Thomas Sowell - Is "Income Stagnation" an Economic Myth?

[@GiveMeAnOKUsername]

"The question is not, why they accept this money, but why are other people offering it to them?" - haha, that's brilliant.

[@uberchrist33]

Ive read a lot of Thomas Sowells books, but the one that really hits home, is Ethnic America. Especially, the section regarding Puerto Ricans. As an American of Puerto Rican ethnicity, I have to say, that portion hit home. It was right on the money; then, as well as now. Dr Sowell knows, about what he speaks.

[@gtfan44]

let me put it this way: that's why i'm watching this video instead of doing my econ homework.

[@asleeperj]

can i just add, i love his voice. It has gotten better over the years.

[@daPlumber702]

"You could become the greediest person in the world, and it will not raise your income one dime." cha ching

[@gibbud]

I wish this was my economics professor.

[@baskhel]

I swear, i would never have missed a class.

[@AdamSPARTAN76]

How many thousands of misguided high school and college teachers are out there spewing misguided facts about family income? It's scary how little people know about economics.

[@heidp]

I love Sowell, he makes so much sense! I like Walter Williams too.

[@pyromusicman21]

I see why it looks like I don't get stagnation. Think of my argument like this (it's not supposed to be euphemistic): if you remove the predators from an ecosystem, the prey will not necessarily thrive. If the prey overpopulate and eat all their food sources they threaten themselves with extinction. There is causality between the two, but not what one might have predicted. I apply the same concept to what you are saying. You've said that the total wealth has shifted to be possessed by the rich.

[@asleeperj]

@Endstation Another factor i didn't think about till recently, high school drop rate, and "graduation stagnation". This number has grown rapidly in the same time period as the graph. These are all numbers that the census doesn't provide, nor did the writers of your book seek them out, or they would have cited them.

[@joelfloral4299]

"There are more people working in the the top 20% than the bottom 20%". This means rich people have more jobs than poor people. This does not mean that because you have a job you are more likely to become rich (you can't theorize or conclude anything on financial mobility based on statistic quoted above given by professor). However you can assume (without any assumptions or emotion) that if you are already rich, you have a better chance of landing a job. If you're poor, opposite chances. No assumptions on job availability to each class can made based on the professor's statistic he did not provide that information.

[@NewGenerationProd10]

Joel Floral I think he meant that in households in the top 20% income bracket there are more people working that in households in the bottom 20% percent. A household generally defined as (Oxford Economics dictionary): "A group of people living together in shared accommodation and with common domestic expenses. For example, think of a family of 4 where 4 people work vs a family of 4 where two people work.

[@bbeaum1]

+Joel Floral I'd assume the opposite. Folks with money can afford to be choosy about their next job and spend a longer time between jobs. Folks with little money and a short list if specialized experience have in their best interest to take what they can get as soon as they can. I've been there in 2013, where 13.50 an hour meant "happiness" because it meant affording groceries and lights for my wife and 2 kids. I told everyone I could that I'd do whatever was needed to make at least that. ...I got a job.

[@MrApplewine]

If you have two people earning income instead of one and household income stays the same that is like income being cut in half. Also, if income goes up 51% over 30 years, isn't that equal to or less than inflation if inflation is about 20 to 30 percent every 10 years according to the official CPI?

[@ToddAldrich]

@louiethegreater In addition to the things in my last post, benefits have become a greater portion of the total compensation than they were in the past. That means a straight comparison of the wage rates makes it appear that compensation has not risen as much as it really has.

[@TNMTTX]

What I like perhaps most about Sowell is that he is one of the very few intellectuals who seems to recognize that people have let themselves be fooled by politicians of all stripes. It's interesting that he points to primary and secondary education as culprits for driving the public into believing the lofty, "egalitarian" rhetoric of politicians. I think he's onto something.

[@pyromusicman21]

That doesn't necessarily demonstrate that it came from the middle class, or that the middle class has been stagnant. And I know you're not a fan of this argument, but it also doesn't show the stagnated income of any individual, group, or otherwise. Yes the wealth may have shifted overall, but within what you are saying, it is still quite possible for the majority of people to have had increased incomes over the course of their life, while falling into different brackets.

