I just couldn't talk about Al Sharpton and NYC again. It's making me crazy, so please help me understand something. So one of my Facebook "friends" posted this graph from that great bastion of rational thought, Motherjones.com:
So being the curious person that I am, I went to the source thinking that I would find an article that would explain the context of this chart. Uh, no. What I found was just a series of out-of-context charts and graphs that prove pretty much nothing other than the top 1% of income earners are educated professionals (doctors, lawyer, MBA's etc) and earn a lot more than I do. And one category as "not working or deceased" that I really can't explain at all...what?
I digress. So the graph that he published on Facebook was the one above and this is our comment stream:
*I get that alot. Or in the alternative, I get "that was a stupid comment. You obviously watch Faux News" for which I respond "Uh, but you didn't tell me WHY it was stupid. Please elaborate." and their retort: [radio silence] - or something along those lines...
**I will be at the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament today watching tennis players hit tennis balls and stuff, so I will join in as I can. As always, please feel free to change the subject.
So being the curious person that I am, I went to the source thinking that I would find an article that would explain the context of this chart. Uh, no. What I found was just a series of out-of-context charts and graphs that prove pretty much nothing other than the top 1% of income earners are educated professionals (doctors, lawyer, MBA's etc) and earn a lot more than I do. And one category as "not working or deceased" that I really can't explain at all...what?
I digress. So the graph that he published on Facebook was the one above and this is our comment stream:
Me: "All it looks like to me is that by taking more from the top 20%, it just creates more in the bottom 20%..."What am I missing? My mind is boggled. Frankly, this is a great example of taking something on political faith. We see what we want to see because there is no explanation or context.**
Friend's "Friend": "No thats not how that graph works. It's a distribution graph"
Me: Okay, so by distributing the wealth, as is indicated by the bottom graph, it pretty much visually represents that it would create a much larger bottom 20% (aka "poor people") How does that make it better?
Friend's "Friend": [no response]*
*I get that alot. Or in the alternative, I get "that was a stupid comment. You obviously watch Faux News" for which I respond "Uh, but you didn't tell me WHY it was stupid. Please elaborate." and their retort: [radio silence] - or something along those lines...
**I will be at the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament today watching tennis players hit tennis balls and stuff, so I will join in as I can. As always, please feel free to change the subject.
12 comments:
"They would rather the poor were poorer as long as the rich were less rich." —Margaret Thatcher
On a different note (but one that I feel is related), a feminist over at named Think Progress named Tara Culp-Pressler claims a new nail polish that detects date rape drugs actually "reinforces rape culture".
I'll leave that one hanging there.
Bev,
Bev, the width of the bands in the distribution chart doesn't refer to the number of people in each category (which is static at 20%), it refers to the percentage of wealth each 20% holds.
I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the distribution of wealth isn't getting more unequal. The question is, is it a problem and can anything be done?
As I have noted many times, generally speaking capital is a lot more mobile than labor so it makes sense that the rich are getting disproportionately richer. There's not much to do about it IMHO. Make life unpleasant for capital/the rich, it/they move someplace friendlier and cheaper. Make life easy for them, reap the rewards of their money. Its not rocket science.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2014/08/25/the-whopper-takes-on-canada-burger-king-tim-hortons-soar-on-merger-talks/
In the deal, Burger King can change its tax domicile to Canada, the home of Tim Hortons, and save millions by switching to the favorable corporate income tax rates there. As Forbes’ Jeremy Bogaisky writes, Canada still has higher personal income tax than the United States (average of 42%) — but Prime Minister Stephen Harper slashed the country’s corporate tax to just 15%. The US rate is 35%, before various deductions and loopholes.
Investors love the idea. Tim Hortons shares opened up 20%, and Burger King’s rose 15%. Each company’s shares are now up 30% year to date.
------------
Happily for the mental wellbeing of most Americans, I don't think most care about distribution so long as they are satisfied with their share. If a family has a car and a nice house, the fact that someone, somewhere makes more money in a day then they make in a year doesn't matter to them (you didn't hear many people complaining about wealth distribution in the 90s).
Its the jobless 'recovery' and unemployment/underemployment that is the political problem, not the distribution of wealth and all that can be done is to make life easier for capital (i.e. reducing regulation, not raising the minimum wage and maybe slashing taxes) so that more of it flows to the US.
Anthony - your comment is spot on.
Anthony's reading of the graph is correct, but the fact that your friend's friend couldn't explain it shows that he didn't really understand it. His interpretation was correct only by coincidence.
Kit, The problem, from her perspective, is that when all college women start using this nail polish and none of them discover they are being drugged, then the idea of date rape will slowly die out... and we can't have that.
Anthony, There are two things you can do about inequality. (1) Stop letting groups like lawyers and investment bankers make easy mega-fortunes off fees that exist only because regulations let them make this money, i.e. make the rich earn it in the free market rather than through some government sop, and (2) create a vast amount of jobs by removing all the costs imposed upon labor by the government, e.g. employment taxes and excessive labor regulations. Increasing jobs will lead to a labor shortage which will lead to massive income growth at every level. Ending "regulatory money" means people will be less offended by the rich because the rich will have gotten rich helping society by providing good and services rather than sucking money out of it as legally imposes middle men... which also means good things for consumers and employees.
Just for the record, I did understand the chart that represented distribution. And Anthony once again you are spot on. I was setting the "friend" up to challenge why he was taking this all as fact without any real analysis. [And frankly, it should have a pie chart rather than bar chart]. And, like you said, how do you achieve "economic equality".
There is talk of a Full House revival. Ok, I liked the original growing up but... seriously? Can we have an original idea? What is with all the remakes and revivals? Is Hollywood running out of fresh ideas?
Is Hollywood running out of fresh ideas?
Ummmm, yes, they have.
You're right Bev, the chart doesn't say anything because it isn't defined. What does it mean to be in the bottom 20%? I would rather be in the bottom 20% in the US than the middle 20% in Liberia.
If the bottom 20% had more of the wealth, that would mean they were working.
I can't believe Mother Jones is advocating that ; - P
Post a Comment