Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › OT: September 2012 Jobs Report “Very Suspicious”
- This topic has 117 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 12, 2015 at 11:52 AM #782899February 12, 2015 at 1:35 PM #782905AnonymousGuest
The bailout was a one-off, the wealthy were already wealthy when it happened and, as your chart illustrates, the gap has been growing for decades.
There may be valid points to be made against the wisdom of the bailouts, but there’s no evidence that government bailouts (specifically TARP and related programs) are the primary cause of today’s wealth gap.
Your chart also shows that there’s not much of a relationship between the wealth gap and the plight of the working class. For example, the values are about the same during the great depression as they were in the 1990s. Of course some will claim that the sustained period of a low wealth gap during the decades post WWII are proof that the metric is related to the “good ol’ days” of American prosperity, but the US was in a unique position during that time and we are unlikely to ever be there again.
I’m skeptical that the wealth gap is a good measure of anything that really matters, especially going forward.
February 12, 2015 at 2:01 PM #782910The-ShovelerParticipant[quote=harvey]
I’m skeptical that the wealth gap is a good measure of anything that really matters, especially going forward.[/quote]I would agree with this, what matters is the percentage of people living at or below the Poverty line, how many can afford the basics in life without assistance.
February 12, 2015 at 2:08 PM #782911livinincaliParticipant[quote=harvey]
I’m skeptical that the wealth gap is a good measure of anything that really matters, especially going forward.[/quote]I completely agree. If you do think that the wealth gap is the problem then understand wall street bailouts helped preserve that wealth gap. It’s just math. If wages are growing at 3% per year and asset prices in stocks, bond, and real estate are growing at a rate of 6,7,8% then of course those 2 exponential functions are going to run away from each other. That’s what creates the wider and wider gap.
The problem is those 2 exponential functions cannot stay in that state forever. All exponential functions eventually hit a wall and collapse.
February 12, 2015 at 2:23 PM #782912AnonymousGuestI agree that your math is correct regarding the wealth gap. We’ve been talking about a few different, but related concepts regarding the plight of the working class. One is the wealth gap and another is claims about “purchasing power.” The metrics are related but not the same, and I was a little too loose with the wording in a couple of my posts as I used them interchangeably.
Nevertheless, I still claim that there is scant evidence to prove the Elizabeth Warrenesqe claim that the middle class is worse off than it was decades ago and that public policy is the root cause. Of course the definition of better/worse off is subjective, so it’s impossible to prove either way.
I don’t see the point in policy changes to fix non-problems, and the wealth gap is a non-problem. There are some real issues that we do need to be address, such as healthcare, and framing the discussion around resentment toward the wealthy is not going to help move us forward on the issues that matter.
February 12, 2015 at 4:21 PM #782921flyerParticipantSome “real-life” examples:
I’ve talked to many of the people who rent homes and condos from us both here in San Diego and elsewhere about their lives, and, although they have great jobs, most of them are not in a position to buy homes–would like to–but don’t know if it will ever be possible for them. In addition, they don’t know if they’ll keep their jobs long enough to be able to retire–ever–and on and on.
Other friends who also own lots of rental properties tell me they hear the same things from their tenants–people with great jobs, who can’t get ahead.
When my parents started renting properties out years ago, it seemed people would rent for a shorter period of time, then buy their own homes quite soon thereafter.
“Wealth Gap,” or otherwise, things seem to be getting tougher and tougher out there for more and more people.
February 12, 2015 at 4:47 PM #782922anParticipantWhere do they rent? What do they drive? What do they wear? How often do they eat out? Do they have a smartphone? I’m pretty sure if people today live like people during your parents’ time, they will have no issue with saving up for a house.
February 12, 2015 at 6:20 PM #782924CA renterParticipant[quote=livinincali][quote=harvey][quote=livinincali] Would that have impacted some people in the middle and upper middle class. Yeah it would, but it would have hit those at the top harder than those in the middle.[/quote]
[quote]You’re probably happy that you 401K more than doubled from some hypothetical 100K to 250K but Bill Gates went from 30 billion to over 75 billion at the same time.[/quote]
Your second point completely refutes the first.