[@mattytripps]

well one reason why American's have so much credit card debt, is because we love to spend money on things we cant afford. other people throughout the world who make significantly less than that of Americans are able to get by with less debt, for all its richness America is the greatest debtor in the world

[@jonreed819]

That's great. I'm glad your family is getting the care they need. My father is going through chemo for bladder cancer now. So, if we're both correct, at best we can say that our HC systems are equal as far as treatments for life-threatening illnesses. But as you've said, I've read many articles and have talked to several Canadians online who've described conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, broken hips, etc. and have had to wait months in severe discomfort before receiving treatment.

[@baskhel]

I hope your father is doing well now.

[@musqul8566]

Situation in Canada has gotten only worse.

[@deldia]

I too do not like interviewer's technique but he does ask good questions and nine9s point still stands. The video is there to be disputed point by point which you didn't do.

[@darylfoster7944]

Read the Myth of American Inequality. It demolishes the income stagnation argument, along with the poverty rate, and several other myths. The main problem with these claims is that non-cash (in kind) government transfers are not being included in the income statistics.

[@pyromusicman21]

I also think it's worth noting his ideas about "flesh and blood people." It is really hard, even with so succinct of a breakdown that includes your stats, to follow how, when, and why people are becoming rich or poor. And it certainly is catchy (leading credence to it's popularity) to wave the finger and play the blame game. I think it's another reason why generalizing the wealth of the top 1% is unfounded.

[@pyromusicman21]

Here you are correct, my argument about the 1% changing is not relevant. I was referring to the popular statement that 1% of the population holds 42%(or so) of the wealth, which is not quite the same thing we've been debating here.

[@NoProbaloAmigo]

@Endstation The graph doesn't show a "stagnation," but it does show a slower growth, about 16% from 1975-2006. Now, one reason for the stagnation as well is perhaps the flood of women in the US workforce, increasing the labor supply.

[@shamgar001]

@Bellantoni Those are not the only factors involved in an economy. If the government gives tax cuts, while at the same time passing job-killing regulation, it's insane to suggest that the tax cuts were responsible for job loss.

[@NoProbaloAmigo]

@Endstation I also gave the largest data set because we are dealing with macroeconomic data. The same way that you need to use tax revenues as a % of GDP over the longest period of time to prove half of "Hauser's Law," while the "stable" half is validly criticized.

[@ptricky15]

I agree about the ethics issue. But you know that people sue McDonalds for making them fat when the reality is they choose to eat there excessively.

[@NoProbaloAmigo]

@Endstation I find what you posted interesting, because there is census data that shows median overall male personal income, and it has gone from $18,732 in 1947 to $32,184 in 2009, inflation adjusted, which is not stagnation by any means. This is not household, this is median personal income. Median overall female income has gone from 8,543 to 20,957 over the same time period. Again, no evidence of stagnation.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo Or as Dean Baker put it: ''it had some effect, but remember the redistribution was from less educated workers to highly educated workers. plenty of women have college and advanced degrees. in fact, women in their 20s are now more educated than men in their 20s, so this one really won't buy much.''

[@shamgar001]

@Bellantoni That didn't answer my point whatsoever. You're arguing that tax cuts harm the economy because over a time when taxes have been cut, production, job creation and income equality have decreased. Setting aside whether or not those statements are even true, you're assuming that tax cuts are the only things that impact those numbers.

[@Homburg]

There may be thinkers equal to Mr. Sowell but none better. Period.

[@frankmichaud9107]

❤ I could listen to this Guy all day. Genius.

[@singingzebras]

Thomas Sowell is a Breath Of Fresh Air

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@asleeperj Or to put it as Dean Baker: ''There is a ton of research showing little or no employment effect of minimum wage increases. It would be great if we could eliminate the barriers so that Chinese doctors, lawyers and economists could compete on a more level playing field with ours.''

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@asleeperj 1. Higher wages CAN lead to higher productivity and increase employment in the long run. 2. Sure, high corporate taxes can scare companies in the competitive sector away in a world without a world government. 3. Productivity growth in teh US didn't lead to higher wages in the last decades, so high school drop rate doesn't have anything to do with this. 4. Sweden's GDP is higher than the GDP of Texas. You can compare Sweden's high tech economy with the US.

