US Household Income, Devil's advocate Options

[Inferia]

So lets play a game here. Lets take the devil's advocate on a situation such as education. I think most of us know where each other stand on situations such as race, immigration, education, etc. The point is to go argue the other side of the point. And I don't mean it in a stupid, sarcastic type of way. It is to really argue the point as if you believe in it, and as if you really mean it, in other words argue it as if you're arguing the other side (the one you would normally be on). The point of this is not to prove one side is more 'right' than the other, it is to create critical thinking for everyone involved. You're on your honors as to how you're going to argue the devil's advocate point.


General statement: This is a plot of median US household income as a function of time from 1965 - 2003. The plot shows that the rate of increase for household income is faster for the higher percentile than the lower percentile.

My position: Yes, this plot shows that the 95th percentile is increase much faster than that of the 10th percentile, it does not show the individual families. It is in essence saying that the people in the 95th percentile are making more money. It doesn't show that people who has had money is getting richer, all the data shows is that if you're going to make money, you're going to make more money if you're in the higher percentile. A household in the 20th percentile in the 1960s could have very well risen to the 95th percentile in the 2000's, and vice versa. In essence people "graduate" into a higher percentile.

[impala454]

it's a little misleading to say the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, which obviously is your point. you're talking about the 95th percentile of people, which is the top 5%. mathematics tells us that the top 5% doesn't have as much of an effect as the remaining 95%. of course that's the way the graph will look.

in the wikipedia article you took the graph from, it shows that the median household income has increased since 31% since 1967. look at the numbers for those percentiles:
20th%: $14,002 - $17,984 (28.4% increase)
50th%: $33,338 - $43,318 (29.9% increase)
80th%: $55,265 - $86,867 (57.2% increase)
95th%: $88,678 - $154,120 (73.8% increase)

so the math is spot on, the increases get higher and higher, the fewer the percentile. this is how it's supposed to work. if the numbers were there for the 99th% it would probably be well over 100% increase in income.

if you look at the data how it matters to your point, you have to look at the differences between the percentiles.

1967:
20th% -> 50th% = 138% increase
50th% -> 80th% = 65.7% increase
80th% -> 95th% = 60.5% increase

2003:
20th% -> 50th% = 140% increase
50th% -> 80th% = 100.5% increase
80th% -> 95th% = 77.4% increase

so if you look at the data properly, you see the poor aren't really getting poorer, and the rich aren't really getting that much richer. it's the folks in the middle (yay!) who are the ones getting richer.

[chook]

i don't want to do math now, are you saying that there is stratification of wealth happening?

[impala454]

i'm just sayin it's not turning into a super rich vs super poor country like inferia is suggesting. the poor isn't getting poorer (which i guess is obvious considering the graph on 10th percentile is flat or even slightly increasing). the graph is graphing comparible dollars and not the rate at which these incomes increase. by comparing the actual dollars you can make it look like the rich are getting richer, even though its the middle class that's gaining at the highest rate (the light blue line -> 2nd green line)

[Inferia]

Impala, this is devil's advocate... Are you stating the position that would be the opposite of your normal position? That the poor isn't getting poorer and the rich isn't getting richer?

Let me make something clearer, you're not suppose to be opposite my position, you're suppose to be opposite your own position.

[Dogmeat]

this doesn't take into account that the more money people in the lower percentile make, the more money they spend on drugs and booze and bad loans.

There is a reason people are poor, and remain poor: They're stupid.

[impala454]

Impala, this is devil's advocate... Are you stating the position that would be the opposite of your normal position? That the poor isn't getting poorer and the rich isn't getting richer?

Let me make something clearer, you're not suppose to be opposite my position, you're suppose to be opposite your own position.

nah i'm not playin opposite day... i'm devil's advocate 99 times out of 100 on here anyways since i disagree with everyone. besides... the graph clearly shows that poor people aren't getting poorer... how do you play devil's advocate for 2 + 2 = 4?

[jonathan83]

yeah, i don't really see this as a devil's advocate situation. these are statistics/facts.

[Inferia]

yeah, i don't really see this as a devil's advocate situation. these are statistics/facts.

Rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer. I'm sure plenty of people can disagree with this statement.

[impala454]

Rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer. I'm sure plenty of people can disagree with this statement.

but the graph you posted directly refutes your statement. there's nothing to be devil's advocate about. maybe if your definition of "rich" and "poor" are different... but according to that graph, nobody is getting poorer.

[cupcake]

the rich are getting richer though.

money makes money. being broke just makes you a katrina looter.

[impala454]

right but the middle class are getting richer faster than the richest people

[jonathan83]

Rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer. I'm sure plenty of people can disagree with this statement.

no, from the graph, the poorest of the poor are at the same level, while everyone else is earning more money...so it seems that america in general is getting richer and richer.

whatever the case may be, these are just facts, there is nothing to play devil's advocate about. it's like saying "george bush is the 43rd president of the united states...let's play devil's advocate."
unless i'm totally not understanding what you're getting at...

[schwab]

technically, wouldnt it be if the poor get raises, they jump up to a higher percentile...while "younger" people coming into the workplace take over their spots in the lower percentile...thus keeping that flat while the other people are just moving to higher percentiles....

[chook]

we should just switch to communism and drive yugos.