4 ms·

If the GDP grows but the people saving money aren't getting the same cut, then this chart will trend down. The implication being that the middle class is gettin

If the GDP grows but the people saving money aren't getting the same cut, then this chart will trend down. The implication being that the middle class is getting to share in the GDP growth as the rich do. However I suppose this could also represent the rich saving fewer dollars and instead buying assets. Would be interesting to see this chart but separated by income class.

probablynish 3y ago
Actually median (and poorer) households did well between 2019 - 2022. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf or the related blog post https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/great-news-about-american-wealth https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/great-news-about-american-weal... . This chart doesn't seem to be about households alone.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Those at the bottom did well due to government "one time" contributions, not because the economic system miraculously raised them.
  - probablynish 3y ago
    Yep, probably true, but the government redistributing income is in itself kind of part of our economic system.
ajross 3y ago
> If the GDP grows but the people saving money aren't getting the same cut This is much more meme than truth, and it's frustrating how many people just take this kind of statement as a prior. Here's a FRED chart of median personal income as a fraction of per capita GDP: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1b46r https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1b46r Indeed it has been trending downward, but... not by a lot. In the 80's it was 61% or so (so the median person got 61% of their "fair share" if the GDP was shared equally). Right now it's about 53%, up from a minimum in 2013 of about 52%. And of course in exchange real per capita income has grown wildly (up more than 50%) in that same 40 years. If you told someone in 1980 that you could get a 50% raise, but only if the people above you on the ladder were allowed to get a 65% raise, would you have rejected it?
- shove 3y ago
  “Not by a lot”? The very chart you linked shows the median “share” dropping like 25% over the last 50 years.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Most people wouldn't look at 25% change in distribution over a half century as a big effect, no. Look at all the other stuff (healthcare or TV prices, say) that have swung by two orders of magnitude. And again, wealth in absolute terms has gone up by twice that! So, no, not by a lot. I think I stand by that. If you're genuinely upset over 25% fairness in a context where everything else looks so much better, my contention is that you're just looking for something to complain about.
    - shove 3y ago
      I’m “just looking for something to complain about” because you’re so busy looking for boots to lick

probablynish 3y ago

Actually median (and poorer) households did well between 2019 - 2022. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf or the related blog post https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/great-news-about-american-wealth https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/great-news-about-american-weal... . This chart doesn't seem to be about households alone.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Those at the bottom did well due to government "one time" contributions, not because the economic system miraculously raised them.
- probablynish 3y ago
  Yep, probably true, but the government redistributing income is in itself kind of part of our economic system.

ajross 3y ago

> If the GDP grows but the people saving money aren't getting the same cut This is much more meme than truth, and it's frustrating how many people just take this kind of statement as a prior. Here's a FRED chart of median personal income as a fraction of per capita GDP: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1b46r https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1b46r Indeed it has been trending downward, but... not by a lot. In the 80's it was 61% or so (so the median person got 61% of their "fair share" if the GDP was shared equally). Right now it's about 53%, up from a minimum in 2013 of about 52%. And of course in exchange real per capita income has grown wildly (up more than 50%) in that same 40 years. If you told someone in 1980 that you could get a 50% raise, but only if the people above you on the ladder were allowed to get a 65% raise, would you have rejected it?

shove 3y ago
“Not by a lot”? The very chart you linked shows the median “share” dropping like 25% over the last 50 years.
- ajross 3y ago
  Most people wouldn't look at 25% change in distribution over a half century as a big effect, no. Look at all the other stuff (healthcare or TV prices, say) that have swung by two orders of magnitude. And again, wealth in absolute terms has gone up by twice that! So, no, not by a lot. I think I stand by that. If you're genuinely upset over 25% fairness in a context where everything else looks so much better, my contention is that you're just looking for something to complain about.
  - shove 3y ago
    I’m “just looking for something to complain about” because you’re so busy looking for boots to lick