[@NoProbaloAmigo]

@Endstation That's a gross misnomer and an insult to entrepreneurs. It really is "The money goes to favored groups!" If you are Goldman Sachs, Teacher's unions, AARP, AIG, GM, etc, and you are a member, you get money. If you are Scottrade, Washington Mutual, a school voucher foundation, you get nothing!

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@asleeperj Well, if you bothered to read what I wrote you'll see that already I mentioned one: The State Of Working America by The Economic Policy Institute (the latest edition released last year). On their website you can order the book and see all the figures and statistics. Below you can, for example, find a figure for annual family income growth for the middle fifth, unadjusted and adjusted for family size, 1967-2004. type stateofworkingamerica *dot* org/tabfig/01/SWA06_Table1.5.jpg

[@etherealnine]

Just being greedy in general isn't going to change your income if you're not in a position to do anything in the first place.

[@NoProbaloAmigo]

@Endstation When I mean "state owned capital" I mean classic socialism, or the state ownership of the factors of production. Government spending in Sweden is about 50% of GDP, and most of it is income transfer. The partially privatized pension system in Sweden means private people own shares of companies through their pensions, not socialism. The closest we have in the US is a 401 k or IRA.

[@VassiliZaitsev12]

1970's income compared to todays top 1% doesn't have any assumptions on folks dropping out. Because what I am saying doesn't matter if people in the 70's are still in the top 1% today. The whole point that I am making is that the 70's top 1% people didn't make hardly anything compared to today's top 1%. Meaning, even if you have different people coming and going out of the top 1% the money has still transferred to the top 1% bracket. Given that most top 1% people fall to the 5% and 10% bracket

[@pyromusicman21]

I see, that is an excellent point. I do think that Sowell retains some validity for this reason; To argue against income stagnation, he needs to show a high level of transience. No he didn't include the fact you've cited but I believe he demonstrates his point. Half of the rich are no longer rich after 10yrs, and 3/4 of the absurdly wealthy would have dropped to income levels as low as 300K annually, not poor, but not unfathomably rich, and in another ten years could easily be below that.

[@ptricky15]

Most interviews are somewhat planned. Read the book. I would love to hear you disprove his analysis. Anti-intellectual? Lets talk about global warming... or global cooling... whichever you prefer.

[@Slipknotyk06]

The purpose of the CEO is to coordinate resources with capital. Without this coordination, production cannot be enabled. Executives are paid highly because they enable thousands, or tens of thousands of jobs at a time to be created.

[@VassiliZaitsev12]

Right, I believe that he did make his point that 50% of the top 1% left it after a 10 year study. Which, is good to know because I didn't realize that. However, like I said you have to ask is the remaining 50% the ones holding the aforementioned 42% of all wealth? Plus, in 1970's someone in the top 1% would not make the top 1% today after adjusted for inflation. Meaning, the top 1% has drastically increased its wages. Even it 50% are transient the income disparity shot up over 200% in the top

[@jonreed819]

Businessmen, for the most part, aren't stupid. They don't go to school to learn economics and management for years and then believe it's a good idea to make loans to those who, statistically speaking, can't pay them back - unless they're incentivized to do so and penalized for not doing it. Then other start-up investors want to get in on the act and you've got a credit bubble ready to burst. Read an economics book not written by Karl Marx or John Keyenes and this will all be apparent to you.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo But the point is not the longer hours (which can, and has been interpreted in different way by different economist, Juliet Schor and others). The point is the hourly real wage and compensation per hour, which HAVE been stagnating. It's very easy to find out. Why don't you just calculate the numbers for yourself with the standard CPI? It's a very easy calculation, you learn it your the first economics course.

[@asleeperj]

@Endstation The problem with saying minimum wage laws have no correlation with unemployment, is that studies look at unemployment as a whole, and not as percentage of people making unemployment. ~2% of the total work force in the US make MW.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@asleeperj Texas GDP per capita (nominal): 36,484 Sweden's GDP per capita (nominal): 43,986 Did you just make up the numbers?

