked :

The $2.1 trillion figure understates executive pay, however, because it includes just salary and vested deferred compensation, including bonuses. It doesn’t include unvested employer contributions and unvested interest credited to deferred-pay accounts. Nor does it include unexercised stock options (options aren’t subject to payroll tax until exercised), and unvested restricted stock (which isn’t subject to payroll tax until vested; the subsequent appreciation is taxed as a capital gain).

Also not included in the total compensation figures is executive pay never subject to payroll tax. This category includes incentive stock options (which are generally taxed as capital gains), “carried interest” income received by hedge-fund and private-equity fund partners (also taxed as capital gains), and compensation characterized as a benefit (benefits generally aren’t subject to any taxes).

Difficult to argue the rich aren’t getting richer. And dangerously so, both times we’ve had this amount of money sequestered from the real economy we’ve had massive financial meltdowns. If there isn’t a redistribution of wealth downwards to make up for the upward redistribution we’ve seen over the past 30 years then we’re going to continue to have an unstable financial system with all the economic damage that entails.

Sam talked about putting away for retirement. He didn’t say “savings account.” Putting away $3,000 per year for retirement suggests IRA to me. According to Ibbotson the S&P 500 has averaged about 10% for the last 100 years.

If you do the math, compounding gives you $1,612,911 at age 67.
So, he’s maybe a bit optimistic, but clearly in the ballpark, and you, my friend, look stupid for calling bullshit on somebody’s math, and accusing them of plagiarizing and/or dispensing false information without doing your due diligence.

You 'tard.

Show me a way you could have earned one point six million investing three thousand a year for thirty years in an actual real world scenario, one that has a basis in reality.

Well, excluding the recent unpleasantness…

That’s a relative performance chart, and I’m not sure what you think it is showing, but It’s not actually germaine to the argument.

Piece of cake. Easy as pie.

The American Funds Washington Mutual Fund just happens to have a 31 year track record. Over the course of those 31 years it has averaged 11.58%

Ta-da!!!

This is north of the 10% Sam cited.
https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/details.htm?fundNumber=1

Please note that this is the second “real world” example that you have been shown. Previously I mentioned the S&P 500 which exists in the real world and can be invested in a variety of ways for the last 30 years.
If you call up your investment professional or email just about any mutual fund company on the planet they will be more than happy to send you tons of hypotheticals (an industry term) showing you what you would have gotten had you invested in their funds over the last 30 years.

Here’s another:

https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/details.htm?fundGroupNumber=11&fundClassNumber=0

and another:

https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/details.htm?fundGroupNumber=6&fundClassNumber=0

That one has been around since the 1920s IIRC.

Anyway, that’s just American Funds. I chose them because they’ve been around for awhile, so lots of 30 year track records. In fact, it’s damn hard to find one that’s been around that long that would not have done at least 10% that isn’t equity based.
Any other questions?

He just explained it to you.
The stock market has averaged 10% a year.
Sam specified starting at age 25, so that’s 40 years, not 30.
Since we’re talking about stock markets, set this to compound every day the market is open, about 250 times a year.

Put the numbers in yourself.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=%24INX&CP=0&PT=8

That’s what would have happened to your money over the last few years had you invested in the S and P 500.

Wow, look at all the misdirection! Dick Dastardly posts flatly wrong information. He gets corrected, and rather than admit it he subtly changes the measures, so now we’re not talking about the top 1% or 10%, but ‘highly paid employees’, with no actual definition of what they are. And the discussion of wealth turns magically into a discussion of income, now that the wealth data doesn’t support his pre-conceived notions.

Then he tries a ‘gotcha’ on me by assuming that a person would maintain a lifelong savings in the place that returns the lowest amount of interest.

He then repeats his claim that the ‘wealth gap’ is growing, despite my already having posted hard data showing that it is NOT. Certainly not for the top 1%, whose share of the wealth today is in the same range as it has been since 1920, within the margin of error.

Then he tries to backpedal on a discussion of LONG TERM rates of return by citing the fact that you’d lose money over a 3-year term if you invest at a peak and are currently in a trough.

It’s getting ridiculous.

Is this what passes for the ‘reality based’ community?

Go back ten years and it’s even worse.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=%24INX&CP=0&PT=10

I’m happy to let our fellow forumers decide for themselves which of us is full of it. :slight_smile:

Hey, look! If you go back FORTY years, which is the time frame we’re talking about… not so bad!

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=%24INX&CP=0&PT=11