[Hop A Long Cassidy]

I like what William's says in general, but there's a statistical flaw in his logic in this theme:

1) Assume 1 man making $1,000,000 and 4 men making $500,000 in total. They would, on average, have an income per capita of $300,000 ($1,500,000 / 5).

2) Assume that the man making $1,000,000 suddenly makes $2,100,000. The new per capita income figure is $500,000 ($2,500,000 / 5).

3) Wow! But did everyone get a raise, from $300,000 to $500,000? No, only one person got a raise. That was the high income guy.

4) The correct way to determine this kind of issue is to take the mode (the most likely value) or the median (the middle value): not the median (average).

The correct approach would show a zero percent growth, as $100,000 would be the income in both cases.

So, Williams here has introduced some happy talk. There most likely has been a greater disparity in income over the last 5 years. This has been well documented by liberals but not addressed by Bush. Williams needs to address this before he makes his conclusions, per capita.

So, what we need are better figures before we can accept Williams pronouncements here. Otherwise, we just have the "more hamburger flippers" story.

Hoppy

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

well documented by liberals

Liberals lie a lot, and tell half-truths even more.

"well documented by liberals" is pretty close to being an oxymoron, but you're welcome to provide links to solid data / argumentation in support of your thesis . . .

[LibertarianInExile]

Per capita GDP seemed to me a silly statistic to use anyway, especially since the profits from and production of a company's work overseas often 'remains here' in an accounting sense, depending on who's tabulating the numbers.

The latter info is certainly more damning of those who would have us believe the poor in this country really are in comparison to the world's poor.

On the other hand, the poor in this country don't compare themselves to Afghans or Russians--they compare themselves to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, and know they come up far short. Class envy is inevitable when you've lost your manufacturing job and know you have to start completely over. Every single person who tells me retraining is the answer just ignores the fact that many manufacturing industry employees are on the tail end of their careers, soon to be on social security. Companies won't hire them and they mostly don't even look for jobs where they are starting over as a peon after having been in charge. The taxpayers end up financing their 'early retirement.'

I don't know how to stop the class warfare in the U.S., but I know exporting jobs to maquiladora and China ain't it.

[Badray]

Did you miss this part? Or did it just not comport with your attempt to dismantle what Williams is saying?

" According to the 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, only 5 percent of those in the bottom 20 percent category of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. What happened to them? A majority made it to the top 60 percent of the income distribution -- middle class or better -- over that 16-year span. Almost 29 percent of them rose to the top 20 percent.

It sure looks to me like people (who are willing to work) are doing better.