Summations Only

Yes, please do. How is this in any way analogous?

If I look at it from my own personal experiences: when I was making minimum wage I still lived with my parents and they made a lot more money so trickle down very well could have been working for us. Re-arranging the words doesn't explain it... The meaning, what is it? On an individual basis, what does that mean? I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you could explain how the graph is telling you that?

Is that your idea of an counter argument to the economic fact that those on minimum wage have seen their real incomes drop rather than increase? Simply put the GDP of the US is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the US. Per capita simply means per person. So it is a measure of how much is being produced per person. Productivity per person increases.
The incomes of the richest rise in line with that growth.
This incomes of the other 95% don't.Therefore the graph tells you that the proceeds of economic growth are not trickling down. They are accumulating at the top.OR we could consider the UK data which lays it out the same phenomenon more explicitly: Of every 100 rise in Britain’s national income since 1977, the bottom 50% of the population received 12. Meanwhile, the top 0.1% wealthiest received a 14 share.AGAIN the proceeds of economic growth are not trickling down. They are accumulating at the top.Is that clearer?

It gets hotter = GDP per capita rises.
The incomes of the top 5% richest rise = Rich people get warmer
The incomes of the 95% majority rise = Everyone else gets warmer too.Conclusion that wealth has trickled down = Conclusion that everyone getting warmer is the result of the rich getting warmer (trickle down warmth)

It was an answer to a direct question, which I quoted just before answering. That the value of minimum wage has decreased doesn't necessarily mean that the person receiving that wage hasn't benefitted from TDE; if for example they still live with their parents who are. Too, being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you are making minumum wage. The value of minimum wage is irrelvant to TDE. And as I said before, its determined by legislation alone. On average. You erroneously said (bold added):

quote:

---

Each person in the US economy has increased their production level by 100%

---

If you had 10 people increase production by 10,000%, the other 90 people around them who did nothing didn't necessarily increase their production by 100%, even tho the GDP per capita increased by 100%. Okay. Not always. In the early 2000's, the Top 5% drops while the GDP rises. Sure they do. The median rises and falls right along with the Top 5%. All the peaks and valleys line up. There's more at the top, but the median is rising with it. Its just at a lower magnitude. It looks to me like whenever the top 5% make more, the median makes more too. One thing at a time, this post is long enough. Yes, thanks. I think the graph is deceiving you.The title of the graph is "Who Benefits from the United States' Prosperity?"The answer the graph seems to provide is "everybody except those whose household income equals the minimum wage". I don't think the prediction of TDE is that the government is going to legislate a higher minimum wage. I don't think this graph provides an answer to whether or not TDE works.Its time for different data. Do you have a link to the data for the UK stuff?

---

From Message 169: Okay, now lets look at what I actually said:

quote:

---

Yeah, and then when the top 5% starts taking off, the median goes up along with it. Isn't that Trickle Down Economics working?

---

If when the rich people get warmer, everyone else gets warmer too, wouldn't that be the warmth trickling down?

In a too-broad sense, yes, I think your definition of poor works. In every day conversation, your definition works. But, IMO, when discussing economics in this fashion like we are, I think it's better to make the distinction that the poor who don't have jobs (for sake of discussion, let's not factor children into this since I think it is safe to say they share the economic status of their parents) are not simply just poor. We should, IMO, also make the distinction on the other end as well. To me, anyone making 6 figures qualifies as "rich", but the guy making $100,000 is poor compared to, let's say, Bill Gates, but they both qualify as rich, right? These sorts of discussions (about raising taxes on the rich etc.) aren't aimed at the mildly rich or those who are doing much better than average, so it would be unfair to also lump them together.The only reason I even mentioned it was due to my qualm with your comment "many of the poor don't even work". I personally took offense to that, as I considered my family poor growing up and my parents busted their fucking asses putting a roof over our head. Hell, I still consider myself poor, at least internally, even though I know I'm not and I am lucky to have what I have and I have far more than what those who actually are legitimately poor. Yes, there are people who do actually suckle on the teet of government funding, but they are not the status quo and those who genuinely need the assistance are getting hammered because of the mythical "welfare queens". The "poor who don't work" are a small minority and a cheap scapegoat.

Did you really think that I meant every individual person is now producing a 100% more than they were 30 years ago? Well duh!!Average GDP per person has risen significantly and yet almost all of that has gone into the pockets of the rich.What exactly has trickled down? Over a period of time you increase your productivity by 100%
As a result of this increased productivity you receive < 20% increase in income. Do you:A) Ask yourself who is benefitting from your increased productivity?
B) Thank the rich for trickling down a 20% increase in your income? See Message 61Are you fucking serious? No. Of course it wouldn't. That's just mental.

I really don't know how to respond to the absurdity of CS's question here.Is he talking a different language or is he just insane?

Well then just what would be a result of something trickling down? If its not the bottom going up when the top goes up then what is it? The parts that caused everyone else to rise along with them. Depends on the situation. I don't see how that represent anything since not everyone increased their product by 100%. I was asking because it didn't make sense.

Alright: You come up with an analogy that shows a trickle down effect.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The graph is showing the household incomes.Which makes it even wierder that they compare those to the minimum wage.If you have a teenager living in your house making minimum wage, I wonder if that counts towards the household income or not. And if the household isn't poor, then why does it matter what wage the teenager is making?

A situation where the latter is the cause and the former is the effect of that cause.

You owe me a graph. Right, so how is the top getting warmer causing the bottom to get warmer too so difficult to understand as a trickle down effect?Or does Straggler just not speak the same language as me?

Certainly. Here, for example, is a graph showing the weather experienced by rich people in Orlando, Florida: And here, for the purposes of comparison, is a graph showing the weather experienced by poor people in Orlando, Florida: Do you have any dumb questions? Oh, you do.Because the one does not in fact cause the other.The chain of events does not go:Rich people feel warm -> weather gets warm -> poor people feel warm.It goes:Weather gets warm -> rich and poor people alike feel warm.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well thanks for the graphs of the average temperature... I thought you were going to graph what people were feeling. We all know rich people just sit around inside all day in the air-conditioning. You're just assuming the conclusion.How do you know that the same thing pertains to TDE?Oh, and you changed your conclusion which used to be this:

quote:

---

It follows that we can keep the poor warm in winter by heating the rich.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.