When Bill Gates only has “only” $30 billion, he still has incredible power, more net worth than literally millions of people combined, and tremendous opportunity to make more. He can take all sorts of risks, make all sorts of investments (and has access to the choice ones.)
When someone else who is Bill Gate’s age only has $100K, they are essentially trapped, unable to do anything but earn wages to get by and have almost no realistic opportunity to grow their wealth. If they have $250K, they may at least have a few more options.
There are reasons that “the rich get richer.” Making everybody poorer doesn’t change those reasons, it actually makes them more pronounced.
And of course there’s the fact that most of the very wealthy made their wealth long before any bailouts. Sorry, bailouts have nothing to do with the wealth gap. If anything they probably diminished it.[/quote]
Just do the math. If you the average paycheck to paycheck american with a net worth of $20K of saving who cares what happens to the stock market. Say the top 10% have a net worth of $1 million with 50% of that in stocks. So the wealth gap is a ratio of 50/1 or $980K. Say the stock market gets cut by 50%. Now the wealth gap is 750/20 = 37.5/1 or $730K. The wealth gap just shrunk right.
Or just look at this chart. Notice the time frames when wealth inequality shrunk a lot. What happened during those times?
[/quote]
Livinincali is absolutely correct. Let’s not forget that the bailouts consist of far, far more than TARP or any other “official” bailout programs. Keeping interest rates at/below zero and QE (we’ve effectively had negative interest rates for a large part of the post-recession period, and money has lost purchasing power over these same years) have bailed out asset holders at the expense of people who live on a fixed income, which includes workers. Take into consideration that many working people are earning the same or less — nominally — than they were in 2008/2009, and it’s easy to see how they’ve been losing while the rich have been gaining. They are more economically vulnerable than they were prior to the recession, too, as their jobs are often temporary (more contractors, more temps, and more 1099ers, etc.), and benefits have been reduced in many cases.
If you look at the history of wealth/income gaps and tax policies, you’ll see that low tax rates for the wealthy (less steeply progressive rates and/or lower rates on unearned income) tend to occur just before, and during, periods of growing wealth/income disparities. The times when wealth/income inequality peaks is usually right before a major recession. Whether it’s causative is up for debate, but I certainly believe there is a relationship there.
Money flows from the bottom up. It always has, and always will. If a significant enough portion of the income from the top flows back toward the bottom — from where it will flow back up — then money velocity is increased. If money is hoarded at the top, money velocity will decrease. Since consumption makes up such a large percentage of our economy, it’s imperative that we put as much money as possible into the greatest number of hands where it will continue to circulate through the economy.
Money sitting at the top often doesn’t benefit the economy, especially if it is used for speculation (as opposed to real investing, where productive capacity is increased) or if it’s simply being hoarded (though savings are made available for businesses to borrow and grow productive capacity, which is generally good for the economy). Speculation is zero-sum, and so much of today’s wealth is being used for speculation instead of growing the economy or consumption which drives economic stability/growth as demand is maintained or is increased.
February 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM #782928joecParticipant[quote=flyer]Some “real-life” examples:
I’ve talked to many of the people who rent homes and condos from us both here in San Diego and elsewhere about their lives, and, although they have great jobs, most of them are not in a position to buy homes–would like to–but don’t know if it will ever be possible for them. In addition, they don’t know if they’ll keep their jobs long enough to be able to retire–ever–and on and on.
Other friends who also own lots of rental properties tell me they hear the same things from their tenants–people with great jobs, who can’t get ahead.
When my parents started renting properties out years ago, it seemed people would rent for a shorter period of time, then buy their own homes quite soon thereafter.
“Wealth Gap,” or otherwise, things seem to be getting tougher and tougher out there for more and more people.[/quote]
I think you, flyer, are one of the few people who sorta “gets” it here. It’s not just about spending money and ALL these people pissing their dollars away. Sure, some do, most incomes are just not that high. Also, it’s hard to save with a wife/family. Easy if you are single and can cut everything in your life (I was always the saver myself).
