[EconProf]

I wired domestically yesterday, and it arrived in hours.
Suggest you go in to your bank & do paperwork then & there, get names, times, etc. then follow up within hours to be sure it executed.

[EconProf]

I wired domestically yesterday, and it arrived in hours.
Suggest you go in to your bank & do paperwork then & there, get names, times, etc. then follow up within hours to be sure it executed.

[EconProf]

I wired domestically yesterday, and it arrived in hours.
Suggest you go in to your bank & do paperwork then & there, get names, times, etc. then follow up within hours to be sure it executed.

[EconProf]

I wired domestically yesterday, and it arrived in hours.
Suggest you go in to your bank & do paperwork then & there, get names, times, etc. then follow up within hours to be sure it executed.

[EconProf]

A statistical quirk gives all of us who follow income distribution patterns a misleading picture of “the rich”. Obama and other politicians artfully take advantage of it.
Think of the life cycle of many small businesses (btw, this also applies to long-term real estate investments): The entrepreneur builds the business over several decades, struggling at first (often earning less than his workers), but eventually learning, growing, building a valuable and saleable asset. The struggle is worth it because the goal all along is to sell the business before retirement & reap a big capital gain.
Assuming it works and the business did not fail during the lean years, a big capital gain is the real reward for all that effort. What do the government’s statitics say about this individual in the year he sells out? He’s rich! Maybe makes a million, maybe makes Obama’s threshold quarter-million, and is taxed accordingly. His lifetime income may be quite modest. But government figures, every year, portray these entrepreneurs & RE investors as fat cats because of an accident of the calendar. Gullible voters fall for a populist message as a result.

[EconProf]

A statistical quirk gives all of us who follow income distribution patterns a misleading picture of “the rich”. Obama and other politicians artfully take advantage of it.
Think of the life cycle of many small businesses (btw, this also applies to long-term real estate investments): The entrepreneur builds the business over several decades, struggling at first (often earning less than his workers), but eventually learning, growing, building a valuable and saleable asset. The struggle is worth it because the goal all along is to sell the business before retirement & reap a big capital gain.
Assuming it works and the business did not fail during the lean years, a big capital gain is the real reward for all that effort. What do the government’s statitics say about this individual in the year he sells out? He’s rich! Maybe makes a million, maybe makes Obama’s threshold quarter-million, and is taxed accordingly. His lifetime income may be quite modest. But government figures, every year, portray these entrepreneurs & RE investors as fat cats because of an accident of the calendar. Gullible voters fall for a populist message as a result.

[EconProf]

A statistical quirk gives all of us who follow income distribution patterns a misleading picture of “the rich”. Obama and other politicians artfully take advantage of it.
Think of the life cycle of many small businesses (btw, this also applies to long-term real estate investments): The entrepreneur builds the business over several decades, struggling at first (often earning less than his workers), but eventually learning, growing, building a valuable and saleable asset. The struggle is worth it because the goal all along is to sell the business before retirement & reap a big capital gain.
Assuming it works and the business did not fail during the lean years, a big capital gain is the real reward for all that effort. What do the government’s statitics say about this individual in the year he sells out? He’s rich! Maybe makes a million, maybe makes Obama’s threshold quarter-million, and is taxed accordingly. His lifetime income may be quite modest. But government figures, every year, portray these entrepreneurs & RE investors as fat cats because of an accident of the calendar. Gullible voters fall for a populist message as a result.

[EconProf]

A statistical quirk gives all of us who follow income distribution patterns a misleading picture of “the rich”. Obama and other politicians artfully take advantage of it.
Think of the life cycle of many small businesses (btw, this also applies to long-term real estate investments): The entrepreneur builds the business over several decades, struggling at first (often earning less than his workers), but eventually learning, growing, building a valuable and saleable asset. The struggle is worth it because the goal all along is to sell the business before retirement & reap a big capital gain.
Assuming it works and the business did not fail during the lean years, a big capital gain is the real reward for all that effort. What do the government’s statitics say about this individual in the year he sells out? He’s rich! Maybe makes a million, maybe makes Obama’s threshold quarter-million, and is taxed accordingly. His lifetime income may be quite modest. But government figures, every year, portray these entrepreneurs & RE investors as fat cats because of an accident of the calendar. Gullible voters fall for a populist message as a result.

[EconProf]

A statistical quirk gives all of us who follow income distribution patterns a misleading picture of “the rich”. Obama and other politicians artfully take advantage of it.
Think of the life cycle of many small businesses (btw, this also applies to long-term real estate investments): The entrepreneur builds the business over several decades, struggling at first (often earning less than his workers), but eventually learning, growing, building a valuable and saleable asset. The struggle is worth it because the goal all along is to sell the business before retirement & reap a big capital gain.
Assuming it works and the business did not fail during the lean years, a big capital gain is the real reward for all that effort. What do the government’s statitics say about this individual in the year he sells out? He’s rich! Maybe makes a million, maybe makes Obama’s threshold quarter-million, and is taxed accordingly. His lifetime income may be quite modest. But government figures, every year, portray these entrepreneurs & RE investors as fat cats because of an accident of the calendar. Gullible voters fall for a populist message as a result.

[EconProf]

While we certainly need firefighters and police officers, their pay is not set by the market but by political dictate and raw union power. Politicians, especially San Diego’s union-dominated city council, don’t dare challenge the public misperceptions of public safety workers.
The fact is, police work and firefighting isn’t very dangerous. Neither occupation shows up in the top ten (timber cutters and fishermen are #1 & #2). But their deaths are big news and shapes public opinion and is easily exploited.

[EconProf]

While we certainly need firefighters and police officers, their pay is not set by the market but by political dictate and raw union power. Politicians, especially San Diego’s union-dominated city council, don’t dare challenge the public misperceptions of public safety workers.
The fact is, police work and firefighting isn’t very dangerous. Neither occupation shows up in the top ten (timber cutters and fishermen are #1 & #2). But their deaths are big news and shapes public opinion and is easily exploited.

[EconProf]

While we certainly need firefighters and police officers, their pay is not set by the market but by political dictate and raw union power. Politicians, especially San Diego’s union-dominated city council, don’t dare challenge the public misperceptions of public safety workers.
The fact is, police work and firefighting isn’t very dangerous. Neither occupation shows up in the top ten (timber cutters and fishermen are #1 & #2). But their deaths are big news and shapes public opinion and is easily exploited.

[EconProf]

While we certainly need firefighters and police officers, their pay is not set by the market but by political dictate and raw union power. Politicians, especially San Diego’s union-dominated city council, don’t dare challenge the public misperceptions of public safety workers.
The fact is, police work and firefighting isn’t very dangerous. Neither occupation shows up in the top ten (timber cutters and fishermen are #1 & #2). But their deaths are big news and shapes public opinion and is easily exploited.

[EconProf]

While we certainly need firefighters and police officers, their pay is not set by the market but by political dictate and raw union power. Politicians, especially San Diego’s union-dominated city council, don’t dare challenge the public misperceptions of public safety workers.
The fact is, police work and firefighting isn’t very dangerous. Neither occupation shows up in the top ten (timber cutters and fishermen are #1 & #2). But their deaths are big news and shapes public opinion and is easily exploited.

[EconProf]

Fair comparisons would not show their base incomes to be lower, on average. That is a shibboleth pushed by the public employee unions.
The best evidence is the voluntary turnover rate in private vs. public employment. How many teachers, police & fire personnel, prison guards & secretaries quit to join the private sector? Not many, because the package of pay, security, fringe benefits, and retirement are now relatively attractive.

[Author]

Posts