Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Record high participation isn't tapering. Taper means to reduce or diminish. The number of households on food stamps is increasing.
I did use the wrong word with "taper". I'll give you that. It has not yet gone down. But if you still believe, even after multiple links showing that the growth in food stamp users and poverty has practically stopped (Hell, even YOUR OWN LINK showed that the growth has practically stopped), then I will let you to continue to believe it. I'm not gullible enough. I don't just listen to guys on the internet, nor talking heads on TV and take what they say, like half the morons in this country. I actually look at the data. And the data that I and you posted shows that the growth in foodstamp usage is practically zero at this point.
Go ahead and continue to believe that is is still rising quickly. I can't stop you.
PS - I should also say, that until we as a country push for better wages for the low end, we will continue to see high numbers of people on food stamps. If you support companies like Wal-Mart and fast food companies, the largest employers in the country, paying wages that can't support people, you support the trend of more people on foodstamps. That's all there is to it.
I always love this bit, its SO compelling, so completely correct.....and sooo...misleading.
A bit of research shows that yes...as a % of disposable income thats correct....for us as a society. congratulations on demonstrating a awesome way to lie with statistics.
But what you say? OK. so thats correct, the only problem is that so much of the disposable income is owned by the 1%....Which is the point of this entire thing.
Lets say all those things cost $53 per person. and we have 100 people. in 1950 lets say 99 have 100 dollars each, and one has 1000. and you say all told they have 10,900 in disposable money, and spend $5,300 on necessities. The amount spent on these then is 52.6%-we'll round to ....53%
Now lets hit today. Today the 99 people have 80 dollars each, and the 1 person has 100,000. And lets say it STILL costs 53 dollars for the necessities. AWESOME today we only pay 5% ON THE AVERAGE! holy moly we must live in an age of plenty! Well...one of us does, the rest are paying 66% of their income.
Yeah thats what happens when you homogonize data that way. Its garbage. And it misleads. Seriously, the actual data when broken up into quintiles shows your wrong.
Thank you. When talking about wages and costs, using the median paints a much more accurate picture than using an average. But hey, it helps paint pretty pictures!
I always love this bit, its SO compelling, so completely correct.....and sooo...misleading.
A bit of research shows that yes...as a % of disposable income thats correct....for us as a society. congratulations on demonstrating a awesome way to lie with statistics.
But what you say? OK. so thats correct, the only problem is that so much of the disposable income is owned by the 1%....Which is the point of this entire thing.
Lets say all those things cost $53 per person. and we have 100 people. in 1950 lets say 99 have 100 dollars each, and one has 1000. and you say all told they have 10,900 in disposable money, and spend $5,300 on necessities. The amount spent on these then is 52.6%-we'll round to ....53%
Now lets hit today. Today the 99 people have 80 dollars each, and the 1 person has 100,000. And lets say it STILL costs 53 dollars for the necessities. AWESOME today we only pay 5% ON THE AVERAGE! holy moly we must live in an age of plenty! Well...one of us does, the rest are paying 66% of their income.
Yeah thats what happens when you homogonize data that way. Its garbage. And it misleads. Seriously, the actual data when broken up into quintiles shows your wrong.
Why aren't you giving me the numbers? You would have a fair point, but where are the specific numbers?
Because the numbers show the median expenditures going down too. That is why. People have more disposable income for stuff they want today than in 1950, but don't need like iPads and iPhones.
This is amazing that the median numbers have dropped as have the average...considering the influx of millions of low skill/low wage jobs should mean more people spending more on the necessities. Then again...most people in poverty in the US have internet, cable TV subscription, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Thank you. When talking about wages and costs, using the median paints a much more accurate picture than using an average. But hey, it helps paint pretty pictures!
So I am assuming you are forfeiting your points and admitting that I am correct on houses being bigger today than in 1960. That you would prefer the median 2013 wages with 2013 products and 2013 prices as opposed to everything in 1950....
You admit that individual wages have beaten inflation, because the average is weighed down by an influx of low skill labor with low pay... etc...
Do you find it difficult to type out that load of whiny, infantile pablum with Cherrios stuck to your fingers?