[@MichaelShulski]

That's right. He should look up the meaning of the word "sophistry" because he fits it perfectly man.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo 1. I'll repeat: My source uses the standar CPI and the CPS. 2. Maybe you've heard about the oil crisis etc. in the 70s? Look it up. 3. The point is that the neoliberal years did'nt ''fix'' the problem, in fact, the problem got worse. This is true globally, where neoliberla policies reduced global economic growth and increased inequality.

[@VassiliZaitsev12]

Oh yeah, I'm not arguing people don't get promotions in their lifetime. But, that doesn't change anything at all that just means people now make less because when they are younger they don't have the same purchasing power. And over their lifetime they will have less. While at the same time we see wealth increase for people at the top. Now their are various reasons for that, but none the less inequality is the greatest we have ever seen it. And that raises ethical questions about our system

[@OneEyedJack1970]

Penny-wise, but pound-foolish. I like that phrase. It reminds me of the management where I work -- they'll trip over a dollar to pick up a dime.

[@mesastilettodeuce]

Sowell mentions per capita income... but that has nothing at all to do with the median income of a member of the work force. Per capita income is a measure of national wealth (total national income divided by population, basically), not a measure of the median income in a country. Its true that the US generally became wealthier over the past 30 years, in the sense that a lot more capital was generated, but that doesn't mean that the wealth generated isn't owned by 1% of the population.

[@Cornampoo]

@BenkaiDebussy if you talk changes the mean is a pretty good measure for that. Median doesn't mean a whole lot if some income classes have changed, but the middle class didn't. For example if the income level of the bottom 20% rose significantly you wouldn't see that in the median, but you would in the average income. Maybe you'd better use the modus.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@asleeperj No, there's no correlation between high taxes and growth. You can have very high taxes and high growth, as Sweden in the last 15 years, for example. It is well known that high wages force comapnies to invest in more capital intensive technology developement in the long run. That's a fact in the scandiavian countries. It depends how the companies react, but in the non-competing sector it's definitely the case and it has spill-over effects on competing sectors.

[@ToddAldrich]

@ToddAldrich (Resumed) Nachi Robotics, Bayer (several facilities), Akebono (Munfordville, Springfield and Glasgow, Ky) Skanska USA, EloPak. These are companies located here because of NAFTA.

[@shieldsff]

well, for all those who are such great fans of 'black conservatives', what do you make of the scathing and insightful criticisms of so many of Sowell's positions from the likes of the brilliant Glenn Loury ? Sowell's views on discrimination, labor markets, affirmative action,etc... have taken a mighty fall under Loury's wide-ranging, incisive analysis

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo 6. There are many reasons why inequality has soared. But your'e right, it has got nothing much to do with the market, but with a Wall Street government. Socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich. So it should not be called neoliberalism. That's what economists like Dean Baker are saying. A free market would never create such huge inequality. If you want an easy read, see for example Hacker and Piersons book “Winner-take-all Politics''.

[@pyromusicman21]

I think it is natural that some level of inequality is there, and I agree that the level now is bad, and needs to be dealt with. Judging by this line of debate, we'd probably disagree on why the inequality exists, and how to fix it.

[@leeeustace7643]

Why "fix" income inequality? It is demonstrably not a problem.

[@pyromusicman21]

the average individual income is about the same, but the people that fall into the bracket of average are not the same people as they used to be. that is what he means by viewing it as "flesh and blood people" rather than quin-tiles. You are not wrong at all, there is just an additional thing to consider; the people who fell under "average income" in the 70's, are now mostly making above average, and the people in the average bracket now are people new to the workforce with less experience.

[@ptricky15]

In the small Oklahoma town that I grew up in there is a Walmart. Every year an average of $900,000 is lost due to theft. EVERY YEAR! That isn't a bunch of rich CEOs. With the money saved every year on shop lifting Walmart could afford to insure all of its employees. All classes need to be more ethical.

[@Gyrode]

@louiethegreater I mention Bill Gross because he delivers the goods, he runs arguably the best bond fund in the world. But no mortgage firm or bank would in their right mind give money to people who couldn't pay it without poor FED policy, (Teaser rates would be very hard under higher FED rates), and the explicit policy of too big to fail, which is essentially an insurance plan with no requirements except bad business practices. Easy credit always leads to overleveraging..the warning is valid.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@Slipknotyk06 1. You didn't read what I wrote and did therefore not answer to anything of what I wrote either. Real wages AND compensation PER HOUR has stagnated for 80% of employment (production/non-supervisory workers), regardless of what you claim some obscure internet page on the internet says (anyway I still can't find any figures there contradicting what I'm saying). An that's according to EPI-study based on official US gov statistics.

