14 Responses

  1. Ira says:

    What a load of loaded horse-hockey.

    The SPENDING patterns? Nice strawman.

    The issue at hand is INCOME INEQUALITY.

    NO ONE on the left is boo-hooing over spending/consumption inequality.

    Y’all can do better and you owe it to your country to do so.

    • Trish says:

      Level of income is a choice. Education is free and available. There are many opportunities to obtain the skills necessary to earn higher pay. Income inequality is itself a strawman because society naturally pays more for the services that it needs and/or wants while it does not pay for the services it does not need or want. How then, does it make sense to force society to pay for goods or services that it does not value? How does it make sense to force society to pay for individuals that produce no goods or services at all? Gainful employment can be had. If it cannot be had, it can be made. It’s about the willingness to TRY because while it does take effort, it pays off for anyone willing to work for it. (I know, I do it myself every day.) We qualify for government assistance and choose not to take it because it’s wrong. We are able bodied and we can and will do it on our own. Sometimes we have to make choices. Sometimes we have to go without getting our breaks replaced on the car or replacing our tires when we really ought too, or buying ourselves shoes so we can get some for our kids, but what we have is ours and we work hard for it. We don’t cry about income inequality and expect the government to take from others so we can have luxuries. We earn it and one day our work will pay off. If it does not, we will make adjustments so that it will. A household that has all the things listed above has all their needs met and more. They have no right to the income of others and if their material desires are still not satisfied then it is incombant upon them to find a way to honestly earn the income necessary to satisfy them.

      • Ira says:

        Trish – The point is that there is no point to this article. It purports to address an issue that is not an issue. Show me anywhere that the Democratic Party or any of its affiliates are decrying consumption inequality and I’ll rescind my intial comment.

        You will not and can not because THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE.

      • Michael says:

        So, would you say that if everyone, 100% of the population, received doctoral degrees, they would all be gainfully employed and enjoying the same luxuries as the current most educated? Not true, while ANYONE can be successful in the US, EVERYONE can not. That is to say, the argument is moot.

  2. Lon says:

    Microwaves and printers are dirt cheap now. In 3 minutes I found a $34.00 color printer and a $49.00 700w microwave. They aren’t “luxuries”, they are common household items.

    • Trish says:

      Just because something is cheap doesn’t mean it isn’t a luxury. We are so pampered as a society that we don’t even value the vast conveniences and enormously high standards of living that our freedom has afforded us. It’s a little disgusting, really, that we can’t even appreciate it.

      • Michael says:

        When looking at a similar study released last year stating the poor are not poor enough, I did some research. In order for housing to qualify for government assistance, an oven or microwave was required. These people are poor and require help paying thier rent, the government requires a minimum standard of living be provided by the slum lords to get thier checks. The fact that poor households have a microwave, is not a point to them enjoying luxuries.

        Also, when using a consumption comparison by itself, you leave out key facts. The top quintile earners make up over 50% of all income. While those in the bottom quintile make up less than 4% of all income. When looking at these facts plus your consumption numbers, you will see, the poor, are being required to support more of the economy than they likely should.

  3. Alistz says:

    First, Ira’s comment shows how a liberal reads things and doesn’t understand them. What don’t you get about the idea that Barack Obama gives you a cell phone now if you are poor; even though the cell phone isn’t ‘income’, you consume it as if it were.

    Secondly, data about Color TV and Computers doesn’t seem very relevant to QofL since you can’t really buy a not color TV these days, and in the early 90′s personal computers were in their infancy.

    Ira, “Income” is an economic term which excludes Government Transfer Payments. As the US becomes more socialist, why would anyone expect income growth anywhere except in the upper class?

    Since even the middle class now receives Government Transfer Payments, the expected income growth of the middle class is instead converted to non-income Government Subsidy. Only the wealthy, who don’t receive Govt. Payments would expect to see income growth.

    This is one of the key lies of the modern liberal.

    • Ira says:

      First off, the cell phone giveaway is a GOP plan and since you can’t be bothered to do any research on your own here’s a link: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

      The rest of your BS sounds smart but it’s not.

      I know this because your intial point is SO ignorant you are obviously spewing some nonsense you stole from some random hate filled website. Probably the Blaze or one of that drunk’s trashy sites.

  4. perfectlyGoodInk says:

    “consumption inequality, which represents a broader look at the economic resources a person can summon.”

    Er… it’s a *narrower* look at the resources, as this measure throws out people’s differing ability to save and invest.

    • David says:

      “98.3% of low-income households did not have a printer. By 2009, only 17.7% of low-income households did not own a printer”

      amazing quote from the article — this is clearly a typo in the data since half of low income households do not have a computer per the same chart.

      GoodInk is right — this doesnt address earnings or savings potentials, which means the entire thing is off point.

      There is just so much wrong with the logic here — please continue picking it apart, I don’t want to hog all the fun.

  5. Al says:

    This study/article becomes completely self-serving as it has selected to not look at data from the post-war to present period.

    Besides, without matching data in the graph about household debt we really don’t know how that consumption in the bottom quintile was achieved.

  6. jeffrey smith says:

    Trish–education after 12th grade–meaning any sort of education that helps people find a better job–is not free. Even government subsidized education involves payment of tuition and/or accumulation of student debt, and the more valuable the education for future employment, the greater the cost.

    And if society paid for work according to what it wants and needs, then why do stockbrokers make more than garbage collectors? There’s obviously more involved than your simple reductionist scheme, and unfortunately often it’s a case of “those that have are those that get, and those that don’t, are those that don’t get”.

  7. Sharmarke says:

    This pathetic article discounts the level of income growth over the past 30 years COMPARED to the post war era. The studies from Chicago and the Minnesota Fed take these figures in a vacuum, and directly conflict with CBO and Census Bureau data.

    As for consumption inequality, one has to focus on more concentrated levels of income vis-a-vis the entire range to get a fair picture, most of the inequality has to do with the top 10% and above.

    Even if we were to take these dubious numbers from that Fed report and UC/Notre Dame, real median incomes still have only grown at half the rate as it has from 1947-1975, between 1979 and 2007 for instance.

    More reliable numbers on median incomes actually show growth of only 20-35 percent from the late 70s till 2007. By comparison, incomes grew over 100% in the 25-30 years after WWII.

Leave a Reply

Mobile Theme | Switch To Regular Theme