In other words, you had no legitimate reply to moral repudiation of the perspectives you prefer, and so you decided to post a blatantly childish personal attack. Thanks for making so clear that you comments have no credibility whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
I should also say, that until we as a country push for better wages for the low end, we will continue to see high numbers of people on food stamps. If you support companies like Wal-Mart and fast food companies, the largest employers in the country, paying wages that can't support people, you support the trend of more people on foodstamps. That's all there is to it.
And that is the crux of this issue in an nutshell. The reality is that productivity innovation and globalization have now combined such that fewer hours of work necessary to shelter, feed and power our nation's full population. The immoral right feels justified in callously disregarding the impact of progress on those most vulnerable in society, leaving some to "die in the streets" if necessary - they don't care - while the moral left feels justified in having society adjust to this new reality by either requiring that there is enough living wage work so everyone can pay their own way or by some other way making up for the economy's failure in that regard.
I should also say, that until we as a country push for better wages for the low end, we will continue to see high numbers of people on food stamps. If you support companies like Wal-Mart and fast food companies, the largest employers in the country, paying wages that can't support people, you support the trend of more people on foodstamps. That's all there is to it.
You want more income equality in the U.S., no?
The reason we don't have income equality is that we have a progressive federal income tax structure that disproportionately depends on the top 1% for tax revenue. The top 1% pays a share of the federal income tax revenue that's roughly twice their share of the income, while the middle class pays a share of the federal income tax revenue that's only 1/2 their share of the income. There's an amplification factor of a 4 times higher effective federal income tax rate on the top 1% right off the bat.
Look at European social democracies. They have a lot of the social programs the left claims to want, including national healthcare AND they have much more income equality. Why? Because they do not depend disproportionately on their higher income earners for tax revenue. They have regressive taxes, so the income of their top 1% doesn't need to be inordinately high to fund their government programs.
The Europeans want their social programs, but they're willing to pay for them. Left-leaning Americans want our country to have European-style social programs, but they want someone else to pay for them.
Notice, too, that the countries that have regressive tax systems also have far less income inequality. I've previously explained why our progressive tax system actually creates an incentive for the government to promote highly unequal incomes. The more the top 1% earns, the more tax revenue the government collects. More here: //www.city-data.com/forum/28408475-post977.html
Economist Anatole Kaletsky states the same:
Quote:
Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressives taxes creates “a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities.”
Many Americans don't understand that very basic concept and therefore are firmly entrenched in demanding the U.S.'s progressive tax system soak the rich, which by its very nature depends on keeping the income gap as wide as possible.
In other words, you had no legitimate reply to moral repudiation of the perspectives you prefer, and so you decided to post a blatantly childish personal attack. Thanks for making so clear that you comments have no credibility whatsoever.
The left wing tripe that you obviously copied and pasted made it infinitely clear that any thoughtful, logical response would have been be completely wasted on you......so, actually, I could say the same about what you posted......Oh wait, I already did
Are you asking if I want the bottom to make even close to the same as the top? Absolutely not. But suggesting that the bottom is "making enough"? Not even close. Am I suggesting that the top is making too much? Partially. If every gain goes to one end of the spectrum, while the other stays stagnant or falls, you have a failed system. And no, it's not just government. Come on. Place at least some of the blame on those in control of the money. Come on, just a little. You can do it. You can even use the word "greedy" if you want.
Quote:
The reason we don't have income equality is that we have a progressive federal income tax structure that disproportionately depends on the top 1% for tax revenue. The top 1% pays a share of the federal income tax revenue that's roughly twice their share of the income, while the middle class pays a share of the federal income tax revenue that's only 1/2 their share of the income. There's an amplification factor of a 4 times higher effective federal income tax rate on the top 1% right off the bat.
Look at European social democracies. They have a lot of the social programs the left claims to want, including national healthcare AND they have much more income equality. Why? Because they do not depend disproportionately on their higher income earners for tax revenue. They have regressive taxes, so the income of their top 1% doesn't need to be inordinately high to fund their government programs.
More:
Yes, I've seen your graphic posted a dozen times in this thread. It should also be pointed out that while the lower 80%'s share of income has been going down year after year, the top 20% has seen only growth in their income. http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/w...y-Quantile.jpg
Have they been working that much harder while the other 80% has been slacking that much more?