[@pyromusicman21]

The same principle applies to those who earn "average income." I agree, and I think Sowell would, that inequality has peaked, but I believe there is different causality for the issue. Rather than a few rich people depriving the poor, I find that the government has inacted policies that affect the economy that, though ideologically help those who are the lower end of this inequality, ultimately drive a greater wedge. I am very lost upon your argument and how it relates age to purchasing power?

[@pyromusicman21]

That's actually not true. The top .x% are actually more transient than the top 1%. The IRS has shown that in the last decade, over half the people in the top 1% are no longer there, and as you decrease that group to .1%, over three quarters of those people are no long there.

[@ToddAldrich]

(continuing my early post) take NAFTA. I hear people all of the time complaining that their jobs went to China (or India etc) because of NAFTA. That is simply not true. If wages were the only consideration on whether a company moved, you would have a better case, but there are other, often more important considerations on where companies locate facilities. Included in these reasons are the regulatory atmosphere, taxes, infrastructure and access to the desired markets. (see next post)

[@jonreed819]

Coverage does NOT equal access. If it did, tens of thousands of your fellow countrymen would not come to the US every year for immediate treatment. Chaouilli v. Quebec would never have made it to your Supreme Court. Our Medicare & Medicaid patients would not be denied services. Coverage simply does not equal access. If "free" medical care is so readily abundant and available, why would so many Britons and Canadians choose to pay for private care? Why would they pay for something that is "free"?

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@asleeperj And one more thing: Corporations have power. An individual worker or consumer on the market don't have this power. The only way for an individual worker to strengthen his/her position is to influence the government or organize in unions. You can't seriously mean that it's inmoral for individual workers and consumers and other citizens to make the government force big corporations share some of ''their'' profits (that the gov. and workers have paid for and esentially made anyway).

[@BenkaiDebussy]

@pretorious700 Did you not see the comment I posted immediately after that one correcting that? Everything I said is true - if someone is using the average income instead of the median income, they are intentionally (unless they're dumb) misleading you. In reality, median household income was almost completely stagnant over the time period Sowell mentions. And to make things worse, the increase in working women means that individual income probably *fell*.

[@Gyrode]

@louiethegreater I'll give you an example, Bill Gross, a manager for PIMCO, which specializes in Bond Mutual funds, argues that the fed funds rate should be set at 1% below nominal GDP....so it should be at 1.7% instead of zero...which makes a big difference...usually the FED changes the rate in terms of %0.25 units.

[@ToddAldrich]

@louiethegreater That is not what you said. Your statement was about wage deflation, not unemployment levels. That is all I was responding to. I don't need an education. I do this for a living.

[@asleeperj]

@Endstation You are assuming those are the only factors to adjust for? There are far more factors to adjust for than family size/poverty line. I know they got it form the census bureau; however, the CB doesn't collect anywhere near the data one would need to produce an accurate chart, graph, or comparison, on it's own. Sorry you're just going to have to do better than that little chart. I am wholly unimpressed by it, as anyone should be who sought to do any amount of decent research.

[@Gyrode]

@louiethegreater "Adequate regulation" in one of the most regulated markets in the US is not an adequate solution. These problems also occurred in Europe, where there are higher and steeper taxes (Meaning the highest rates kick in in what would we consider middle income), and larger and a smaller amount of banks. I like to add, Precisely because Canada never had a "everyone MUST own a home" policy, they came out of the recession quite well!

[@stevemcgee99]

I'd definitely like him to be the Treasurer. If he thinks the federal government should shrink back to 1830's size and scope, I'd vote for him as president.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@Slipknotyk06 1. You didn't read what I wrote and did therefore not answer to anything of what I wrote either. Real wages AND compensation PER HOUR has stagnated for 80% of employment (production/non-supervisory workers), regardless of what. An that's according to EPI-study based on official US gov statistics. My argument about Bill Gates is the one the use in economic textbooks. It's also used by people such as Joseph Stilgitz. Please tell me why the argument is void.

