The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US

Page 11 of 11 [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,284
Location: Queens, NYC

11 Aug 2019, 11:43 am

Numbers rarely tell the full story.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,443
Location: Midwest

11 Aug 2019, 2:29 pm

blazingstar wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Mostly trickle down is BS because the people who are expected to allow wealth to trickle down hide it all in foreign bank accounts. You see the uber wealthy elites are beyond human responsibility, they shouldn't pay taxes or contribute to the economy they should hoard all their money and pass it on to their groomed children who never have worked a day of hard labor. And then have the audacity to pretend those well groomed children are more valuble than people who make their money doing actual labor.


You really don't get it. Wealthy elites don't hoard money, they invest it. Why let your fortune shrink when instead it can grow. Invested money is directly funneled into the economy.


Antrax, I am really interested in your numbers and how they do (or don't) describe the state of the economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. I can't quarrel with your numbers, because I don't have the background for that. But I don't understand how it explains what I see happening right how.

My maternal grandparents: My grandfather worked a single job, as a bank teller. From this salary, he was able to buy a house, support my grandmother and my mother in a decent respectable lifestyle. Not rich, but comfortable.

My parents, both my parents had degrees from University of Chicago. And my mother never worked outside the home until after the divorce. But we never had enough money, even when my father was working in a professional job. They had only one car. He took the train into work when my mother needed it to shop.

In my generation, one worker cannot support a family. I realize you said not everyone will support a family, but most people do. Two professionals can barely support a family. Yes, some could do better if they used Dave Ramsey or Susie whatever to manage their money better. But the fact is that two generations ago, one worker in a regular job, could buy a house and support a family.

Now many young couples can't even dream of owning their own home.

What changed? How do your statistics explain this phenomenon? If everything financial is "the same" or even improved, why aren't we (the middle and lower classes) doing better than we are?


Blazingstar, what it is people are looking at certain metrics for quality of life, whereas as the statisticians who do this for a living are looking at everything. The other thing is when looking at the population as a whole a particular job might not be better, but the economy has created new jobs that are better. That is a bank teller today might not be better off than a bank teller 40 years ago, but more people have jobs that are equal to or better than a bank teller job. Lastly while on average everyone is better off, that does not mean that individually everyone is better. Some people have seen their fortunes take a turn for the worse, but more people have seen their fortunes take a turn for the better.

I'm going to estimate your grandfather's day as 100 years ago (40 years before your birth). He couldn't afford a car, only the very wealthy could afford cars. If one of his kids got sick with a serious bacterial infection he didn't have to pay for expensive medical care, instead his kid died. I don't know what the cost of a carton of milk was 100 years ago, but it was probably a lot more than a carton of milk today (adjusted for inflation). Statisticians take all of these things into account, whereas people just look at did he own a home and raise a family.

You can live like a person 100 years ago on less than a person 100 years ago did. People don't want to live like that today. Sink all your money into buying a home and paying for food. No car. No health care. No cell phone. No computers. No television. Throw away all the modern commodities of life, and you'll live plenty cheaply.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,221

11 Aug 2019, 6:04 pm

Antrax wrote:
blazingstar wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Mostly trickle down is BS because the people who are expected to allow wealth to trickle down hide it all in foreign bank accounts. You see the uber wealthy elites are beyond human responsibility, they shouldn't pay taxes or contribute to the economy they should hoard all their money and pass it on to their groomed children who never have worked a day of hard labor. And then have the audacity to pretend those well groomed children are more valuble than people who make their money doing actual labor.


You really don't get it. Wealthy elites don't hoard money, they invest it. Why let your fortune shrink when instead it can grow. Invested money is directly funneled into the economy.


Antrax, I am really interested in your numbers and how they do (or don't) describe the state of the economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. I can't quarrel with your numbers, because I don't have the background for that. But I don't understand how it explains what I see happening right how.

My maternal grandparents: My grandfather worked a single job, as a bank teller. From this salary, he was able to buy a house, support my grandmother and my mother in a decent respectable lifestyle. Not rich, but comfortable.

My parents, both my parents had degrees from University of Chicago. And my mother never worked outside the home until after the divorce. But we never had enough money, even when my father was working in a professional job. They had only one car. He took the train into work when my mother needed it to shop.

In my generation, one worker cannot support a family. I realize you said not everyone will support a family, but most people do. Two professionals can barely support a family. Yes, some could do better if they used Dave Ramsey or Susie whatever to manage their money better. But the fact is that two generations ago, one worker in a regular job, could buy a house and support a family.

Now many young couples can't even dream of owning their own home.