EDIT: On more research, yes...they do pay a quite higher share. But, it should also be pointed out that the top 1% takes home more than the bottom 50% added together. They can suck it up. There's an easy way to fix it, but they aren't going to go for that.
According to this article:
•*The very wealthiest Americans (1%) earned more than 19 percent of the country's household income last year—their biggest share since 1928
•*In 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
•*95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.
A lot of this was rebounding from the crash, but come on..this is not a good sign.
Wouldn't paying the lower end a higher wage add more people to the taxpaying class, thus not relying on the upper crust for everything? If you are going to demand the highest wages and a massive share of the income, be prepared to pay the highest share of the taxes. And if you are crying from your yacht that the burger flipper isn't paying enough, give him a salary that leaves him enough to chip back in. I don't know how it could get more simple than that.
You can't pay someone crumbs, then chastise them for not contributing to the system. That's your own fault. You want all the money, you pay the taxes. Simple is, simple does. Raise wages and let those people fall into a position that requires them to pay. Or just take more money from people who can barely afford food if it makes you feel better about yourself. I'd love to see the lower end chip in more, but I'd also like to see them have a higher wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
This is amazing that the median numbers have dropped as have the average...considering the influx of millions of low skill/low wage jobs should mean more people spending more on the necessities. Then again...most people in poverty in the US have internet, cable TV subscription, etc...
Can you provide a source for this?
Quote:
So I am assuming you are forfeiting your points and admitting that I am correct on houses being bigger today than in 1960. That you would prefer the median 2013 wages with 2013 products and 2013 prices as opposed to everything in 1950....
Yes, houses might be a little "bigger". That does not equate to a "better" house. A bigger house with shoddy construction does not justify a much higher price than a well built smaller house. And houses are typically substantially higher in cost than just the increase in size would justify.
Quote:
You admit that individual wages have beaten inflation, because the average is weighed down by an influx of low skill labor with low pay... etc...
Well, I know what you're trying to do. Yes, an engineer might make a little more these days than in days past. A secretary might make a pittance more. And IT guy didn't exist then, so yes, they make more.
But, you seem to like trying to play the same game of adding a little word in to make the numbers look better than they are. You keep saying that almost all wages have gone up, but the average is weighed down. So basically we have many more people making worse wages than before enough to bring down the number of rising wages of "individuals". THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. This does not paint the rosy picture you seem to think it does. Yet some people are dumb enough to believe it.
I don't know how you can possibly be dense enough to not see that. Are you seriously suggesting that things are just fine the way they are and that the lower classes are doing quite well just because they aren't living in slum-like conditions?
What country, state of mind and ideology are you living in?
The cascade begins with the wealthiest and continues as they spend money. that money ends up in the pockets of everyone downstream...including the government handouts to the 'poor' who then spend the money and the middle class whop spend the money. So in reality the wealthiest pay taxes and invest... a double barrel shot of cash.
The government via obama got his influx of cash to jump start the economy and it has done no good . It is the pritning of money that keeps the economy afloat.... the shovel ready jobs caused obama to snicker when asked in an interview about that failed attempt. The feds had spent, depending on the source 1million dollars to create a temporary 40 K job. that flood of cash is going somewhere but obviously not into the pockets of the intended...that is the middle class and downstream. So oops ! that doesn't work.
Mind boggling to think that cash investments do not generate profit for unions, and every other classification of economic division you can name.
Again, unless the wealthiest keep their cash in a mason jar, which they don't, that money then gets spent and invested. The recipients of that fortune profit by jobs created and goods sold. Has worked well until obama forgot the slogan 'first do no harm' and drove a hurting economy overt the brink.
With all his spending fewer people are working and the fed keeps the econmy alive by printing money.
If your theory was sound, why not hand out fuistfuls of cash to whoever, no matter the classification.... then the economy would rebound from the 'spending'. Hasn't worked yet. Business is dormant because of the unpredictable economy primarily the fault of obamacare, the trojan horse disguised as healthcare.
I'll draw up my example for you if you'd like.
But honestly, I can't believe your still arguing trickle down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
