patrick.net

This may be a clearer graph, showing a tripling since 1960. It also may need adjustment for the increase in women working. That is to make inferences about income per hour.

How about this...just from 1970

OF course rents and other investment income are included in this. I'm sure that many right wingers or austrians would argue that workers are not entitled to a piece of the rents that the rich get to collect.

Understanding this aspect of the situation is a big part of understanding how our system works.

Bigsby says

And if that person fails to find employment during that period (through no lack of trying), then what? And food stamps only for those with a job? What?

Go live with family or find a homeless shelter. There are always low-paying jobs available...people just don't want to do them.

marcus says

I'm guessing the percentage working must be at least 35% higher than in 1950.

Btw, I know some might argue this is high, because the workforce participation rate is only about 5% above where it was in 1950. But there are way more people over 68 than there were back then. still 35% may be high.

Bigsby says

Why do you think? You seem to be raising up the American healthcare system as the best in the world. It isn't. It can't even supply basic affordable coverage to a good percentage of the population. Your country has by far the most expensive healthcare system, and even with this, has poorer outcomes in comparison to pretty much all other developed nations.

I didn't say it was the best. We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress. Through ACA, competition will get fiercer, which only benefits us.

Show me stats on poorer outcomes. I bring it up because it often has nothing to do with our healthcare system...it's the fact that we have a nation of fat people.

debyne says

We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress.

It can't work. Free market requires information availability, the ability to shop, etc. which will not ever exist for healthcare. If you get hit by a car, are you going to be able to shop around before having surgery?

ThreeBays says

debyne says

You're being too short-sighted. Evolutionary principles take generations and generations to take force. Over time, rich idiots, such as the Paris Hiltons of the world, would eventually fail and not survive unless behavior was changed. The point is, don't mess with what nature intended in how we evolve and improve over time.

The human race is far beyond the point where progress is determined by natural selection. If you're waiting for the people or groups you dislike to die out you better not hold your breath.

Then we're doomed as a race...watch as the weak multiply and the lazy and inept continue to take over. Oh, and don't make accusations that I want people I don't like to die...it's not about me.

debyne says

ThreeBays says

debyne says

You're being too short-sighted. The point is, don't mess with what nature intended in how we evolve and improve over time.

I'm not going to say that there is nothing to the idea of social derwinism, but it's way too easy for idiots to way take it too far. Nobody has ever argued that we need to give those who are unwilling to work a lifestyle that will make them feel that not working is a good deal.

We are humans, and it's our collective intelligence or lack there of that will determne our future. That is if we're lucky..

Besides, it can easily be argued that our growing wealth inequality is putting more and more power in the hands of an aristocracy that got their wealth (or the future generation that will get it's wealth) by inheriting it, and then paying experts to invest it.

In your view these are the strongest and best fit people who get to make decisions about our government and our societies ? They are the ones that will be deciding how we evolve.

marcus says

Besides, it can easily be argued that our growing wealth inequality is putting more and more power in the hands of an aristocracy that got their wealth (or the future generation that will get it's wealth) by inheriting it, and then paying experts to invest it.

Then that would remove equal opportunity, so you regulate it so monopoly of power doesn't happen. I never advocated for a completely free market...regulation is still very important.

tatupu70 says

debyne says

We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress.

It can't work. Free market requires information availability, the ability to shop, etc. which will not ever exist for healthcare. If you get hit by a car, are you going to be able to shop around before having surgery?

Lol...first off, most healthcare dollars are not emergencies. Second, I'm not saying get rid of insurance...I'm a big supporter of catastrophic coverage for all as a mandate.

Yes, but who will be voted in?

Fair enough.

tts says

It never could of course, as we Americans learned from Ronnie Raygun in the 80's, trickle down economics never works.

why delete deluge up roberto? how did i offend thee? pray tell.

Bellingham Bill says

Hmm, doing *both*, taxing rents and using the money to build new supply -- that actually makes sense, LOL.

Such a scheme would work as well as the soviet scheme of robbing the rich successful farmers' farming implements and farm animals to build communes . . . contrary to dreams of plenty, the result was mass starvation!

The socialist mind doesn't understand in order to get results, you need to give people incentives! After-tax rent return is the incentive for building more rental units! If you tax rent return heavily, less rental units would be built by the private sector. If you want government monopoly to build rental units instead of letting private sector players competing against each other, the incentive becomes for the bureaucrats and their cronies to maximize the budget allocation . . . and build nothing! The worse the schools, the greater the public outcry for more funding to schools; the higher the crime rate , the greater the public outcry for more funding to police departments . . . it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if housing construction is monopolized by government bureaucracy, the more acute the housing shortage the more funding for the monopolistic department of rental housing. . . so what would you do if you are in charge of such a department and want to maximize your own wealth and power? spend every cent of the budget and then demand more, while build nothing!

tatupu70 says

debyne says

We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress.

