[1rudeboy]

The usual suspects deeply saddened.

[Mase]

Nice find. No doubt the doomers will just dismiss it as more fedgov propaganda like they do so much other information that doesn't suit their grim view of the world.

The more I read about Huckabee, the more I dislike him.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder if this thread will reach 10 replies?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thank you for this link. My main contention is the silliness of the spin from both sides.

(Above all spin from all sides however IMO is, stop building Red China's PLA's war-machine economy; we didn't do it for the Soviets and we "won.")

The key point is that the study shows that income mobility in the U.S. works down as well as up--another sign that opportunity and merit continue to drive American success, not accidents of birth. The "rich" are not the same people over time.

Now that is indeed quintessential. Only demagogues could argue otherwise, but I am reminded of news articles about the children of some rich getting favors; but compared to the truth of the statement above such abuse is virtually nonexistent and even with family help some crash to earth to be replaced by others.

The progress of those in the lower quintiles match the BLS 1982-dollar tables and this probably does mean that those individuals affected by shifts in the job market are now recovering; i.e., as predicted, our economy adjusts. It's good at doing that.

Meanwhile individuals are adversely affected by shifts just as many of us argued and were denounced as "socialists / communists" by some as they cheered the move the Red China. Go figure.

The poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade.

These are figures for the x-number of individuals in the study. At the macro level the BLS 1982-dollar tables show a big recovery but not that big. I think it's important to remember that the phrase "jobless recovery" was first used in the years 1992 - 1996. Of course, the dot con (yes, con) boom was in there also for whatever affect it had.

The important factor is that the economy knew that it had only one direction to go, up.

I see spin in the article. Example, the reference to the Huckabee-Edwards-Lou Dobbs spin. The study I believe is micro level (96,700 individuals) and Huckabee-Lou Dobbs are talking macro level. It's so obvious that I might be missing something.

Also, the poorest income quintile in 1996 saw a near doubling of their incomes (90.5%) over the subsequent decade. Those in the highest quintile, on the other hand, saw only modest income gains (10%). Don't get me wrong that is very good but I'll take 10 percent of the highest quintile's income rather than a doubling of a $30,000 annual income any day. :)

It's spin IMO considering that the BLS aggregate income tables show the top quintile's share has increased every year for decades. Nothing wrong with that -- it's just something that IMO should be pointed out. (Critics argue that transfer payments are not considered in the income of the lower quintiles.)

[expat_panama]

Here's a link for the treas. dept. press release page; they've got the study in pdf format there.  From the page:

The key findings of the study included:

• Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years.

• About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within 10 years.

• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996--the top 1/100 of one percent--only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005.  Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.

• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).

• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period:

•  Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; 

• Real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and 

• Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups. 

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

John Williams (Shadowstats) is on Glenn Beck right now. He says we’re headed for a depression worse than the Great Depression. When it doesn’t happen, will Freepers stop citing his joke of a website? LOL!