5 ms·

The growth of economic indexes is meaningless. The gains are going massively onto the people who already own capital. That's the engine of inequality. Also...

by sprafa 10y ago

The growth of economic indexes is meaningless. The gains are going massively onto the people who already own capital. That's the engine of inequality. Also... You don't "trust" that chart? You can probably calculate it yourself if you want. That chart is data. If you have any reasonable arguments against the accuracy of that data Id love to hear it.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Not trusting a chart because it's numbers seem to contradict other numbers is perfectly valid and reasonable. Your comment about gains going to people who own capital (who, incidentally, are primarily middle class homeowners) is not a refutation of it. In fact, it's completely irrelevant. A refutation would be explaining why GDP and income don't necessarily correlate, which is more a matter of accounting identities. Specifically, GDP != income, income is merely one component of it.
- anovikov 10y ago
  Because income is still over 60% of GDP, GDP growing while income falls would mean a really dramatic growth of all other components. I can't see how it may be true.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- antisthenes 10y ago
  The wage share in the United States has been consistently falling from ~64% to about 57% now. (as a % of GDP) It's quite easy to see that even if GDP grew 12% as someone else mentioned, the change from 64% to 57% would keep incomes at approximately the same level (and perhaps even slightly lower).
  - anovikov 10y ago
    Income is not just wage. Total personal income is about 80% of GDP and that figure doesn't change much over time.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Income is not just wage. Total personal income is about 80% of GDP Since personal income includes capital income, that's a useless figure when "wage" is being used as an (admittedly, imperfect) proxy for labor income as opposed to capital income, as the context upthread makes clear it was.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS84006173#0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS84006173#0 Wage share is an economically accepted term, with data from BLS behind it. You literally made up some number and said "it doesn't change much over time". You're going to need to provide a source for that 80%.
      - anovikov 10y ago
        Easily. Personal income was 15737.7 billion in 2015 http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2016/pdf/pi0716.pdf http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2016/pdf/pi0716.... and GDP in current dollars was 18036.6 billion - http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls, so 87.5% of GDP was income, and that figure has been pretty much constant over last 50 years, at never out of 75-90% range for sure. In fact, it is higher than average in the last 10 years or so - while difference is really small. Disposable income after all taxes and including all social transfers (excluding non-monetary ones like food stamps and assisted housing) was 69.5% of the GDP, also quite typical figure which shows to tendency to fall over time, more likely to rise. Surely that includes dividends, rents, and realized capital gains. And yet, it must have been reflected in the chart in question, if only in the top decile - while chart somehow shows incomes of all deciles falling from 2000, which is hard to believe.
fumplethumb 10y ago
> The gains are going massively onto the people who already own capital. That's the engine of inequality. This is a main point in Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty. He explains the capital/income ratio and its effects on the economy. Decent write up here: http://www.robertdkirkby.com/blog/2015/summary-of-piketty-i/ http://www.robertdkirkby.com/blog/2015/summary-of-piketty-i/
throwanem 10y ago
> That chart is data. No chart is ever data. A chart, like the result of an SQL query, is a projection via analysis. The analysis may be trivial, or it may not. You can hide a lot in non-trivial analysis if you want to. I don't say that the NYT did so here (and I don't say that it didn't), but it's hard to have any kind of productive discussion when something this basic is overlooked.
anovikov 10y ago
OK, so what? That is still income isn't it?

by sprafa 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Not trusting a chart because it's numbers seem to contradict other numbers is perfectly valid and reasonable. Your comment about gains going to people who own capital (who, incidentally, are primarily middle class homeowners) is not a refutation of it. In fact, it's completely irrelevant. A refutation would be explaining why GDP and income don't necessarily correlate, which is more a matter of accounting identities. Specifically, GDP != income, income is merely one component of it.

anovikov 10y ago
Because income is still over 60% of GDP, GDP growing while income falls would mean a really dramatic growth of all other components. I can't see how it may be true.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
antisthenes 10y ago
The wage share in the United States has been consistently falling from ~64% to about 57% now. (as a % of GDP) It's quite easy to see that even if GDP grew 12% as someone else mentioned, the change from 64% to 57% would keep incomes at approximately the same level (and perhaps even slightly lower).
- anovikov 10y ago
  Income is not just wage. Total personal income is about 80% of GDP and that figure doesn't change much over time.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Income is not just wage. Total personal income is about 80% of GDP Since personal income includes capital income, that's a useless figure when "wage" is being used as an (admittedly, imperfect) proxy for labor income as opposed to capital income, as the context upthread makes clear it was.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS84006173#0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS84006173#0 Wage share is an economically accepted term, with data from BLS behind it. You literally made up some number and said "it doesn't change much over time". You're going to need to provide a source for that 80%.
    - anovikov 10y ago
      Easily. Personal income was 15737.7 billion in 2015 http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2016/pdf/pi0716.pdf http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2016/pdf/pi0716.... and GDP in current dollars was 18036.6 billion - http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls, so 87.5% of GDP was income, and that figure has been pretty much constant over last 50 years, at never out of 75-90% range for sure. In fact, it is higher than average in the last 10 years or so - while difference is really small. Disposable income after all taxes and including all social transfers (excluding non-monetary ones like food stamps and assisted housing) was 69.5% of the GDP, also quite typical figure which shows to tendency to fall over time, more likely to rise. Surely that includes dividends, rents, and realized capital gains. And yet, it must have been reflected in the chart in question, if only in the top decile - while chart somehow shows incomes of all deciles falling from 2000, which is hard to believe.

fumplethumb 10y ago

> The gains are going massively onto the people who already own capital. That's the engine of inequality. This is a main point in Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty. He explains the capital/income ratio and its effects on the economy. Decent write up here: http://www.robertdkirkby.com/blog/2015/summary-of-piketty-i/ http://www.robertdkirkby.com/blog/2015/summary-of-piketty-i/

throwanem 10y ago

> That chart is data. No chart is ever data. A chart, like the result of an SQL query, is a projection via analysis. The analysis may be trivial, or it may not. You can hide a lot in non-trivial analysis if you want to. I don't say that the NYT did so here (and I don't say that it didn't), but it's hard to have any kind of productive discussion when something this basic is overlooked.

anovikov 10y ago

OK, so what? That is still income isn't it?