Umm no. If you don’t want someone to mock your positions, then they need to follow mathematical principles. Facts are facts, no matter what side you’re on (or at least they used to be).
Wealth distribution is calculated as a percentage of total wealth. If the total wealth of everyone is doubled, the wealth gap is not doubled...it remains the same.
If one group has 80% of $100, and another group has 20% of that $100, and then all wealth is doubled, the split is still 80/20. This is simple math.
Further, you know as well as I do that the wealth gap is increasing because the lower percentile has been losing wealth due to the automation of the workforce that began in the 70s.
Finally, I’m sure you also know that inflation adjusted income has been nearly flat for 50 years for all but the top quintile.
Trickle down economics worked when companies needed labor to make their money. Now companies make it their goal to reduce labor costs, mostly through automation. When machines or software replaces 50% of the workforce, does a company double the average pay for labor? No. They give labor a token raise and pocket the additional profits.
In the end this leads to engineers in 2018 earning the same standard of living as a rank and file factory worker in 1960. Problem is, the engineer had to take out $100k in loan debt to earn the same standard of living his grandfather earned just by showing up every day.
The wealth being generated by automating citizens out of jobs should be used to train those citizens to make equal pay in another job.
Umm no. If you don’t want someone to mock your positions, then they need to follow mathematical principles. Facts are facts, no matter what side you’re on (or at least they used to be).
Wealth distribution is calculated as a percentage of total wealth. If the total wealth of everyone is doubled, the wealth gap is not doubled...it remains the same.
If one group has 80% of $100, and another group has 20% of that $100, and then all wealth is doubled, the split is still 80/20. This is simple math.
This wasn't at all my main point in this thread, but I appreciate you focusing on it (and still insulting me) rather than the data I posted upthread. Yes, in % terms, you are correct - that statement is not accurate. But when I engage in these arguments, I often see CEO pay, white vs black family, or new wealth earned as the data showing the massive wealth gap. These are frequently shown in actual dollars and not %. When that happens, my statement is accurate. The Urban Institute is a major organization fighting "wealth inequality" and here is how they phrase it:
When this is the argument, if everyone's $ were doubled, poverty would lesson but the gap would be bigger.
But as I said, that was not my main point. And yes, facts matter - so let's continue
Further, you know as well as I do that the wealth gap is increasing because the lower percentile has been losing wealth due to the automation of the workforce that began in the 70s.
The wealth gap is increasing because the fed has pumped trillions of dollars and kept interest rates at 0% for a decade... this fiscal policy substantially benefits wealthier people as the access to cheap money allows asset prices to rise substantially, which benefit investors substantially more than workers. BUT... it also benefits non-workers because there are more jobs and higher GDP... and asset prices rising is good for everyone (there are a whole lot of stock and house owners in this country). When rich people or businesses invest more money, they will likely make a bigger return... but the "trickle down" effect is someone else likely got a job from that investment
Finally, I’m sure you also know that inflation adjusted income has been nearly flat for 50 years for all but the top quintile.
You are correct that I know the difference between nominal and real dollars. The data I posted upthread is real dollars, meaning it is adjusted for inflation. Here it is again:
Yes. The rich have gotten richer at a far faster rate than everyone else. But the rate will never be proportional and it is indisputable that the macro environment has improved for everyone in this country... which would seem to indicate that wealth is in fact, "trickling down." And when we have a recession, the wealthy will lose value at a substantially disproportional rate than non-rich.
More data... a look by class:
There are more rich people and less poor people. And you can see this more clearly over time
The % of people making $100K has tripled since 1970, while at the same time people making less than $50K has been reduced by 20%
Trickle down economics worked when companies needed labor to make their money. Now companies make it their goal to reduce labor costs, mostly through automation. When machines or software replaces 50% of the workforce, does a company double the average pay for labor? No. They give labor a token raise and pocket the additional profits.
In the end this leads to engineers in 2018 earning the same standard of living as a rank and file factory worker in 1960. Problem is, the engineer had to take out $100k in loan debt to earn the same standard of living his grandfather earned just by showing up every day.
The wealth being generated by automating citizens out of jobs should be used to train those citizens to make equal pay in another job.
I don't think there is sufficient data to prove what you are saying. It is true that automation and technology have made some jobs obsolete or less valuable, but they have also created brand new jobs in new industries. Cloud engineers, data scientists, machine learning professionals, cyber security professionals... hell smart phones allow businesses like uber and grubhub to thrive. Things change.
I think the macro data in aggregate is very positive for everyone. Yes - the rich are richer than ever - but so is society.
