Slashdot Mirror

http://content.time.com/time/b...
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
http://www.consad.com/content/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/th...
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/...

This is evidence.

We've had evidence for years. The SEC records from the Madoff investigation showed the same pattern. The auditors and investigators carefully step around the turds, carefully do not look beyond a strictly limited scope of investigation. They do this because they report to corrupt bosses, appointed by corrupt politicians, voted in by an electorate pursing its narrow self interests.

None of the above has changed, so naturally we're doing it all over again. They're quietly loosening lending standards again, only this time they have the Fed to print and keep the banks capitalized while it's happening instead of after the fact, so the next credit bubble detonation will be even more violent.

Enjoy. You voted for it. And you'll keep voting for it as well because doing otherwise would involve correcting too much of the world view you been trained with.

It's getting close at 57-60%, which is where it's at last time I checked. 66% is what they're predicting by 2020. One analyst quipped that if trends continue the last American male will graduate with a college degree in 2067:

http://www.eagleforum.org/educ...

"Tom Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, warned that if statistical trends were to continue at their current rate there would be no men graduating from college after 2067."

More info:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/...

A quick google of stats. In 2010, the top 1% paid 37.4% of all federal income tax. From The Tax Policy Center2,162.7B USD was collected in revenue from federal income tax. 37.4% of 2162.7B is 808.85B. So, they got a 1.24% "refund". And, you know what? I'm fine with that. I've never got a job from a poor person, and I'd wager that the 10B pales in comparison to all of the money given to low income types under various programs that never earned it.

Private companies just don't need the sorts of skills that the typical person has. Nobody wants to hire an average programmer (at least, not at US wages), or an average marketer, etc. Today we have hyper-specialization and if you're in the top 1% of whatever you do you'll have a job for life, and if not you'll be lucky to ever have a job. We're still in transition, but all the trends are there.

We life in a country which has a huge economy, and yet tons of people who are unemployed.

Oddly enough, a libertarian economist, Tyler Cowan, wrote a book that agrees with you. Average is Over.

“We're going to see more extreme heat events in the future and people will learn through their experience.”

Hurricanes are down.
Tornadoes are down.

Let's not forget that market manipulation due to federal subsidies for corn (which, for various reasons, is currently the cornerstone of all food production in the US), food prices have skyrocketed since the focus on ethanol production from corn began.

That's about as BS a statement as you can get, food is cheaper now than it has ever been.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/think-food-is-more-expensive-today-than-in-the-past-its-not-its-now-cheaper-than-ever-before/

The US depends on it's software industry; we shipped all our labor jobs overseas to trade them for office work (programming).

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that the US has a multi-Trillion manufacturing sector which employs around 12 million people?

Bear in mind that the size of the global market for software is around $300 Billion and the number of US software developers is around 900,000.

Yes. Although fossil fuel will probably get more expensive over time, so the savings may simply result in less price increase than would otherwise have occurred.

If a property tax increase impacts you but you do not mind, you are probably more on the wealthy end than you realize. People with average incomes struggle to get by, and expect government (including schools) to make the same sacrifices they are making.

While there are cases where schools really do need money, from my experience most of the special bond elections or associated property tax increases are for fluff not related to improved education. You have to wonder why the tax rate that was working before is not working now, especially in cases where property valuation increases are more than making up for inflation. And throw in the fact that most increases in schools budgets nationally have gone to administration, and you can see the real effect of property tax increases in most cases. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/chart-of-the-day-public-schools-bloated-with-bureaucracy/

Publishing Newspaper and Magazines is one of the stereotypical tycoon industries..News/Magazine advertising revenue has plummeted since smartphones became popular. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/free-fall-adjusted-for-inflation-print-newspaper-advertising-in-2012-was-lower-than-in-1950/

But wealth is not a zero-sum game, there is no fixed pool and more can be created or lost if you know how.

I notice you don't mention that the top 1% pay almost as much in taxes as the bottom 95%. Source. And since 58 million Americans have a zero or negative tax liability (negative means they get back more than they pay in), more than half of that 95% pay none at all.

So what I see is a country where nearly half the people get all the benefits with none of the burden.

But by gaming the system a person can do pretty well. A single mother with two kids making $29,000/year receives net income and benefits of over $57,000. Earning more income actually results in a net decrease in total income+benefits -- this is the "welfare cliff".

Ah, I see, the welfare queen myth linked from some no name political website with lots of flags all over. Seems legit.

Not really. We have a dog's breakfast of programs that provide food subsidies, housing subsidies, subsidies for mothers with children they can't support, free cell phones, unemployment benefits, medical subsides, and disability subsidies.

The system is so crazy that we have parents actually encouraging their kids to BE crazy so they can receive more money.

But by gaming the system a person can do pretty well. A single mother with two kids making $29,000/year receives net income and benefits of over $57,000. Earning more income actually results in a net decrease in total income+benefits -- this is the "welfare cliff".

Because people will take out more than they put in with all of those systems. No, enough interest is not earned to make up the difference.

Not anymore: Social Security Now Takes More Than it Gives (or Google: SSI return on investment)

Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85.

On the other hand, Medicare: (or Google: Medicare return on investment)

his typical person paid around $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes over his lifetime. Likewise, after netting out Medicare premiums, he’ll receive around $173,886 in lifetime Medicare benefits. The net? He can expect to receive around $108,915 more in benefits than he paid in taxes over his lifetime.

So the times, they are a changing.

It's misleading to look at the top marginal rate. Along with those sky-high marginal rates were many more exemptions and ways to shield income from tax. More telling is to look at the effective rates. Sadly, I can only find data back to around 1980 when the effective tax rate for the top 1% was in the mid-30s.

Mark Perry just posted a chart showing how much actual cash the top 1% kick in. It's about as many dollars as the bottom 95%. Just sayin'.

... bank account, not helping the economy at all.

Money in a bank account does help the economy. It provides banks with more funds, which allows them to make more loans and reduce interest rates, allowing business to invest more.

Of course, what that leaves out is that while consumer spending has reached pre-recession levels, business-investment spending is about $150B lower than 2008, and banks have plenty of funds (exceeding their funding requirements). In fact, business investment is the one area of the economy that has not recovered to pre-2008 levels.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/the-mission-1-4-trillion-one-chart-that-says-u-s-business-investment-isnt-doing-fine/

So for whatever reason (banks not making loans, or businesses not wanting to invest, or inadequate investment opportunities, etc), in effect you are right.

In other news, US energy-related CO2 emissions are now at a 20 year low.

The credit is split between cheap, fracked natural gas replacing coal and herbicide-resistant GM crops needing less plowing (and thus lower tractor fuel use).

US CO2 emissions per capita are now lower than they have been since at least 1973.

"This should not be a surprise that the emissions are lowest in 20 years, that's because so many manufacturing jobs have been moved out of USA."

Efficient manufacturing reduces the number of manufacturing jobs, reduces pollution, and reduces production costs.

" In the past decade, the flow of goods coming from U.S. factories has gone up by a third as capital has increasingly become a greater share of input over labor."

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/u-s-manufacturing-output-may-boom-but-not-jobs/