I think the problem with this forum and a lot of people (AN, yes you), is that if you have a great tech job or a very high paying (relative to the general populace) job, you’re really tone-deaf and out of touch with how a lot of people live.
As someone who HAS worked in high tech during the tech boom making well more than 200k+ and having options/perks/you name it…people in silicon valley, here, wealthy people simply don’t “get it”.
Having LEFT hi-tech and worked in other industries, finance, self employed, and seeing how regular schmos live, it’s not as easy to make it big since your job is REALLY not as stable, it’s not as easy to find work (I NEVER WORRIED ABOUT FINDING WORK WHEN I WAS IN TECH). I also got laid off and know of others who got fired and messed with by the company so they couldn’t find easy work afterwards. I also know someone who had 4 jobs in 4 years (CFP) and just can’t find that idea gig…
For people who have it, tech work IS really different than most other jobs (and some others as well).
Is this the fault of the worker? in a way, it is…but the tech industry wasn’t this lucrative say 20 years ago. Also, people working in econ/biz can be laid off and there might not be as much work to be had (traders now I hear)… (think architects also as an example) or even regular engineers not killing it as much I don’t think.
If your job isn’t that stable, you aren’t clearing massive amounts yet and you have a family, it’s a lot tougher…
I saved most of my money when I was single, much harder if you are ramping up young and your job changes a lot or layoffs, etc…
Taxes being more fair (tax all income the same) I think would help a bit (Warren buffet supports this)….
February 12, 2015 at 8:26 PM #782934CA renterParticipant[quote=joec][quote=flyer]Some “real-life” examples:
I’ve talked to many of the people who rent homes and condos from us both here in San Diego and elsewhere about their lives, and, although they have great jobs, most of them are not in a position to buy homes–would like to–but don’t know if it will ever be possible for them. In addition, they don’t know if they’ll keep their jobs long enough to be able to retire–ever–and on and on.
Other friends who also own lots of rental properties tell me they hear the same things from their tenants–people with great jobs, who can’t get ahead.
When my parents started renting properties out years ago, it seemed people would rent for a shorter period of time, then buy their own homes quite soon thereafter.
“Wealth Gap,” or otherwise, things seem to be getting tougher and tougher out there for more and more people.[/quote]
I think you, flyer, are one of the few people who sorta “gets” it here. It’s not just about spending money and ALL these people pissing their dollars away. Sure, some do, most incomes are just not that high. Also, it’s hard to save with a wife/family. Easy if you are single and can cut everything in your life (I was always the saver myself).
I think the problem with this forum and a lot of people (AN, yes you), is that if you have a great tech job or a very high paying (relative to the general populace) job, you’re really tone-deaf and out of touch with how a lot of people live.
As someone who HAS worked in high tech during the tech boom making well more than 200k+ and having options/perks/you name it…people in silicon valley, here, wealthy people simply don’t “get it”.
Having LEFT hi-tech and worked in other industries, finance, self employed, and seeing how regular schmos live, it’s not as easy to make it big since your job is REALLY not as stable, it’s not as easy to find work (I NEVER WORRIED ABOUT FINDING WORK WHEN I WAS IN TECH). I also got laid off and know of others who got fired and messed with by the company so they couldn’t find easy work afterwards. I also know someone who had 4 jobs in 4 years (CFP) and just can’t find that idea gig…
For people who have it, tech work IS really different than most other jobs (and some others as well).
Is this the fault of the worker? in a way, it is…but the tech industry wasn’t this lucrative say 20 years ago. Also, people working in econ/biz can be laid off and there might not be as much work to be had (traders now I hear)… (think architects also as an example) or even regular engineers not killing it as much I don’t think.
If your job isn’t that stable, you aren’t clearing massive amounts yet and you have a family, it’s a lot tougher…
I saved most of my money when I was single, much harder if you are ramping up young and your job changes a lot or layoffs, etc…
Taxes being more fair (tax all income the same) I think would help a bit (Warren buffet supports this)….[/quote]
Agree 100% with this. This is exactly what I’ve seen.
