Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: The Income Shift in Recent Years

  1. #1
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Without much comment (some politics in the article), I'll leave this article link for your perusal --- http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109

    It may partly explain why stripclub customer count and income has gone down so far over the years.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    This graph provides an interesting perspective as well:


  3. #3
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Got anything from a centrist website.

    This "connectthedots" is just a left wing spin site.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    Got anything from a centrist website.

    This "connectthedots" is just a left wing spin site.

    http://www.connectthedotsusa.com/pdf...ndreaWitte.pdf
    Shoot the messenger if you like but please dispute or offer proof the numbers in the graph are incorrect before you label it as spin. I don't know too many people who would argue that many of the very rich are getting much, much richer and the poor and middle class are getting hit pretty hard.

    In response to your request for a "centrist" source, here is an article from USA Today (I believe they're pretty centrist). Numbers seem to match up to the ones in the graph presented: http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...gap/50952720/1

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimboe7373 For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Shoot the messenger if you like but please dispute or offer proof the numbers in the graph are incorrect before you label it as spin. I don't know too many people who would argue that many of the very rich are getting much, much richer and the poor and middle class are getting hit pretty hard.

    In response to your request for a "centrist" source, here is an article from USA Today (I believe they're pretty centrist). Numbers seem to match up to the ones in the graph presented:
    This is your "friends" in the Democratic Underground. A very militant Left Wing site, that don't seem to care for the author of the second article you have posted.

    Even Marxist Democrats do not like your sources.

  7. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    This is your "friends" in the Democratic Underground. A very militant Left Wing site, that don't seem to care for the author of the second article you have posted.

    Even Marxist Democrats do not like your sources.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=103x215333
    I'm not aware nor do I care about any of the things you mention in your post- my simple question was and is- do you dispute the numbers?

  8. #7
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    455
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 175 Times in 109 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    It is even worse than that chart depicts..... Private debt has soared to almost 30 trillion, to say nothing of public debt..... The American standard of living has been supported by massive amounts of debt..... We are now watching as that debt unwinds.

    Left/Right really mean nothing in this debate..... Both sides want bubbles to inflate..... But the only ones who really benefit are those closest to the money creation.
    The country has been looted.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to mikef For This Useful Post:


  10. #8
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    I'm not aware nor do I care about any of the things you mention in your post- my simple question was and is- do you dispute the numbers?
    Yes, I do.

    Since you cannot be bothered to fact check your own sources. Using Google there were numerous hits on the Author of your second article from Leftist sources loudly proclaiming falsification.

    Look just because the majority looking in here are Strippers, don't assume they are too stupid or naive to check your sources.

    This crowd is tougher than a Masters thesis Board of Inquiry.

  11. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    Yes, I do.

    Since you cannot be bothered to fact check your own sources. Using Google there were numerous hits on the Author of your second article from Leftist sources loudly proclaiming falsification.

    Look just because the majority looking in here are Strippers, don't assume they are too stupid or naive to check your sources.

    This crowd is tougher than a Masters thesis Board of Inquiry.
    WTF are you talking about?. DO NOT put words in my mouth or make inferences about my actions or thoughts that are patently false. I know (have known) far more strippers than you ever will and nothing in my post suggests in anyway that anyone is too stupid or naive to do or know anything.

    My post is a simple fact, the fact that you have to go to all this effort to invent and attach all this unrelated stuff is proof that your argument is weak as is your ability to argue it. You want to dispute what I posted- show me another graph or group of data from a reliable source that contradicts it. Do not go spouting about how this group thinks that, or another group dislikes the author or that I think that strippers can't check sources- that's all B.S.

    For your further information, I did fact check my info before I posted it (another incorrect assumption on your part). Here it is from Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485&zzz=42148 . Doing a google search and taking any information that appears and suits your point of view isn't research or fact checking.

    I am not and was not putting forth any kind of ideology or political agenda- I put forth a graph that stated a fact that over the last 30 years there has been a huge change in income distribution. If your own own eyes and ears don't make that obvious to you and you disagree with the numbers, then feel free to show me contrasting data from a reliable source, but please do not waste either of our time by stating which group thinks this or that, dislikes the author of an article or infer I think that strippers can't fact-check, all of that basically amounts to gossip. Stick with and dispute the numbers- only the numbers.