What changed? How do your statistics explain this phenomenon? If everything financial is "the same" or even improved, why aren't we (the middle and lower classes) doing better than we are?


Blazingstar, what it is people are looking at certain metrics for quality of life, whereas as the statisticians who do this for a living are looking at everything. The other thing is when looking at the population as a whole a particular job might not be better, but the economy has created new jobs that are better. That is a bank teller today might not be better off than a bank teller 40 years ago, but more people have jobs that are equal to or better than a bank teller job. Lastly while on average everyone is better off, that does not mean that individually everyone is better. Some people have seen their fortunes take a turn for the worse, but more people have seen their fortunes take a turn for the better.

I'm going to estimate your grandfather's day as 100 years ago (40 years before your birth). He couldn't afford a car, only the very wealthy could afford cars. If one of his kids got sick with a serious bacterial infection he didn't have to pay for expensive medical care, instead his kid died. I don't know what the cost of a carton of milk was 100 years ago, but it was probably a lot more than a carton of milk today (adjusted for inflation). Statisticians take all of these things into account, whereas people just look at did he own a home and raise a family.

You can live like a person 100 years ago on less than a person 100 years ago did. People don't want to live like that today. Sink all your money into buying a home and paying for food. No car. No health care. No cell phone. No computers. No television. Throw away all the modern commodities of life, and you'll live plenty cheaply.


I appreciate your explanation. I can understand the main points, that statisticians are just looking at numbers and that there can be movement between populations within a country. But there are still some problems.

My grandfather owned a car. I have seen photos. By 1920 cost of cars had gone down to $260, according to wikipedia and the equivalent in today's money would be around $22,000. Can't buy a new car these days for $22,000. Penicillin had not even been discovered at the time my mother was born. All people, rich or poor, died from infections. Milk cost 26c/gallon in 1930, which would be about 3.78 now, which is roughly similar. BUT, grocery stores typically sell milk very cheaply in order to get people into the store. I also think there are price supports for milk. A quick check in google indicates that without price supports, milk would cost $6/gallon today.

It is true that my grandparents did not have to purchase a TV, nor a cell phone, or a second car, etc. But they did send my mother to college at the University of College which could not have been cheap.

In the developed world, if one is going to be working, a phone is pretty much required, as is a second car, or at least one per working adult in the home. Although some major cities, such as New York, have good enough public transportation not to need cars, that is not true of most of the rest of the USA. You also pretty much have to have internet, or at least a smart phone. It isn't an option, if one is going to be working at a job. Even at McD, they want to be able to call you in to work a shift someone else did not show up for.

I agree that medical care and medical expenses in general are way out of control and the level of care provided is in excess of what is needed, but that is a different discussion.

So, you are basically saying, that because people today want to buy two cars, cell phones, health insurance and so forth, they require a second job? That still seems out of kilter.

If the statistics show (as I have heard) that the middle class is shrinking (or stable), then how, statistically, can the majority of people (as used to be the middle class) are experiencing financial improvement? I'm pretty sure there are statistics demonstrating that the percentage of people living at or below the poverty line is also increasing. So how does that fit in with people's financial lot improving?


_________________
Eyes that watch the morning star
usually shine brighter,
Arms held out to dark they say,
usually hold tighter.


Threnody, Dorothy Parker
as modified by David Tamulovich


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,443
Location: Midwest

11 Aug 2019, 7:39 pm

blazingstar wrote:

I appreciate your explanation. I can understand the main points, that statisticians are just looking at numbers and that there can be movement between populations within a country. But there are still some problems.

My grandfather owned a car. I have seen photos. By 1920 cost of cars had gone down to $260, according to wikipedia and the equivalent in today's money would be around $22,000. Can't buy a new car these days for $22,000. Penicillin had not even been discovered at the time my mother was born. All people, rich or poor, died from infections. Milk cost 26c/gallon in 1930, which would be about 3.78 now, which is roughly similar. BUT, grocery stores typically sell milk very cheaply in order to get people into the store. I also think there are price supports for milk. A quick check in google indicates that without price supports, milk would cost $6/gallon today.

It is true that my grandparents did not have to purchase a TV, nor a cell phone, or a second car, etc. But they did send my mother to college at the University of College which could not have been cheap.

In the developed world, if one is going to be working, a phone is pretty much required, as is a second car, or at least one per working adult in the home. Although some major cities, such as New York, have good enough public transportation not to need cars, that is not true of most of the rest of the USA. You also pretty much have to have internet, or at least a smart phone. It isn't an option, if one is going to be working at a job. Even at McD, they want to be able to call you in to work a shift someone else did not show up for.