[@pyromusicman21]

Additionally, the time period cited is a decade, can you say that there were people in the top 1% 40yrs ago who are still there today? I think what you are trying to say - correct if I'm wrong - is that in the 70's the top 1% held less than 42% of the wealth, and it has increased to that amount today. That I won't argue with because I don't know. But that statement doesn't prove income stagnation. Actually it debunks it...in an interestingly abstract way.

[@VassiliZaitsev12]

You are wrong on income stagnation, and you are quite lost on it. The argument of income stagnation is that the middle class income hasn't changed much. What you are trying to say is that I am arguing income stagnation by the top 1%, which is rather backwards. Income for the top 1% has increased by over 200% since the 1970's. That has nothing to do with income stagnation in fact it is backwards of income stagnation.

[@pyromusicman21]

Rather, you've demonstrated that the top class hold more of the wealth - which is not income stagnation, growth - for the top class. Yes that is actually further evidence of income inequality, but that's different from stagnation. That's why I said it shows growth in an abstract way. You're not necessarily debunking Sowell or myself, (I guess I shouldn't speak for him) but I'm not standing against inequality.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@quinnrasta 4. Yes. We have iPods, internet etc. today, mostly because of government funded R&D (between the 1950s and the 1990s 50-70% of the US R&D was funded by the government), combined with private entrepreneurship and private product developement. But how's that changing the fact that US REAL COMPENSATION and REAL WAGES PER HOUR have been stagnating for the last 30 years (as my link shows)? In other countries real wages per hour has not stagnated for 30 years, so it's a policy choice.

[@ToddAldrich]

@louiethegreater Your question: does a trade deficit create unemployment?" Answer: A trade deficit does not help, but all by itself it does not create unemployment. It certainly is not a good thing overall. But you mistakenly think I claim that (or you are trying another one of your straw men arguments) You REALLY should stick to things I ACTUALLY say rather than trying to claim I say things I haven't.

[@sniped101]

heh, my college teacher told me that the government using money for people to dig holes is a good thing because it provide people with jobs. This was a year back before i knew anything about economics.. now i know different.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo ''Most state owend capital gone.'' Hmm. Never heard about the Swedish pension fund? Or Vattenfall and the huge public sector? If you say that an 12% increase in 38 years is not stagnation that's your opinion. I think most reasnobla people would say it's a catasrophe for ordinary americans. Also, Women entered the workforce all around the world during this period, but wages did not stagnate in all countries.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo 5. ''the implied obvious solution has failed '' No they've never failed. Broad unions with centralized collective bargaining creates more equal societies and doesn't reduce growth. There are plenty of studies on this. Look at the swedish model, for example. Same is true about the US CEOs who more or less elect the board. This is not the case in other countries.

[@VassiliZaitsev12]

(2) "who still make that same exact amount now - there are probably very few." You miss understand what I am saying. What I am telling you is that the top 1% in the 70's made 277% less than today's top 1%. Meaning even if you had transient people in the top 1% today or the 70's the income disparity is great. To put simply flesh and blood is pointless in this comparison since it's the same bracket just different time periods.

[@dawoool]

Blaming the tobacco companies for cancer is stupid. Yes, it's hard to quit, but it's easy not to start. Every smoker made the decision to start. They were not addicted then. They knew about the harmful effects. Yes, anybody who works for the tobacco industry is the moral equivalent of a crack dealer, but neither a crack dealer nor a tobacco dealer is to blame for the habits of their customers. If you're addicted to something, it's your own fault. Blaming others is nothing but denial.

[@NoProbaloAmigo]

@Endstation The trends in the data still don't give you evidence against Reagan's policy because stagnation did occur in the 60's as well as the 70's is what I mean, while increasing in the 90's and 2000's. Now, the problem I have with this line of argument is the solution to it has failed, namely a very progressive income tax, and stiff labor laws.

