Obama proposes cuts to social security and medicare

[solanis]

archi, do you have any data on the spread within the top 1%? it includes everyone from like $250k-infinity. my guess is that the billionaires are becoming bigger billionaires with much smaller gains further down but I want some data on it D:

[archibaldcrane]

archi, do you have any data on the spread within the top 1%? it includes everyone from like $250k-infinity. my guess is that the billionaires are becoming bigger billionaires with much smaller gains further down but I want some data on it D:

I would guess the like, I actually saw a cool breakdown at one point a few months ago, would be hard to find. Where they showed the .1%ers and the .01%ers.

[Demosthenes11]

archi, do you have any data on the spread within the top 1%? it includes everyone from like $250k-infinity. my guess is that the billionaires are becoming bigger billionaires with much smaller gains further down but I want some data on it D:

if you are making $250k a year, you are rich. seriously, stop denying it.

[archibaldcrane]

Here's something:

There are approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000 a year. Even at that, the top 0.01% of households had incomes of $5,500,000 and accounted for 11,000 households. The 400 highest tax payers in the nation brought in a stunning $87,000,000 a year.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm saying that the well-educated and ego-less types aren't typically the ones who go seeking attention.

Also, I'm sure you've been getting all kinds of good advice in regards to money, but what's usually put out to the public is that if we don't maintain a 3% rate of growth every year (i.e; 3% more than the year before it, which is 3% more than the year before that, etc, etc - exponential growth) then our economy is doing poorly.

That is a common and realistic, historical based assumption.

[solanis]

if you are making $250k a year, you are rich. seriously, stop denying it.

you... might be misreading what we're saying rofl

zealot, in the 60s-70s economic growth in the US was at crazy high rates and has only recently come back down to earth. even then, it's above or at 3% more often than not. people need to worry less about maintaining a certain benchmark and more about understanding fluctuation (it's huge) and comparison to other countries. if we can educate people while they're in high school, they're less likely to listen to grandstanders. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth is awesome for beginners.

thanks for the data archi, I knew the spread was incredible D:

[archibaldcrane]

Better information like "we shouldn't expect exponential growth in the economy"? Because that's...wrong.

[quannum]

just saying "3% more than last year" should be enough to qualify as talking about exponential growth

[solanis]

to be specific, long-term growth is a sequence of exponential modes. we happen to live in a time period more closely resembling linear regression. using the colloquial "exponential" when explaining growth to a layman audience is irresponsible without educating them on what it actually means. I can't think of a reputable modern economist who's done something like that. correct me if I'm wrong, zealot

[quannum]

i wonder how many people dont even know what an exponent is

[Demosthenes11]

i wonder how many people dont even know what an exponent is

exponents can only be whole numbers 2 or greater duh

[solanis]

considering how sad the state is of the public school kids I tutor in the hood, probably a lot of people

[quannum]

i guess i should've said voters instead of people, to be in the context of this thread

are voters more likely than joe sixpack to have math/science literacy or just plain ol' critical thinking skills?

[archibaldcrane]

How so, archi? Exponential growth isn't sustainable, eventually we reach a point where we just can't consume anymore.

We aren't anywhere near that point. We have positive population growth, tons of land and natural resources and worker productivity continues to soar. We aren't Japan or northern Europe.

[Kerberoz]

i guess i should've said voters instead of people, to be in the context of this thread

are voters more likely than joe sixpack to have math/science literacy or just plain ol' critical thinking skills?

less likely.

[Cadsuane]

Speaking of basic economic education (and this is more or less for you Zealot), if we can't expect exponential economic growth, we can expect this as a consequence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_crisis. Because population growth is geometric, unless economic growth can outpace it people multiply until they live at subsistence level and poverty prevents conception and maturation of young. Pretty shitty state of affairs.

Thankfully we do measure economic growth per year in percentages because of the inexorable progress of technology and with it worker productivity. If we do have zero or linear growth, then it had better be accompanied by sterilization programs if we want to have standards of living better than North Korea.

[Xno Kappa]

The only currency that matters at this point.

Spoiler: show

[Zoolander]

Great read. Came across a Foreign Policy article a while back that was longer but in the same vein, nice to see a newer one that incorporates the current debacle in DC. It really is incredible how mythical Reagan has become. And those two ideas he presented were kind of intriguing, whats the likelihood of either happening?

[Yugl]

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v2...s-bottom90.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...s-bottom90.jpg
Income disparity had grown significantly since '79, but it's had periods of contraction, usually coinciding with recessions.

Basically the wealthy have been the only beneficiaries of the rising US economy over my entire lifetime.

To be honest, I don't think the results of that graph entirely stem from political "trickery" (Or whatever word you wish to use) given the frame of relative income equality.

[Talint]

Debtor Nation Status: Under Ronald Reagan, the US went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years - and we have remained the largest debtor nation ever since. In 1981, Reagan's first year in office, the US was a net creditor to the tune of $140.9bn. By 1984, that had shrunk to just $3.3bn - and the next year, the US shifted from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation for the first time in almost 70 years. By 1987, the US was a net debtor by $378.3bn - the largest debtor nation in the world. The figure rose to $532.5bn by the end of 1988, when Reagan left office.

...this is an amazingly appalling fact, and one I'm going to throw in the face of every conservatard that tries to argue how awesome Reagan was.

No wonder why the republicans hate Al Jazeera.