February 12, 2015 at 9:21 PM #782933CA renterParticipant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]1.) Restrict the ratio of highest-paid to lowest-paid people who work for or own a particular corporation (including ALL types of compensation to any individual). If they want the benefits of incorporation (basically spreading the risks), then they should have to pay for those benefits by spreading the rewards, as well.
2.) Tax ALL income at the same, steeply progressive rates.
3.) Eliminate the ability to step-up the cost basis of assets for heirs of large estates. Adjust the cost basis by some sort of inflation factor instead in order to avoid being taxed on “inflation.”
4.) Universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens. Medical costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, if someone is stricken with a devastating illness, they are often unable to work (and maintain affordable insurance) at the very same time that they need this insurance. We pay the highest medical costs for some of the worst outcomes, respectively. Americans desperately need to wake up and learn more about the different healthcare systems and their outcomes.
5.) Lift the cap on income subject to SS taxes, increase SS contributions from both employees and employers, and increase the benefits with the possibility of adjusting the benefits based on needs.
6.) Consider imposing tariffs on “U.S. companies” (and foreign companies?) that do most of the manufacturing overseas if they want to sell goods in the U.S. These costs should offset any differences in labor and environmental standards between the two countries.
If the company isn’t paying for all of the legal, physical, social, and other infrastructure provided by our government (because they are doing most of their work overseas), they should have to buy the right to be a U.S. company with all of the protections and benefits that this affords them.
Just these steps alone would greatly reduce the income and wealth gaps, while still allowing people the ability to save for retirement and enjoy a decent quality of life.[/quote]
1)What would that ratio be? I wonder how this will affect CEO’s decisions, especially regarding inversions to bypass this all together.
2)This wouldn’t matter if the company is non-American (inversion).
3)What would be considered large?
4)This a whole other debate, but sure, reform of our healthcare system. There is a reason why the rich people from other countries come here for healthcare.
5)So, what you’re saying is, the richer you are, the more you pay, but the less you’ll get and the poorer you are, the less you pay into the system but they more you’ll get. How can such system be sustainable?
6)So, you’re imposing tarriffs on most companies. Most tech products are made overseas. Wouldn’t this give companies one extra reason to invert? Since they’ll have tarriffs imposed on them anyways?
Wouldn’t this also cause a trade ware against other nations? How does this help the little guys in the bottom rung if everything they buy becomes more expensive? Wouldn’t that eat up any gain their get from income increase?[/quote]1. The ratio can be variable, but here is an article stating that Peter Drucker suggests a 20:1 ratio.
Here’s an article about the average American’s ignorance regarding executive/worker compensation ratios. The U.S. is far above any other nation in this metric.
2.)Taxing all income at the same, steeply-progressive rates would indeed matter, whether or not there was an inversion because of rule #6 — foreign companies would not receive the benefits of publicly-funded U.S. infrastructure of all types — no IP protection, no naval protection of their sea lanes, they would have to pay for the use of our roads (if they sell here), etc. if they were not a U.S. corporation and/or if they were a U.S. company that only wanted to be headquartered here because of the many benefits we provide. They (foreign or domestic) would have to pay for the benefits of being domiciled here and/or doing business here. And any money that would be earned here would be taxed by us at these progressive rates. I would even argue that corporate taxes could be made progressive, as well, though I would not tax corporations as highly as individuals unless the money was going to an individual, at which point they’d be taxed at the individual rate.
While costs might go up a bit initially, I firmly believe that we can produce better quality goods for fair prices, even after taking into account the superior labor and environmental protections here. Also, the purchasing power of labor would be increased, offsetting much (or all) of the increased costs that would result from domestic production vs importing the cheap junk from abroad, IMHO.
Also, I would argue that a widget that costs $20.00 but lasts for 10 years is “cheaper” than a widget that costs $2.00 but only lasts for six months. I’m not nearly as convinced as you are that we are better off because of cheap imports that are often of inferior quality.