[@AfroSchmuck]

Uhh I have no idea what's going on with the comments. A conservative vlogger called "HowTheWorldWorks," was talking about this guy, whom I've never heard of. So I look him up and there are some strange oddities in this man's past. Like how was he accepted into Harvard? His supposed Father dying before he was born, and the woman he believed to be his Mother was actually his supposed Aunt. Is he a mulatto? I'm looking at him for the first time and he looks slightly mixed to me. He's seems smart.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo I meant *Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor of course! ;)

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@quinnrasta 5. By the way, the ''production/non-supervisory workers'' in my link are 80% of employment.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@quinnrasta Please. You and the Michigan study are talking about ''households''. Remember that households work far more hours today because of women joining the workforce. If you look at real compensation PER HOUR and not per household it has stagnated. Also last time i checked most US citizens leaving poverty do it only for a month or so and then again returns into poverty. Also the EPI study talks in this case about the middle fith. Please read what I wrote and study some statistics..

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@NoProbaloAmigo Also, you're talking about the period 1947-2009. Come on, you can't be serious? This discussion is about the last 35 years. I'm talking about the period 1973-2009. Please, read what I wrote. Yes, the real wage increased A LOT from 1947-1973, during the golden years with state intervention and strong unions, but stagnated during the neoliberal years. That's the point I always made.

[@Bellantoni]

@NoProbaloAmigo Tax cuts for the wealthiest have not contributed anything to production, job creation, or income equality. They've been practicing this art for the last 30 to 40 years and all these factors have worsened in that time.

[@asleeperj]

@Endstation The size of government, and the percentage of taxes as a whole are very important to income stagnation. Over that same time period, the tax burden moved down the social ladder. It has continued to move down since it implementation. Other things the table didn't even mention. Was this take home, or before taxes. A much more efficient data collection agency is the IRS, why wouldn't they get these statistics from them?

[@CmdrTobs]

@shadowgeyser The ability to set interest rates is separated from policy makers. It's independent of government. Please repost that link, I think you must have got it slightly wrong. I tried a few variations no joy.

[@VassiliZaitsev12]

(2) "but that's different from stagnation. That's why I said it shows growth in an abstract way." Again to drive this home since you keep missing it, stagnation is argued ONLY for the middle class, not the rich. Meaning, when I say growth for the rich, that does not disprove stagnation of the middle. You seem to not understand that stagnation is being applied only to the middle class and not to the rich. You think stagnation has to be applied across all levels of the economy.

[@pyromusicman21]

I think there is a misunderstanding. People move between these "incomes statuses" very often. Well over half of the people in the top 1% from a few years ago are not their now - a common trend since the birth of capitalism. Yes, the top 1% holds more wealth than it used to and Sowell (nor I) would argue otherwise, but this is not causality for the argument that a few rich people got richer. Rather we know for certain that many rich people got poorer, and only a very small few got even richer.

[@Leknifrog]

I sometimes think I'm the only person who loves Sowell and hates Walter Williams. I know they gey grouped together because they're both black conservative economists who always plug each other's works, but I think Sowell is a million times better.

[@CmdrTobs]

@shadowgeyser I see what you mean by it being "not [a] private" but surely you can see that: "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government" The regional heads are a revolving door of Private bank Ceo's. It many not be strictly private in all aspects, but its not government organised which is relevant to my point.

[@2vintage68]

WOW! I have been awakened.

[@ToddAldrich]

(resumed) Our government could offset most of the relocations by simply not being so damned hostile to business. Our policy toward business reminds me of a bad neighbor who invites you to his home then beats you over the head, steals your wallet then calls the police on you - to top it off he then makes up allegations that you broke into his home and stole his property and spreads it all through the media. That is pretty much how liberals have treated business - I don't blame them for leaving.

[@ptricky15]

Like I said, I don't support tabacco companies. I would feel I was doing wrong by investing in the tabacco industry. I personally feel the same about alchohol... most do not. I think that when looked at in the context of the book the comment would make a little more sense. He does explain it much more thoroughly. I guess my need to defend the statement comes from that.

[@GoLetItInGoBagItUp]

@Slipknotyk06 2. My argument about Bill Gates is the one they use in economic textbooks, which you would've known if you study economics. It's also used by people such as Joseph Stilgitz. If you don't have any arguments, please shut up instead of just saying ''Your argument is void.'' That's just ridiculous. 3. What about the other stuff that I wrote? Didn't you even bother to read that?