Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:37 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:25 am New adults (and note that includes 15-18 year olds) SHOULD earn less than retirees.

And yet 82% of the last fifty years indicates that it's not the case. But who's to blame? It's surely not the new adults setting their own wages.

Also of interest to me, note the barely-there blip for retirees during the last recession.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:06 pm Even just viewing by quintile looks bad.



Source

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:14 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:06 pm Even just viewing by quintile looks bad.



Source

That's how math works.

The higher up in the income bracket you are, the more likely you have investment income. Investment income is going to be exponential, not linear.

The higher up in the income bracket you are, the more likely you have investment income. Investment income is going to be exponential, not linear.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:21 pm

The higher up in the income bracket you are, the more likely you have investment income. Investment income is going to be exponential, not linear.

Sure - that is a way to look at it. My gut says it is wrong but it is feels reasonable. More importantly is this a sustainable model for human civilization?

Chetty et al.’s study in this issue of Science (1) is therefore a tour de force for producing historically comparable estimates of absolute income mobility—the fraction of individuals in a birth cohort who earn, at age 30, more than their parents did at roughly the same age—over the post–World War II period. Their striking conclusion is that there has been a large decline in the rate of upward mobility across successive U.S. birth cohorts, from 92% of children born in 1940 earning more than their parents to only half of children born in 1984. Although Chetty et al. find that the slowdown in Gross Domestic Product growth has played a role, they conclude that faster economic growth is insufficient to restore mobility to its immediate postwar level in light of increased income inequality—a critical insight for policy and research.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:57 pm SCIENCE!

Chetty et al.’s study in this issue of Science (1) is therefore a tour de force for producing historically comparable estimates of absolute income mobility—the fraction of individuals in a birth cohort who earn, at age 30, more than their parents did at roughly the same age—over the post–World War II period. Their striking conclusion is that there has been a large decline in the rate of upward mobility across successive U.S. birth cohorts, from 92% of children born in 1940 earning more than their parents to only half of children born in 1984. Although Chetty et al. find that the slowdown in Gross Domestic Product growth has played a role, they conclude that faster economic growth is insufficient to restore mobility to its immediate postwar level in light of increased income inequality—a critical insight for policy and research.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:46 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:57 pm SCIENCE!

Chetty et al.’s study in this issue of Science (1) is therefore a tour de force for producing historically comparable estimates of absolute income mobility—the fraction of individuals in a birth cohort who earn, at age 30, more than their parents did at roughly the same age—over the post–World War II period. Their striking conclusion is that there has been a large decline in the rate of upward mobility across successive U.S. birth cohorts, from 92% of children born in 1940 earning more than their parents to only half of children born in 1984. Although Chetty et al. find that the slowdown in Gross Domestic Product growth has played a role, they conclude that faster economic growth is insufficient to restore mobility to its immediate postwar level in light of increased income inequality—a critical insight for policy and research.

We've known for a long time that regressive tax cuts are... regressive.

noxiousdog wrote:Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

Inflation?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

Inflation?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The numbers are all inflation adjusted.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:55 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

Inflation?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The numbers are all inflation adjusted.

The graph up above is not inflation adjusted.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:21 pm Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:56 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:21 pm Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

I'd say yes. Entry level jobs at those wages used to require a high school degree. They now generally require a 4-year degree and a significant debt load. It is a huge problem that has lead to lower household formation, wealth creation, and put them well behind their parents. So yes, I'd expect employers to have to pay more considering they are the ones raising the bar on entry level requirements. In other words they used to shoulder a significant part of the cost of training their employees. Now they don't. That is a implicit wealth transfer to capital...which capital frankly doesn't need considering their compounding growth.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:42 am

Fitzy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:55 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Are you guys suggesting near entry level wages should change by generation?

If so, why?

Inflation?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The numbers are all inflation adjusted.

The graph up above is not inflation adjusted.

How is that relevant?

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:58 pm Small business owners who aren’t paying themselves a salary?

Pyperkub wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:58 pm Small business owners who aren’t paying themselves a salary?

s-corp's and llc's?

