top 1% vs bottom 50% (US wealth)
- Thread starter richardyu301
- Start date
NOT Bullshit!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
As of 2003 (which appears to be the most recent data available), the top 1% (earnings above $295,495) earned 16.77% of the total income, but paid 34.27% of the total taxes.
If outsourcing can make middle class disappear, why the unemployment rate and the personal income report doesn't change dramatically?
Our government has embarked on a propaganda campaign. The way Unemployment is calculated has changed over the last 20 years. Without going into great detail, an example of this is that you are no longer considered unemployed after your 6 months of benefits is exhausted. The Unemployment rate based on the 1980 calculations id actually about 13%. :eek: :eek:
Personal Income
Well, consider that the CPI doesn't include "volatile" energy and food prices, that is just another farce. Those costs make up a significant portion of the average families expenses. This county is starting to look and act more like France in the 1700's than ever. Any day now, Barbara Bush (or Condy Rice) will proclaim "Let them eat cake" :eek: :eek: :eek: Look at the 2nd question of the following page:Quote from Triple X:
Our government has embarked on a propaganda campaign. The way Unemployment is calculated has changed over the last 20 years. Without going into great detail, an example of this is that you are no longer considered unemployed after your 6 months of benefits is exhausted. The Unemployment rate based on the 1980 calculations id actually about 13%. :eek: :eek:
Personal Income
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
Unemployment rate is not based on the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.
The change in real before-tax family income between 2001-2004 stands in strong contrast to the change for the preceding three-year period. Over the more recent period [2001-2004], median income rose 1.6%, while the mean fell 2.3%. Over the preceding three-year period, the median had increased 9.5% and the mean had increased 17.3%. The change over the 01-04 period was strongly influenced by a 6.2% decline in the overall median amount of wages measures in the survey and a 3.6% decline in the mean; wages represent the largest share of family income. Investment related incomes also declined.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf
Among age-by-sex groups, the participation shortfall is especially pronounced at young and prime ages: Only for men and women age 55 and older has participation risen more than is usual four years after the business cycle peak.
The brief examines explanations and different recovery scenarios for various groupsâolder workers, women, teens. Depending on the scenario, the current labor force shortfall ranges from 1.6 million to 5.1 million men and women. With 7.9 million people currently unemployed, the addition of these hypothetical participants would raise the unemployment rate by 1 to 3-plus percentage points. Current low rates of labor market participation thus potentially represent considerable slack in the U.S. labor market.
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppb/2005/ppb052.htm
The expansion of 2/61 - 12/69 created 17,684,000 total jobs and 6,244,000 at 49 months.
The expansion of 3/75 - 7/80 created 13,183,000 total jobs and 12,831,000 at 49 months.
The expansion of 11/82 - 7/90 created 21,003,000 total jobs and 11,510,000 at 49 months.
The expansion of 3/91 - 3/01 created 23,969,000 total jobs and 8,266,000 at 49 months.
The current expansion which started in November 2001 has created a total of 3,410,000 jobs.
Exactly, it is a natural ratio of wealth distribution - in the economy, and in the markets throughout thousands of years of history. Even in nature, some critter lays 100 eggs and only less than 10 make it to adulthood. Only the strong get rewarded, and everyone has an opportunity to become stronger over the generations. PINK people will never understand this.