Slashdot Mirror

Let me help you out with a piece of advice: google is fucking easy to use.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

http://observer.com/2018/04/tr...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

https://angrybearblog.com/2018...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://fortune.com/2018/03/29/...

And the data - is it in question? It comes from the IRS data itself, and has been published by the Tax Foundation for years and years. If it was in error, wouldn't someone have caught it by now?

Yes, it's in error, and yes, the Tax Foundation has been "caught" more than once.

http://economistsview.typepad....

http://www.cbpp.org/archives/t...

http://www.nj.com/opinion/inde...

http://mathbabe.org/2014/02/14...

http://angrybearblog.com/2012/...

http://www.citizensforethics.o...

The Tax Foundation is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Oh yes just because I can pay for cheaper consumer crap things are ok. I am going to ask how old are you? For life also includes health care, education, etc. These costs have become prohibitive for the poor. Sure they are given loans and then get jobs where they can barely pay back these things. But hey as long as I can get get cheap consumer crap all is ok, right?

How old are you to spout such nonsense? Health care today is nothing like health care decades ago, it is much more valuable. Education today is nothing like education decades ago, again it is much more valuable.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Cheaper consumer crap yes. Cheaper food? NO, but I guess you don't buy food do you?

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Here's the data:

http://theintrinsicvalue.com/images/2011/03/US-Income-Percentage-spend-on-food-History.png

Note that, not only are people spending less, they are getting much better food for that amount of money.

The poor are poorer than the average poor of say 40 years ago. When economists measure poverty and such they don't measure it in absolute values like how much currency you have. The measure it in terms of what you can afford for the monies you make.

Every income quintile has improved, in constant dollars, since the 1960's:

http://angrybearblog.com/2012/09/what-is-economic-middle-class.html

One can debate whether incomes have grown fast enough, but to claim that "the poor are poorer than 40 years ago" is utter nonsense.

This article is ridiculous. Yes, he had some good points. He'd have to be absolutely rambling crazy to have NO good points. Much like Nostradamus, only small fractions of his work are ever analyzed at once, and those small fractions are then held to have some significant meaning, which isn't necessarily clear.

The first point this guy makes is terrible...
Immiseration: "Marx claimed that ... real wages would fall, and working conditions would deteriorate."
The article completely ignores the "working conditions would deteriorate" segment of that, and I don't think anyone would say working conditions have deteriorated. If they did, they'd be an idiot. Okay, ignoring that, lets look at the first half of that. He lists a source which itself says that the bottom 90%'s wages have stagnated. Now, for a better source when we look at this we see a vastly different picture. We see that it has declined from its position in 74, but has grown since 84. However, you also need to realize that the method that was used to calculate this, is deeply troublesome and can lead to completely opposite conclusions depending on the basket of goods chosen. Each year that basket gets better, and needs to be adjusted to reflect this. Here is a better article on this.

From there on out, the article only gets worse.

However, I'm sure he's managed to garner a lot of clicks by writing an inflammatory simplistic article, so in their book, mission accomplished.

"The problem is jumping nearly 25% is expenditures in two years. "

Jumping what? Expenditures have not risen 25%, in fact they have barely risen 2%: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/02/federal-spending-growth.html There was no meaningful expedinture growth to speak of.

And repealing tax cuts would solve the deficit problem nicely.

Measuring real compensation is hard of course, but it gives a better measurement of what the average employee is getting [wikipedia.org]. And it's been going up. Look at the graph.

That chart has no explanation in Wikipedia, but a little digging finds similar charts some that include wages, salaries, and benefits of wage earners, salaried employees, CEOs, small business owners, etc., some that are limited to the paycheck of wage earners. Unfortunately for the wage earners, they mostly don't get stock options, profit sharing, pensions, and other benefits that higher paid employees do. Also, as others have pointed out, health insurance costs have gone up rapidly for the employer, but at no benefit to the wage earner. So the real take-home pay of wage earners has gone down in the last 10 years, even as costs have gone up for employers. The take-home pay of those earning top dollar has not fallen like it has for the lower echelon of workers, which is irrelevant to the point being made.

Citation needed.

Not really for anybody with a brain and a pair of working eyes. There is a strong correlation of lower taxes and economic prosperity throughout history of USA and the world.

Uh, no, it isn't that clear cut. If you think it is, show me the data. This argumentum ad populum, not supported by any real data. Here are two analyses, with data, that do not support your above statement.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/09/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-look-at.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

The banks aren't lending enough, instead they are buying treasuries. So yes, it does have to be government spending. Or loans.

You may be surprised at how it all works.