  12. #10
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    WTF are you talking about?. DO NOT put words in my mouth or make inferences about my actions or thoughts that are patently false. I know (have known) far more strippers than you ever will and nothing in my post suggests in anyway that anyone is too stupid or naive to do or know anything.

    My post is a simple fact, the fact that you have to go to all this effort to invent and attach all this unrelated stuff is proof that your argument is weak as is your ability to argue it. You want to dispute what I posted- show me another graph or group of data from a reliable source that contradicts it. Do not go spouting about how this group thinks that, or another group dislikes the author or that I think that strippers can't check sources- that's all B.S.

    For your further information, I did fact check my info before I posted it (another incorrect assumption on your part). Here it is from Congressional Budget Office: . Doing a google search and taking any information that appears and suits your point of view isn't research or fact checking.

    I am not and was not putting forth any kind of ideology or political agenda- I put forth a graph that stated a fact that over the last 30 years there has been a huge change in income distribution. If your own own eyes and ears don't make that obvious to you and you disagree with the numbers, then feel free to show me contrasting data from a reliable source, but please do not waste either of our time by stating which group thinks this or that, dislikes the author of an article or infer I think that strippers can't fact-check, all of that basically amounts to gossip. Stick with and dispute the numbers- only the numbers.
    Sure thing.

    You posted TWICE. Web pages that suit your ideology and can in a few short mouse clicks show to be biased and misrepresenting outcomes.

    You chose charts that show what you want them to show, chosen from sites you agree with.

    There is lies, damned lies, and statistics........

    Anything on that chart can be moved to represent one viewpoint or another. If for example solely George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs were chosen as the 1$, then the outcome would be much more than the percentage claimed. If they are disregarded and the those that just barely make the income amount arbitrarily selected are regarded. Then you could cut that number by two thirds or more.

    So from that long diatribe one can say you don't like getting caught out.

    I don't yet need to produce a graph to dispute yours as you have not yet produced a graph from an unbiased source.

    Let's continue shall we? My previous statement still stands.

  13. #11
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    Sure thing.

    You posted TWICE. Web pages that suit your ideology and can in a few short mouse clicks show to be biased and misrepresenting outcomes.

    You chose charts that show what you want them to show, chosen from sites you agree with.

    There is lies, damned lies, and statistics........

    Anything on that chart can be moved to represent one viewpoint or another. If for example solely George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs were chosen as the 1$, then the outcome would be much more than the percentage claimed. If they are disregarded and the those that just barely make the income amount arbitrarily selected are regarded. Then you could cut that number by two thirds or more.

    So from that long diatribe one can say you don't like getting caught out.

    I don't yet need to produce a graph to dispute yours as you have not yet produced a graph from an unbiased source.

    Let's continue shall we? My previous statement still stands.
    OK, I see, you just like to argue and have drama. The chart and the story both match up exactly to the numbers put out from the link I included to the Congressional Budget Office which is an unbiased agency of the Federal governement who's director cannot remain in office unless both Republicans and Democrats choose to let him.

    I do have an ideology but I in no way put forth any piece of it in any of my posts throughout this entire thread, my only point was and is that a large disparity in the income levels is occuring- why that's happenning, if it should be happenning and if it should be allowed to happen I have not and will not comment on- I just posted the FACTS on what the reported income levels were and how they related by group. Incidently, these numbers are not disputed by anyone that I am aware of and are accepted as accurate by politicians and policymakers from both sides of the aisle.

    You seem pretty oblivious to reality and facts and at this point we are basically arguing about arguing so continue if you like but I won't be responding to anything that doesn't contain a substantial contradiction from a reliable source as to the accuracy of the numbers as presented in the official report from the Congressional Budget Office.

  14. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    I would also point out that, for 'top shelf' dancers working in 'upscale' clubs, this is GOOD news. With quibbling aside, what the bar graph shows is that the top 40% of families saw a rate of income growth that was greater than actual inflation. With the 60%/40% income point falling somewhere around $75,000 per year, this means that 'upscale' strip club customers have more discretionary income available today to spend on non-essential things like lap dances / VIP room than they did ~30 years ago. And this also means that girls who are able to work at 'super upscale' clubs that are patronized by some number of top 1% high earners have more potential customer dollars being spent than ever before.