It can't work. Free market requires information availability, the ability to shop, etc. which will not ever exist for healthcare. If you get hit by a car, are you going to be able to shop around before having surgery?

Come on! The solution in that case is quite simple: a dog-tag or wrist band referencing a data base indicating which list of emergency rooms you should be sent to. Do your own shopping and make the list before being hit, heck before getting into the car.

Don't they already do that with your decision on whether you are willing to be an organ donor? It's not like they bring you back to sign papers after you die in a car accident.

Churchill was the guilty party burning london to the ground to monopolize whatever housing survived while blaming it all on nazi aggression.

Reality says

Don't they already do that with your decision on whether you are willing to be an organ donor? It's not like they bring you back to sign papers after you die in a car accident.

Yeah, because that's the same thing.

Reality says

Utter nonsense. Government transfers almost always work out to benefit the 0.01% at the expense of the 99.99%, once you figure out how the tax revenue is spent. Even Section 8 housing program benefit the slumlords at the expense of the taxpayers.

The free market always works out to benefit the 0.01% over the 99.99%. Regardless of inflation/deflation, capitalism tends toward inequality. It has nothing to do with any government actions.

Reality says

Inflation is the worst trickled down economics. New money reach the banksters first.

No it doesn't--that's crap. New money goes to everything the government funds.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Don't they already do that with your decision on whether you are willing to be an organ donor? It's not like they bring you back to sign papers after you die in a car accident.

Yeah, because that's the same thing.

It shows that apriori wishes and plans can be made before the person is incapacitated.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Utter nonsense. Government transfers almost always work out to benefit the
0.01% at the expense of the 99.99%, once you figure out how the tax revenue is
spent. Even Section 8 housing program benefit the slumlords at the expense of
the taxpayers.

The free market always works out to benefit the 0.01% over the 99.99%.
Regardless of inflation/deflation, capitalism tends toward inequality. It has
nothing to do with any government actions.

That is utter nonsense. Free market capitalism is the effective social mechanism for equalizing ever known to men: through monetization of power, those with existing power can be chipped away by more efficient upstarts one tiny pieces at a time. The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families. Sound money is the ultimate antidote to feudal privileges . . . and all political privileges are effectively feudal privileges as political power and privileges are tied to specific geographic regions.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Inflation is the worst trickled down economics. New money reach the banksters
first.

No it doesn't--that's crap. New money goes to everything the government
funds

The biggest sinkhole for emergency government funding is the banking system; trillions at a time when the money is worth the most. Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society: banksters conjure money out of nothing when lending to government, as government bonds are counted as reserve assets at the banks . . . so the banksters can literally create $1Trillion out of nothing to lend to the government, even at 1%, that's $10Billion a year free cash income for the bank with zero capital tied up! That's really how bank bailouts work: banks taking bailout money to lend to the government is a paper fraud covering up a government promise to deliver to the banksters the "interest payment" on zero pricinple! That's the crux of fiat money system robbing the middle class blind to enrich the top 0.01%.

Reality says

That is utter nonsense. Free market capitalism is the effective social mechanism for equalizing ever known to men: through monetization of power, those with existing power can be chipped away by more efficient upstarts one tiny pieces at a time

OK--could you please list a few examples of free market capitalism leading to improved wealth disparity? Specific time periods? Because I can list several periods that show the exact opposite of what you state.

Reality says

Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society

Really? More than half the budget is military spending. Regardless, you obviously don't like bankers. Neither do I.

Reality says

That's really how bank bailouts work: banks taking bailout money to lend to the government is a paper fraud covering up a government promise to deliver to the banksters the "interest payment" on zero pricinple! That's the crux of fiat money system robbing the middle class blind to enrich the top 0.01%.

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the government funds.

Jackie Mason the Jew of the Goy.

Give it up. You lost. Obama was re-elected, and the world did not end.

Call it Crazy says

There used to be a time when you would worship the president, even if you didn’t like him. You knew he told the truth because he’s the president of a country.

Exactly when was that?

Go through the list of presidents and enumerate the ones that didn't lie. If you list has more than zero elements, I reserve the right to challenge it.

tatupu70 says

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the government funds.

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

mell says

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

Who receives money via ZIRP and is getting rich? Please elaborate.

tatupu70 says

mell says

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

Who receives money via ZIRP and is getting rich? Please elaborate.

Central banks around the world print money and give it to banks who can make close to riskless loans, making them rich at the expense of the taxpayers (debasement). This happens at a slow pace since it is is generally not particularly attractive for banks to make low-yield loans, but beats any of the options the little taxpayer guy has. Heck, I'll take it - can you hook me up with a crony ZIRP line asap? Much appreciated ;)

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

My policy has been cancelled and Michelle Obama nailed a DEATH PANEL Notice to my forehead when I got out of the car at the Safeway the other day and came up me with a pitchfork

Still one of the safest grocery trips in New York City.