3.) My mistake, as I was thinking of the issue of estate taxes on large estates when I started writing this.
While I am generally opposed to estate taxes, one could make the argument that there should be a progressive tax rate applied to inherited wealth above a certain threshold. IMO, it should be lower than individual or corporate tax rates because this income/wealth has already been taxed when it was first earned, and I do believe in property rights.
Additionally, inheritance dilutes wealth rather than concentrate it, contrary to popular myth. But the unjustifiable accumulation of additional wealth after inheritance is what needs to be dealt with, and this would be addressed by changes to current laws regarding stepping up the cost basis of assets, along with a higher, progressive tax rate for unearned income.
Heirs of ANY property/estates should not be able to step up the cost basis to market values upon inheritance. The cost basis for ALL assets, whether inherited or not, should be offset by some sort of inflation factor. There should be no difference between inherited and non-inherited assets.
4.) Rich people don’t only come here for care, they go to other countries, too. Many go to Europe for treatment. Some wealthy people even go to Mexico for treatment. While the wealthiest individuals can certainly get exceptional treatment here, most average Americans will spend more to get less than average people in other countries.
But I think that we both agree that our current healthcare system desperately needs to be reformed. How that happens, and what the end result should look like would be a fun, but different, debate.
5.) Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Yes, it’s socialism, but I think it’s the best way to prevent elderly people from living in abject poverty…with the added effect of keeping more money in circulation via the additional purchasing power of this demographic. We could either charge a flat SS tax, as we do now, or we could make it progressively smaller after a threshold (maybe a flat rate up to $500K, and reduce the rate incrementally from there, perhaps at every $500K) where it would eventually go to zero; but that would be at a much higher income level than what we have now.
6.) Most companies desperately want access to U.S. consumers. They can be foreign companies/inversions, or domestic companies. Any money made here would be taxed at our corporate/individual rates.
Any foreign company would not have access to any of our govt-provided infrastructure or services (including military, distribution infrastructure, or IP protection, etc.) unless they pay a proportional share of the costs (plus a profit for our govt?).
We already have trade wars. Note how many countries are trying to devalue their currency, and look at all of the countries that allow for the exploitation of labor and the environment in order to be more competitive. I believe in global trade, but only when the playing field is level. Fair trade, not free trade, except for when a country needs to import from another country because they are absolutely incapable of providing a particular good/service for themselves.
February 13, 2015 at 12:06 AM #782939anParticipantjoec, you don’t know me and you called me out as being tone-deaf? Sorry dude but you’re not even close. But whatever make you feel better.
February 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM #782932flyerParticipantJust my thoughts, joe. Via the people I come in contact with, I’ve been able to see both sides of the coin.
Actually, I think a lot of wealthy people do “get it” and realize keeping what you have is a smart move–rather than throwing caution to the wind. Some of the friends I mentioned in another post, chose a different path, and, unfortunately, achieved a different result.
Along with real estate and other investments, I have been in one of the few industries (commercial aviation/major airline) left on the planet that is protected by a union for almost 25 years–which was my first choice out of college.
For better or worse, (and most of my colleagues are great people–you always read about the few exceptions) you can pretty much bank on keeping your extremely well-paying job (at least in my age group)for as long as you
desire–and can pass the FAA physical, until you turn 65, etc. (many retire in their early 50’s if they want to) (edit)
Although this scenario was quite prevalent in many careers in past decades,in our present society it has now become a rarity, and that is why I’m mentioning it.Frankly, some of the people/tenants I talk to who seem to have extreme concerns about their future seem to be in in tech jobs. They have mentioned they feel their careers have a “shelf life,” and, they find it difficult to plan too far ahead.
And yes, some of our tenants are saving for homes, but can’t find what they want or can afford, in the areas in which they want to live and raise their children. They would rather stay in their preferred area and rent, than buy in an area they don’t care for, so, in that way, they are making the choice not to buy for what they see as “quality of life” reasons.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.