    As far as the official statistics go, one needs to look 'under the hood' before drawing any conclusions. For a fact, the percentage of 'families' now consisting of low earning single moms and 'separately living' fathers is FAR higher than it was 30 years ago - which skews the income figures toward the low end by counting as two low income households instead of one household with combined 'family' income falling into a higher quintile.

  15. #13
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Well if the third try isn't the Charm......... See getting your numbers from and unbiased source wasn't so hard now was it?

    Ok buy better than the graph.... There is the Report that goes with it. You know the one that explains the Graph.

    Yes, it does proclaim that the top 1% have increase their share by 275%.

    That is true. Now what I said about lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Statistics are governed by the sample. So here is the uncomfortable part........ the top 1% as described by the Congressional Business Office not only includes the CEOs and hedge fund manager (those damn Capitalists!). Say hello to entertainment. It includes musician, actors, professional atheletes....... You know George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, P Diddy, Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, etc. Ad Nauseum.

    From Page 3 of

    Without that growth at the top
    of the distribution, income inequality still would have
    increased, but not by nearly as much. The precise reasons
    for the rapid growth in income at the top are not well
    understood, though researchers have offered several
    potential rationales, including technical innovations that
    have changed the labor market for superstars (such as
    actors, athletes, and musicians), changes in the governance
    and structure of executive compensation, increases
    in firms’ size and complexity, and the increasing scale of
    financial-sector activities.


    So not just Banks are to be blamed for the disparity in Income but, the lust to be entertained. Hollywood. Appears to be on parity with the incomes of Wall Street.

    Where is the hue and cry to tear down movie theaters, boycott sporting events where thugs are paid millions to be watched playing a game?

    There is enough blame to go around.

  16. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    Well if the third try isn't the Charm......... See getting your numbers from and unbiased source wasn't so hard now was it?

    Ok buy better than the graph.... There is the Report that goes with it. You know the one that explains the Graph.

    Yes, it does proclaim that the top 1% have increase their share by 275%.

    That is true. Now what I said about lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Statistics are governed by the sample. So here is the uncomfortable part........ the top 1% as described by the Congressional Business Office not only includes the CEOs and hedge fund manager (those damn Capitalists!). Say hello to entertainment. It includes musician, actors, professional atheletes....... You know George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, P Diddy, Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, etc. Ad Nauseum.

    From Page 3 of http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc...WebSummary.pdf

    Without that growth at the top
    of the distribution, income inequality still would have
    increased, but not by nearly as much. The precise reasons
    for the rapid growth in income at the top are not well
    understood, though researchers have offered several
    potential rationales, including technical innovations that
    have changed the labor market for superstars (such as
    actors, athletes, and musicians), changes in the governance
    and structure of executive compensation, increases
    in firms’ size and complexity, and the increasing scale of
    financial-sector activities.

    So not just Banks are to be blamed for the disparity in Income but, the lust to be entertained. Hollywood. Appears to be on parity with the incomes of Wall Street.

    Where is the hue and cry to tear down movie theaters, boycott sporting events where thugs are paid millions to be watched playing a game?

    There is enough blame to go around.
    Just one question, weren't there big time wealthy capitalists, famous well-paid actors and sports celebrities from 1947-1979 as well?. In addition, the original graph contains a notation that the top 20% category goes down to 31% when the top 1% is backed out.

    I sent the link to the official report in the post 2 posts ago. It backs up both the graph and the USA Today article. That was the point where an intelligent, open-minded individual would say- "Sorry, I stand corrected". This is the problem today, you can't discuss ideas, facts and possible solutions because so many people want to argue ad-nauseam about minutia that doesn't mean a thing.
    Last edited by jimboe7373; 11-19-2011 at 08:03 PM.

  17. #15
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Just one question, weren't there big time wealthy capitalists, famous well-paid actors and sports celebrities from 1947-1979 as well?.
    So 2+2=7 ; No, so change the argument 4+3=7; and now you were right all along? The original graph and the original argument was the difference in the growth of wealth from 1979-2007. Now, you would like to change that? Now what you said, isn't what you said, because I didn't read the graph the way you wanted me to read it?

    Is that it?

    Yes, there were well paid celebrities and actors. I don't think Mickey Mantle was paid 100 Million to play baseball like Micheal Jordan was to play basketball. Fred Astaire starred in many successful movies that are enjoyed today, I am sure he did not command the sums that George Clooney does even if we were to compare them in period dollars and inflation.


