3 ms·

You haven’t defended your “disagreement.” Even if your points did hold up, they still don’t counter parent’s claims. American wages have been stagnant for over

You haven’t defended your “disagreement.” Even if your points did hold up, they still don’t counter parent’s claims. American wages have been stagnant for over 30 years while benefits, pensions, job security, and working conditions have continued to erode. If you think that’s not going to have any consequences, you’re lying to yourself. Unemployment insurance only lasts 6 months, is very difficult to live on for low wage workers, and people just generally know that not working is very bad because it wrecks your job history and resume. Additionally, the majority of Americans’ finances are in very poor shape, which is why Biden was forced to extend the moratorium on student loan payments. To take your word for it, we would also have to explain why employment was ever so high to begin with.

kyrra 5y ago
What do you mean by stagnant? Do you mean and individual is stuck at a certain pay level their entire life? Or do you mean that a given quintile of income has been stagnant over time? Here's a quote from basic economics (chapter 10): > The University of Michigan study found that, among working Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975, approximately 95 percent had risen out of that bracket by 1991—including 29 percent who had reached the top quintile by 1991, compared to only 5 percent who still remained in the bottom quintile. The largest absolute amount of increase in income between 1975 and 1991 was among those people who were initially in the bottom quintile in 1975 and the least absolute increase in income was among those who were initially in the top quintile in 1975. > In other words, the incomes of people who were initially at the bottom rose more than the incomes of people who were initially at the top. This is the direct opposite of the picture presented by Census data, based on following income brackets over time, instead of following the people who are moving in and out of those brackets. > Similar patterns appeared in statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, which also followed given individuals. The IRS found that between 1996 and 2005 the income of individuals who had been in the bottom 20 percent of income tax filers in 1996 had increased by 91 percent by 2005, and the income of those individuals who were in the top one percent in 1996 had fallen by 26 percent.{316} It may seem almost impossible that the data from the Bureau of the Census and the data from the IRS and the University of Michigan can all be correct, but they are. Studies of income brackets over time and studies of individual people over time are measuring fundamentally different things that are often confused with one another.
- refurb 5y ago
  This kind of “moving up” in income brackets is entirely expected. Would an 18 year old be expected to make the same money as a 50 year old? Even the most unskilled laborer sees pay increases over time.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Compensation has been stagnant, even regressive with respect to productivity for four decades now: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

kyrra 5y ago

What do you mean by stagnant? Do you mean and individual is stuck at a certain pay level their entire life? Or do you mean that a given quintile of income has been stagnant over time? Here's a quote from basic economics (chapter 10): > The University of Michigan study found that, among working Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975, approximately 95 percent had risen out of that bracket by 1991—including 29 percent who had reached the top quintile by 1991, compared to only 5 percent who still remained in the bottom quintile. The largest absolute amount of increase in income between 1975 and 1991 was among those people who were initially in the bottom quintile in 1975 and the least absolute increase in income was among those who were initially in the top quintile in 1975. > In other words, the incomes of people who were initially at the bottom rose more than the incomes of people who were initially at the top. This is the direct opposite of the picture presented by Census data, based on following income brackets over time, instead of following the people who are moving in and out of those brackets. > Similar patterns appeared in statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, which also followed given individuals. The IRS found that between 1996 and 2005 the income of individuals who had been in the bottom 20 percent of income tax filers in 1996 had increased by 91 percent by 2005, and the income of those individuals who were in the top one percent in 1996 had fallen by 26 percent.{316} It may seem almost impossible that the data from the Bureau of the Census and the data from the IRS and the University of Michigan can all be correct, but they are. Studies of income brackets over time and studies of individual people over time are measuring fundamentally different things that are often confused with one another.

refurb 5y ago
This kind of “moving up” in income brackets is entirely expected. Would an 18 year old be expected to make the same money as a 50 year old? Even the most unskilled laborer sees pay increases over time.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
Compensation has been stagnant, even regressive with respect to productivity for four decades now: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/