I agree that medical care and medical expenses in general are way out of control and the level of care provided is in excess of what is needed, but that is a different discussion.

So, you are basically saying, that because people today want to buy two cars, cell phones, health insurance and so forth, they require a second job? That still seems out of kilter.

If the statistics show (as I have heard) that the middle class is shrinking (or stable), then how, statistically, can the majority of people (as used to be the middle class) are experiencing financial improvement? I'm pretty sure there are statistics demonstrating that the percentage of people living at or below the poverty line is also increasing. So how does that fit in with people's financial lot improving?


More people have moved from middle class to upper class than middle class to lower class.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -families/

Notable quote:
Pew Research wrote:
From 1971 to 2011, the share of adults in the middle class fell by 10 percentage points. But that shift was not all down the economic ladder. Indeed, the increase in the share of adults who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income over that period, a sign of economic progress overall.


Minor quibble but a new compact sedan will run you ~$14,000 today, about a 3rd less than $22,000.

I agree the expectations have shifted, and I think that's where people find it hard to believe in economic progress. College used to be seen as a luxury not a necessity. Cars didn't used to be so necessary. Hell, 25 years ago if you had a cell phone you were a very important person.

I think another reason people think the middle class isn't doing well is because we just came out of a brutal recession:Image

While people are much richer than they were 40 years ago or 8 years ago, they're only mildly richer than 20 years ago.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,443
Location: Midwest

11 Aug 2019, 7:49 pm

Here's a slightly longer timeline real income graph going to the mid-80s. It's interactive so I can't embed it in WP:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Roboto
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 333

12 Aug 2019, 1:18 pm

Still ignoring labor hours of the household and also relying on a flawed inflation number which doesn't account for cost of food or energy... Statistics that are supported by our government generally are all manipulated to make government look good.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,423

12 Aug 2019, 2:59 pm

Here, the guy at Innuendo Studios shows his work on the OP video:



But basically, a long line of conservative thinking going back to Edmund Burke supports his view of conservatives. In addition, he notes what conservatives have tended to do when they got into power, which belies their statement that they are simply "slow" and "stodgy" when it comes to changing things; conservatives can actually be quite radical. He also argues that the alt-right is simply an extension of these particular values of the conservative movement that conservatives are at best ambivalent about.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

13 Aug 2019, 7:10 am

Has anyone ever successfully ever implemented "bottom up economics"?

Seems like whenever a far left government gets in power, the currency will get crushed, they will take on huge debts, high unemployment, strikes, many people have an entitlement attitude so there is lots of anger ...


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,284
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Aug 2019, 7:49 am

Most “far left” governments are, in practice, far right,



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,423

13 Aug 2019, 1:56 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Has anyone ever successfully ever implemented "bottom up economics"?

Seems like whenever a far left government gets in power, the currency will get crushed, they will take on huge debts, high unemployment, strikes, many people have an entitlement attitude so there is lots of anger ...


Well, a lot of the countries in Europe, Canada, Japan, and others, and they tend to have better economic mobility as a result:

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lag ... -mobility/

Scandinavia seems to have the best mobility.

Support some of the basic needs of non-wealthy people like health care, and you empower them to make choices in their lives. No longer do they have to stay in a dead-end job just for the health care, and they won't have to choose between health care and staking out a path on their own. Our health care system in the US locks people into their current jobs and discourages them from striking out on their own, because otherwise they lose their coverage. The way our health care system is set up in the US is actually a system of control.

Of course, there are more factors than just health care, which is just one example, but it's important.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 642
Location: Dallas, TX

13 Aug 2019, 3:34 pm

beneficii wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Has anyone ever successfully ever implemented "bottom up economics"?

Seems like whenever a far left government gets in power, the currency will get crushed, they will take on huge debts, high unemployment, strikes, many people have an entitlement attitude so there is lots of anger ...


Well, a lot of the countries in Europe, Canada, Japan, and others, and they tend to have better economic mobility as a result:

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lag ... -mobility/

Scandinavia seems to have the best mobility.

Support some of the basic needs of non-wealthy people like health care, and you empower them to make choices in their lives. No longer do they have to stay in a dead-end job just for the health care, and they won't have to choose between health care and staking out a path on their own. Our health care system in the US locks people into their current jobs and discourages them from striking out on their own, because otherwise they lose their coverage. The way our health care system is set up in the US is actually a system of control.

Of course, there are more factors than just health care, which is just one example, but it's important.


And I don’t really think “bottom up” is really a good term for it because even though the wealthy would be taxed higher they could still get the same benefits as everyone else.