    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    I sent the link to the official report in the post 2 posts ago. It backs up both the graph and the USA Today article. That was the point where an intelligent, open-minded individual would say- "Sorry, I stand corrected". This is the problem today, you can't discuss ideas, facts and possible solutions because so many people want to argue ad-nauseam about minutia that doesn't mean a thing.
    The first citation is from the Rolling Stone. A publication that can't be called unbiased journalism.

    The second is from you connectthedots several graphs by a graphic designer that complains she does not want to argue on GOP turf anymore.

    The third citation is from USA Today. Ok I am not really a follower of that paper and I do not know which way it leans. So I just used google to look up the author of the article you have cited as fact. Very first article is from the DU, (your ideological brethren) and they are attacking the same author for false reporting in other articles.

    Finally on the fourth citation you put in the Congressional Business Office.

    A portion of the Federal Government that should be non-partisan.

    So to be fair I read the paper. 5 pages! A miracle in government printing!

    So in page three the CBO writes that there are many factors leading to this wide separation. The CBO itself is unsure. Part of their reasoning is the unprecedented increase paid to entertainers and pro athletes.

    So I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left Leaning Hollywood using the "occupy" movement, when in fact Hollywood likely outweighs the Financial district by a large margin.

    So in the final analysis the 275% is there. Though it is not all Wall Street Bankers as has been proclaimed.

    Now you do wish to discuss or do you want to continue with the childish rants, name calling, and pouting? Your embarrassing yourself.

  18. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    ^^^Wow!, just wow. Oh yes, I'm done. This has been an exercise is stupidity. The numbers from the first graph were the same numbers in the USA Today article and the CBO official line. We've just gone through 6 layers of idiocy to arrive at the same place we were 8 posts ago- the numbers- I didn't mention why, who or how they got to be where they are or if it was good or bad- I just posted the numbers. You are right about 1 thing, I did embarass myself..... by allowing myself to be drawn into such a moronic discussion. Please feel free to continue on without me.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to jimboe7373 For This Useful Post:


  20. #17
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Point #1 When citing something please choose a non partisan source. If you want to cite the CBO great. Don't cite from a biased source that cites from the CBO. The biased source has an agenda.

    Point #2 The CBO itself can't explain all the reasons their chart shows a 261% increase. 1979-2007 several administrations, Laws enacted, Congress has changed hands, Wars have been fought, and the Soviet Union fell. Page 3 the CBO itself doesn't know why.

    Point #3 Statistics. Statics are a pattern of ratios from a baseline sample. Change the sample get different ratios. Manipulate the statistics = easy peasy.

    Point #4 So the conclusion is 261%. Ok but if you don't know why or how you got there................

    May as well be 42, the answer to Life, the Universe, and everything.

    Still want to pout?

  21. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Ok, once more and then I'm moving on to the adult's table.

    First off, as long as the info is accurate I'll post from wherever I want to- you got a problem with that, deal with it on your end, I won't be wasting any more of my time.

    Second, you can "manipulate the samples" all you want and it won't change the fact that we have the largest income and wealth distribution gap in our history.

    Lastly, can you please get it through your head that I am not commenting on the causes of the change in distribution or if it should be addressed. I am just commenting that there has been a change in distribution. Please show me one person on the planet that doesn't feel this is the case.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to jimboe7373 For This Useful Post:


  23. #19
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Ok, once more and then I'm moving on to the adult's table.
    Acting with maturity? Yes, the forum awaits your fresh start.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    First off, as long as the info is accurate I'll post from wherever I want to- you got a problem with that, deal with it on your end, I won't be wasting any more of my time.
    Ok. So when Melonie or any of the other contributors posts an article, said article must meet your stringent criteria. However, jimboe7373 will just post from where he damn well pleases.

    Hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Second, you can "manipulate the samples" all you want and it won't change the fact that we have the largest income and wealth distribution gap in our history.
    Really compared to when? The founding of the Nation with Landowners, Royal Land Grants, Indentured Servitude, and Slavery. Maybe against the Railroad Barons and the early Industrialists of the Industrial Revolution? Carnegie, Mellon, Ford, Rockefeller........... All have said fortunes to this day that pre-date the quaint little graphic.