Give it up. You lost. Obama was re-elected, and the world did not end.

Well-said. Post all the stupid videos you want. Obama is the President and will be for the next 3 years.

Never got a dinner.

mell says

Central banks around the world print money and give it to banks who can make close to riskless loans, making them rich at the expense of the taxpayers (debasement). This happens at a slow pace since it is is generally not particularly attractive for banks to make low-yield loans, but beats any of the options the little taxpayer guy has. Heck, I'll take it - can you hook me up with a crony ZIRP line asap? Much appreciated ;)

So, who exactly is getting rich again? I'm assuming the spread that banks are making are at all time highs then?

Again, however, the point isn't bailouts. The discussion is how does an expanding money supply cause wealth disparity?

edvard2 says

Well-said. Post all the stupid videos you want. Obama is the President and will be for the next 3 years.

And Hilary the next 8 after that.

Such is the price of Republicans stealing the 2000 election and putting a retarded despot who killed millions on innocents on the throne.

People are scared shitless of another Republican becoming president. A dog that can't stop sniffing it's crotch could be the Democratic nominee and he would still win.

The best strategy available for the Republicans in 2015 is to agree to not run at all in the presidential election if the Democrats just nominate Biden instead of Hilary. They should do that or face the wrath of the Clintons. Oh, don't worry, I'm sure they won't hold a grudge for all that impeachment shit.

Reality says

The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families.

Can you explain that it is not monetized? I thought that the power came from investing ahead of inflation with cheap money. Or did I answer my own question?

indigenous says

I thought that the power came from investing ahead of inflation with cheap money

There are a lot of things that you "think"... Unfortunately, they are almost all incorrect.

tatupu70 says

I'm assuming the spread that banks are making are at all time highs then?

No, they are not, and I already said that. But they have no risk in lending at low rates to borrowers after stuffing their reserves.

mell says

No, they are not, and I already said that. But they have no risk in lending at low rates to borrowers after stuffing their reserves.

Then how are they making record profits? All they make is the spread and assorted fees.

tatupu70 says

mell says

No, they are not, and I already said that. But they have no risk in lending at low rates to borrowers after stuffing their reserves.

Then how are they making record profits? All they make is the spread and assorted fees.

The TBTF/investment banks also play the markets for better yields (30 of 30 winning trading days anyone?) and as long as the Fed prints and combine that with front-running/HFT the sky is the limit. I would assume that "pure" banks in the traditional sense that do only customer accounts have far more subdued profits, albeit profits.

ThreeBays says

The claim that governments can't run healthcare funds as well as private insurance is easily debunked by looking at all the countries that operate national health insurance and have better and less costly healthcare expense than the US.

There are SOOO many variables as to why the US spends more healthcare dollars than other nations who have single payer. You can't make an equal comparison. For example, so much of how a system performs is based upon the health of its members and how it's structured. I just posted an article yesterday about how France's health and welfare system is massively in debt and is unsustainable, and they have a single payer system. Additionally, what we have today is NOT a free market approach to private insurance. AND, we haven't had an insurance mandate in the past, which has caused prices to rise substantially.

So, don't just run to another country's model thinking it's going to work for us. If anything, we should follow more of what Singapore is doing (high deductible model) but maintain subsidized private insurance for catastrophes. Oh wait, isn't that what ACA is trying to accomplish?

ThreeBays says

Big IT projects are notorious for running over schedule and budget both in government and in private enterprise.

healthcare.gov was developed by private contractors after all.

The argument about the website failure is a distraction from whether the policy is good or not.

But big IT projects in the private sector don't generally have the catastrophic results that this has had...I've done postmortems on several. Plus, private enterprise wouldn't have spent nearly the same amount of money and taken as long to produce an integrated website...sorry, but it's true. On top of all of this, what pisses me off the most, is the cronyism within this administration in selecting the vendors...it's the epitome of cronyism.

ThreeBays says

The relationship between the size of the pharma industry and the insurance system is highly debatable.

And you may say medical innovation in the US is the best, but at the same time medical outcomes and patient satisfaction in the US aren't the best.

When 40% of americans have inadequate access to health care, the top line innovation is hardly the biggest issue in US healthcare.

But why throw the baby out with the bath water? I agree that our outcomes-to-cost ratio needs a major overhaul, but don't "try" to solve one problem by creating a bigger one, which is losing innovation. You can poo-poo innovation all you want, but so much of why we're able to live longer now vs 200 years ago is as a result of innovation. And you want to hamper that? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. "Look, we have cheap healthcare, but it involves blood-letting and drilling holes in our heads."