The world’s super-rich hold the greatest concentration of wealth since the US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century, when families like the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast fortunes.

Billionaires increased their combined global wealth by almost a fifth last year to a record $6tn (£4.5tn) – more than twice the GDP of the UK. There are now 1,542 dollar billionaires across the world, after 145 multi-millionaires saw their wealth tick over into nine-zero fortunes last year, according to the UBS / PwC Billionaires report.

Josef Stadler, the lead author of the report and UBS’s head of global ultra high net worth, said his billionaire clients were concerned that growing inequality between rich and poor could lead to a “strike back”.

“We’re at an inflection point,” Stadler said. “Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905, this is something billionaires are concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and, the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back?”

Stadler added: “We are now two years into the peak of the second Gilded Age.”

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:59 pm The good news is that the Rockefellers and Carnegie families of the Gilded Age created charitable institutions to better society. If Bill Gates can use his charitable work to regain respectability, so can today's billionaires. I'm ready and waiting for this market opportunity.

In this Gilded Age, like the one at the end of the 19th Century, the gap between rich and poor is widening; monopolies have more power over business, business has more power over politics and politics are close-fought and hyper-partisan. The pace of change — technological, cultural, social — is dizzying.

In his presidential campaign, Donald Trump simultaneously evoked two Gilded Age types, the plutocrat and the populist. “Trump is the perfect figure for the new Gilded Age. He’s like something out of Mark Twain’’ (who coined the term “Gilded Age’’ in 1873), says David Nasaw, a biographer of Gilded Age industrialist Andrew Carnegie. “Exaggeration is his essence.’’

The most striking feature shared by the two Gilded Ages is growing economic inequality. In the 19th Century, the juxtaposition of squalor and splendor shocked a rural nation that was moving to the city; today, it haunts a nation that can remember the relative equality of the Depression, World War II and the long post-war period.

Nowhere is this inequality more apparent than Los Angeles, where hundreds of encampments have sprung up on beaches, in riverbeds and in canyons as the homeless population has exploded and expanded beyond its old boundaries.

The homeless camp where the December wildfire started was only a mile from a new hilltop mansion twice the size of the White House that’s for sale for $500 million. It destroyed the $5.5 million house of former NBA star Andrei Kirilenko, singed some vines at Rupert Murdoch’s Moraga winery and forced celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Chelsea Handler to flee.

A sign of the apocalypse? Or just bad karma?

I’ve joined a new aristocracy now, even if we still call ourselves meritocratic winners. If you are a typical reader of The Atlantic, you may well be a member too. (And if you’re not a member, my hope is that you will find the story of this new class even more interesting—if also more alarming.) To be sure, there is a lot to admire about my new group, which I’ll call—for reasons you’ll soon see—the 9.9 percent. We’ve dropped the old dress codes, put our faith in facts, and are (somewhat) more varied in skin tone and ethnicity. People like me, who have waning memories of life in an earlier ruling caste, are the exception, not the rule.

By any sociological or financial measure, it’s good to be us. It’s even better to be our kids. In our health, family life, friendship networks, and level of education, not to mention money, we are crushing the competition below. But we do have a blind spot, and it is located right in the center of the mirror: We seem to be the last to notice just how rapidly we’ve morphed, or what we’ve morphed into.

The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people’s children. We are not innocent bystanders to the growing concentration of wealth in our time. We are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy. Our delusions of merit now prevent us from recognizing the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents. We tend to think that the victims of our success are just the people excluded from the club. But history shows quite clearly that, in the kind of game we’re playing, everybody loses badly in the end.

By any sociological or financial measure, it’s good to be us. It’s even better to be our kids.

As of 2016, it took $1.2 million in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent;

PLW wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 3:14 pm According to your link, to make it to the top 10% in HH income, you need 160k/year. I think you're mixing up personal and HH income.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 3:08 pm
So something is very off in my brain. A personal ven diagram of people who both have accumulated $1.2 million in wealth and who "only" make $110,000 a year is very small group of people whom are essentially retirees or single haorders like myself (who does not have $1.2 near his sights, nor will he when he retires)

So I have some re-alignment to do, I guess...