    You have placed a filter on History. To suit your end, and prop your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Lastly, can you please get it through your head that I am not commenting on the causes of the change in distribution or if it should be addressed. I am just commenting that there has been a change in distribution. Please show me one person on the planet that doesn't feel this is the case.
    Will you get it that the source can't say for certain there has been a change in distribution..............

    They can not define it. Can not find cause for it. Can not identify the components of it.

    There fore not even the CBO can definitively say there is a disparity and to what degree.

    So it is not justification to cry foul at Banks and Financial Institutions since the 1% includes Actors, Film Producers, IT business moguls, Musicians, and a host of others that have nothing at all to do with the operation of Wall Street.

    Cut them out and it is no longer 1%, but .035% is a sexy a chant for paid protests.

  24. #20
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Ok, once more and then I'm moving on to the adult's table.
    Acting with maturity? Yes, the forum awaits your fresh start.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    First off, as long as the info is accurate I'll post from wherever I want to- you got a problem with that, deal with it on your end, I won't be wasting any more of my time.
    Ok. So when Melonie or any of the other contributors posts an article, said article must meet your stringent criteria. However, jimboe7373 will just post from where he damn well pleases.

    Hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Second, you can "manipulate the samples" all you want and it won't change the fact that we have the largest income and wealth distribution gap in our history.
    Really compared to when? The founding of the Nation with Landowners, Royal Land Grants, Indentured Servitude, and Slavery? Maybe against the Railroad Barons and the early Industrialists of the Industrial Revolution? Carnegie, Mellon, Ford, Rockefeller........... All have said fortunes to this day that pre-date the quaint little graphic.

    You have placed a filter on History. To suit your end, and prop your argument. The United States did not begin in 1947 and neither did any disparity in wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    Lastly, can you please get it through your head that I am not commenting on the causes of the change in distribution or if it should be addressed. I am just commenting that there has been a change in distribution. Please show me one person on the planet that doesn't feel this is the case.
    Will you get it that the source can't say for certain there has been a change in distribution..............

    They can not define it. Can not find cause for it. Can not identify the components of it.

    There fore not even the CBO can definitively say there is a disparity and to what degree. So it is evident, it is large, but how, and in what way. Well, they don't know.

    So it is not justification to cry foul at Banks and Financial Institutions since the 1% includes Actors, Film Producers, IT business moguls, Musicians, and a host of others that have nothing at all to do with the operation of Wall Street.

    Cut them out and it is no longer 1%, but .035% isn't as sexy a chant for paid protesters.

  25. #21
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    I would also point out that, for 'top shelf' dancers working in 'upscale' clubs, this is GOOD news.
    It's not good news that income growth for every group, except perhaps the top 1%, their income did not grow as much since 1980 as it did before 1980. Most long-time dancers will tell you that they were doing much better in the 1990's than they're doing now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    With quibbling aside, what the bar graph shows is that the top 40% of families saw a rate of income growth that was greater than actual inflation.
    All income groups saw income growth that was greater than inflation. The graph is in constant dollars (2007 dollars).

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    With the 60%/40% income point falling somewhere around $75,000 per year, this means that 'upscale' strip club customers have more discretionary income available today to spend on non-essential things like lap dances / VIP room than they did ~30 years ago. And this also means that girls who are able to work at 'super upscale' clubs that are patronized by some number of top 1% high earners have more potential customer dollars being spent than ever before.

    As far as the official statistics go, one needs to look 'under the hood' before drawing any conclusions. For a fact, the percentage of 'families' now consisting of low earning single moms and 'separately living' fathers is FAR higher than it was 30 years ago - which skews the income figures toward the low end by counting as two low income households instead of one household with combined 'family' income falling into a higher quintile.
    What is your proof of this? Just because parents aren't married doesn't mean they're living separately or that the moms are low earning. The percentage of women going to college has increased dramatically over the past 50 years, which probably means, in general, incomes have increased significantly for women.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to eagle2 For This Useful Post:


  27. #22
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Dude, I don't want to argue semantics with you, we have a huge income and wealth distribution gap in the U.S. that has been growing for 30 years- OK?. I'm not making a political statement from the numbers, I'm not using them to build-up or break-down anyone's ideology. I don't know why you feel compelled to argue where there really isn't any argument. I'm not putting forth a view-point, ideology or opinion. You can disagree with whatever I and pretty much the entire planet agree on or not.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un..._1947-2007.svg




    http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-per...f-mega-wealth/



    http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-per...f-mega-wealth/



    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph
    Last edited by jimboe7373; 11-20-2011 at 01:16 AM.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to jimboe7373 For This Useful Post:


