"Hip hop has done more damage than racism"

[deacphan]

So to keep up with the cost of living, that second income helps, then? Imagine that.

absolutely. once again, you've proven a point no one disagrees with. nice work, esquire.

 

[jhmd2000]

absolutely. once again, you've proven a point no one disagrees with. nice work, esquire.

Let's get a little more enthusiasm in the concurrence, shall we? Perhaps this time in matters of how policies might work, for instance.

 

[UNCG Deac]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ing-the-norm/2012/04/18/gIQALSzlRT_story.html

Median household income has risen 5 grand while the percentage of duel earning households has nearly doubled.

This graph only measures dual earners for households with kids. Most "households" don't even have kids.

The problem with this debate is that people are confusing income and wealth. Both have risen, but wealth is rising faster. Marriage is a big driver of wealth inequality. Compare a single mother and a married couple and say that everyone makes $40,000 per year. The single mom will have to spend it all on living expenses. The couple spends less on living expenses (i.e. buying one coffee maker instead of two) and has more to invest in things like a home or retirement fund. Same income, but different levels of wealth. A big reason that "the rich are getting richer" is because a larger number of people are not getting and staying married. Single people spend more on their cost of living than on assets and wealth. Wealth also earns interests and produces even more wealth.

The political narrative is that "inequality" is all driven by income. This is because 1. politicians tax income (not wealth) and want to raise the income tax, and 2. union contracts implement wage hikes whenever the minimum wage increases. It is true that income is rising slowly and that higher incomes would somewhat improve wealth inequality, but there are bigger factors at play. Contrary to popular belief and PhDeac's graphic, the "typical worker" in in 1965 did not earn $70,000 per year or any more than he does now.

 

[deacphan]

This graph only measures dual earners for households with kids. Most "households" don't even have kids.

The problem with this debate is that people are confusing income and wealth. Both have risen, but wealth is rising faster. Marriage is a big driver of wealth inequality. Compare a single mother and a married couple and say that everyone makes $40,000 per year. The single mom will have to spend it all on living expenses. The couple spends less on living expenses (i.e. buying one coffee maker instead of two) and has more to invest in things like a home or retirement fund. Same income, but different levels of wealth. A big reason that "the rich are getting richer" is because a larger number of people are not getting and staying married. Single people spend more on their cost of living than on assets and wealth. Wealth also earns interests and produces even more wealth.

The political narrative is that "inequality" is all driven by income. This is because 1. politicians tax income (not wealth) and want to raise the income tax, and 2. union contracts implement wage hikes whenever the minimum wage increases. It is true that income is rising slowly and that higher incomes would somewhat improve wealth inequality, but there are also much bigger factors at play.

well income inequality rising also plays in.

it also doesn't help that there's a huge barrier to entry on the the biggest wealth creator in this country: home equity. the tax breaks there undermine investment in more liquid investing which significantly help singles. fucking realtors.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

This graph only measures dual earners for households with kids. Most "households" don't even have kids.

The problem with this debate is that people are confusing income and wealth. Both have risen, but wealth is rising faster. Marriage is a big driver of wealth inequality. Compare a single mother and a married couple and say that everyone makes $40,000 per year. The single mom will have to spend it all on living expenses. The couple spends less on living expenses (i.e. buying one coffee maker instead of two) and has more to invest in things like a home or retirement fund. Same income, but different levels of wealth. A big reason that "the rich are getting richer" is because a larger number of people are not getting and staying married. Single people spend more on their cost of living than on assets and wealth. Wealth also earns interests and produces even more wealth.

The political narrative is that "inequality" is all driven by income. This is because 1. politicians tax income (not wealth) and want to raise the income tax, and 2. union contracts implement wage hikes whenever the minimum wage increases. It is true that income is rising slowly and that higher incomes would somewhat improve wealth inequality, but there are bigger factors at play. Contrary to popular belief and PhDeac's graphic, the "typical worker" in in 1965 did not earn $70,000 per year or any more than he does now.

Some obstinate bullshit if I've ever heard it. Please try and find data on the percentage of duel earning households through time. Anyways, since you're so skeptical here is a stat from the DOL - between 1986 and 1998 there was a 20% increase in duel earning households.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/families/couples.htm
I suppose you're confident that the income of those households rose accordingly. It's amazing to me how people refuse to admit that the average individual income has fallen in the last few decades. Unsurprisingly, there is also no data to support the right wing myth that purchasing power has risen over time because of microwaves or the Internet.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I don't need to adjust them, Pew did it for me. Non management private sector workers make less now than they did in 1974.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

But I'm sure you're very interested in management level private sector jobs, that data would surely support your view.

 

[UNCG Deac]

Some obstinate bullshit if I've ever heard it. Please try and find data on the percentage of duel earning households through time. Anyways, since you're so skeptical here is a stat from the DOL - between 1986 and 1998 there was a 20% increase in duel earning households.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/families/couples.htm
I suppose you're confident that the income of those households rose accordingly. It's amazing to me how people refuse to admit that the average individual income has fallen in the last few decades. Unsurprisingly, there is also no data to support the right wing myth that purchasing power has risen over time because of microwaves or the Internet.

We are talking about total US households. This source is a poll of married couples, and your last source was a poll of married couples with kids.

Married couples make up 48% of US households today, and made up 75% of households in 1960. Of those couples, 66% have two working spouses today, and 47% had both spouses working in the 1960's.

.48*.66=.32
.75*.47=.35

This means that dual income households made up 35% of households in 1960, but make up only 32% of households today. Yet we have still seen an 11% increase in wages.

Sources:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/america-has-become-nation-dual-income-working-couples
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2012/us-household-change.aspx

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Now who's cherry picking? What are the numbers on % of duel earnings households through time? I'm sure that sinful unmarried cohabitation is relevant.

 

[UNCG Deac]

Now who's cherry picking? What are the numbers on % of duel earnings households through time? I'm sure that sinful unmarried cohabitation is relevant.

I searched but the Census did not collect that information in the 1960's. We still know that wages have grown slowly. Both my statistics and your chart say so. Your own chart even shows that the worst-off segment of workers had a 7% increase.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Wages =/= household income, and the chart I posted from Pew about non management employment disputes your statement. Those real wages have been stagnate for decades,and have actually decreased since 1974. Even the data you're referencing shows median income as having fallen back to the early 80's level.