Summations Only

{abe}
I should also note that I wasn't quite referring to any particular graph when I responded to Percy. Did your parents take money from you when you were a teenager to pay household bills? Did your income count towards the "household" income? I know mine didn't, but I'm sure some families would do that. However, I was talking more about actual children, which is why I said children and not teenagers. Well, I would say because there are a vast number of single income families, especially in the lower income brackets. Be that due to single parent homes, or not being able to afford a sitter. These single income families happen to also only be making minimum wage.However, economics isn't quite my strong suite and I haven't been able to keep up with much of this thread. It's pretty far over my head for the most part. A lot of what I say will be from an extreme laypersons perspective.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

CS writes of me: The irony. It burns.Which causes the same burning feeling a poor Bedouin of the Sahara feels. (Known widely as the "trickle-eastern" theory.)

I think you'll find that the weather has an effect on the temperatures people experience. Don't tell me what I'm doing, especially if you're going to be flagrantly wrong. I didn't claim to such knowledge; I was challenging the people who were "assuming the conclusion" that it didn't. That was sarcasm. For fuck's sake.

I have no idea what the weather's like... I've been sitting in here experiencing 72 degrees all day. Although, since the AC's running I can figure its prolly hotter out there. Well I didn't see where you actually concluded it apart from just stating it. So does TDE work or not? Mine too, silly.

That's not irony, stupid.I've not said that I never post anything that is a joke. And there's plenty of examples of my posts that aren't jokes.For you, not so much.

Hi Theodoric,I described the poor at the top of my message: My later comment that many of the poor are not employed was not meant as a derogatory comment. I was just providing the reason that the bottom quintile is resistant to benefit from an improving economy. Obviously referring to the unemployed as non-participants in the economy was a poor choice of words.Interestingly, an improving economy that brings increasing employment to the bottom quintile lowers median family income, which is the line on Straggler's graph against which top 5% income is being compared.--Percy

The "for all" portion is part of the problem, and "prosperity" is the other. By the "for all" criteria no economic policy will ever work. And "prosperity" means flourishing, successful, which would be nice, but the way you compare two economic policies is to determine which would provide the most improvement. If we get to "prosperity" that would just be a bonus.I believe that evidence disproving trickle-down economics does not exist, especially not in this thread. Some have interpreted this to mean that I believe trickle-down economics does work, but that is incorrect. To this point we haven't reached a consensus about what "works" means, and that seems to me a necessary first step.I'm now realizing that you would probably like more detailed criteria that measures how evenly the benefit is distributed throughout the economy, which would be fine by me.--Percy

Well, ok; so what does "improvement" mean?

I started working at 12 an I contributed part of my paycheck to the household. We were poor. My father worked 60 hours a week and until 1980 never made more than $18,000/year. After that when iw as in college he finished his education and had enough experience that he could get a good paying job. He maxed out about $60k when he retired at 72.Guess I would have made Newt proud. Cause in college I cleaned the dishes and toilets of the other students I went to school with.T o make it clear my parents never took money from me. It was just what was expected and right. I have never thought of it as them taking my money, but my contribution to the family.

Well, I've yet to see any evidence that it works. And given that, and given that most economic panaceas devised by our over-sanguine species have not worked, the balance of probability is that it doesn't.

Before 1980, $18,000 a year was an upper middle class income. The poor made quite a bit less than 10k a year.Just for perspective, lets plug $10,000.00 into the Inflation Calculator where we find that $10,000 in 1980 is the equivalent of nearly $28,000.00 in todays money. I suppose that poor is a matter of perspective.

In 1980 I was 20 years old. The 18k does not reflect my childhood. At that time my father was moving up the ranks. I used the date and amount to give a perspective of moving forward. Do you think 50k for a family of 6 is upper middle class? I suppose judging other peoples experiences with a tiny bit of info is stupid.

Even sillier still is basing anything on how much someone makes annually prior to taxes and other things that are immediately taken out of your paycheck (child support in my case, which is nearly $500/mo). I know of no one that doesn't live paycheck to paycheck, so what ones "annual salary" is, is useless.

What kind of evidence could show you that it works? How would a graph like this one ever show causation?
Nevermind, I see from your other posts where you've talked about that.From Message 39: How do you know that? It seems to me that everyone *is* doing better than 40 years ago, or whatever... that it *is* easier for the poor to get food and heat, and more people are going to college. Too, the median household income has steadily risen. I don't see how things are worse.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Situational irony . . . Being "shot with one's own gun", or "hoisted with one's own petard" are popular formulations of the basic idea of situational irony.

​

Irony - Wikipedia

---

Stupid.