  29. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    every group, except perhaps the top 1%, their income did not grow as much since 1980 as it did before 1980. Most long-time dancers will tell you that they were doing much better in the 1990's than they're doing now.
    Last time I checked, 1990's came after 1980. Indeed I was earning lots of money in the 1990's right along with other long-time dancers. And we were all earning it from the top 40% / top 20% / hopefully top 1% I referred to earlier, not the bottom 60% that the OP attempted to bring into the equation .


    All income groups saw income growth that was greater than inflation.
    which is precisely why I was careful to use the term 'actual' inflation ... as opposed to your use of the 'official' inflation stats ... since the underlying point was about club customer 'discretionary' income ( net of food, fuel, taxes, insurance etc. ) finding its way into the pockets of dancers.


    Just because parents aren't married doesn't mean they're living separately or that the moms are low earning. The percentage of women going to college has increased dramatically over the past 50 years, which probably means, in general, incomes have increased significantly for women.
    how about OECD stats ? from

    (snip)"One in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent — a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to a report released Wednesday.

    Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.(snip)

    (snip)"Single parents in the U.S. were more likely to be employed — 35.8 percent compared to a 21.3 percent average — but they also had higher rates of poverty, the report found.

    “The in-work poverty is higher in the U.S. than other OECD countries, because at the bottom end of the labor market, earnings are very low,” said Willem Adema, a senior economist in the group’s social policy division. “For parents, the risk is higher because they have to make expenditures on childcare costs.”(snip)


    Note that a cited figure of 35.8 percent employment by US single parents implies that 64.2% are UNemployed. UNemployment translates into lower incomes as the OECD study corroborates via higher poverty rates.

    Also note the OECD's statement re 1 in 4 children 'being raised by a single parent' strongly implies that the other parent is not part of the household. The other parent, and the other parent's income, is certainly not being counted as part of the household for purposes of the study. Same methodology probably applies to the CBO and similar studies.

    There is probably some truth to your claim that some women are earning more money today than ever before due to better education, success in business etc. However, it is arguable that they are contributing to the income increase for the top 20% and top 1%

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-20-2011 at 01:56 AM.

  30. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    However, jimboe7373 will just post from where he damn well pleases.

    Hypocrite
    A fact is a fact, it doesn't matter who or where it's stated. As I said, I will post FACTUAL information from any place that I choose. If it's a sunny day and someone comments "Hey, it's a sunny day!". The fact is..... it's a sunny day, it doesn't matter if it's Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or Benito Mussolini saying it.

  31. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Income Shift in Recent Years

    ^^^ a fact is a fact when all of the associated parameters are known. This differs from a 'factoid' ... where the trueness of an assertion is contingent on certain 'filters' being applied, certain 'suppositions' being made, certain 'adjustments' being made etc.

    A perfect example of factoid versus fact can be illustrated re 'official' versus 'actual' inflation numbers relative to the assertion that 'all income groups saw income growth that was greater than inflation "





    if one accepts the filters and adjustments that are inherent in the 'official' BLS CPI-U inflation numbers, then the assertion is arguably true. However, if one uses actual increases in prices as SGS did, the assertion is definitely false. If nothing else, the OP's original observation about declining dancer incomes in recent years corroborates that actual increases in prices for club customer 'essential' spending items have a direct and negative bearing on available remaining club customer 'discretionary' budgets, thus dancer incomes which stem from that 'discretionary' spending. If the CPI-U inflation numbers accurately reflected 'actual' club customer financial conditions, then dancer incomes should have risen !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-20-2011 at 02:01 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. day shift vs. night shift
    By Nicole89 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-23-2020, 10:48 PM
  2. going from day shift to busy night shift hustle?
    By sxyltnbeauty in forum Hustle Hut
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-29-2014, 08:11 PM
  3. Improvements you've made in recent years
    By PhillyDancer1982 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 10:44 AM
  4. day shift vs. night shift
    By xoxoGracexoxo in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-06-2006, 03:33 AM
  5. Average Income Per Shift
    By lethalsoul in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2003, 04:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •