You managed to compare 1975 to 1997, 1975 to 1991, and 1979 to 1988.
How about you use more relevant dates? ...Perhaps the most recent government studies? Also you managed to not even be consistent with your irrelevant date choices and used three different points of comparison. That makes it hard to listen to your video with such fundamental errors. It makes me think you have an agenda.
Youre video would be much better if you provided consistent evidence.
A video showing the claim to be true when comparing the top 2-3 percent of earners vs the bottom 20 percent (or less) would have been far more convincing.
The fact that the top _20_ percent was chosen seems to be a problem for a lot of my statist socialist friends. I humbly request a video be made with the same angle and intent, but with the aforemented percentile adjustments. Surely the video's message is still true when we narrow it down to the who controls 42 percent of American Wealth?
I love this channel and most rational thinking people would agree with it. But the top 20% is not contributing to the problems in the news today. It's not even the top 1%. It is the top .01%. Run the same formula for inequality not against the top 20% but the 99.99% vs .01%.
I watched a bunch of other videos from this organization and i noticed this video had a much higher percentage of dislikes. i could be wrong but i feel like people think that this organization in this video is trying to attack the poor's position. this video is merely trying to show how this particular fact might not be entirely true. I'm kinda sad that people would be so adverse to simple information, even if one disagrees with this, the video doesn't make grandiose claims just analyzes data.
@TheHeterosapien the data this guy uses is completely wrong because it doesn't factor in inflation. Also why he didn't include more recent data is also questionable. The fact that people start off poor and get wealthier over time is an important fact, but he doesn't apply this to the already wealthy who will gain a far amount more in the same amount of time.
exactly right, most liberals that complain that they are poor are young and have no priorities. big screen TV's, high speed internet, full satellite, etc. when i move out, i dont plan on expecting to make what my parents make, hell, when i was young my family was poor as shit, used to have to buy broken cans of food to eat. now my family is in the top tax bracket. thats just life.
As a graduate from LSE, I can say that this man is dead wrong. According to data, the top 1% of income earners, on both sides of the Atlantic, have been held by the same families for the past 200 years. There have been instances where there is some wealth mobility, but it is a short-term event.
And by the way, there's no way these facts are accurate.
The CBO showed that for 30 years, the bottom 20% had income growth of 18%, while the top 1% made an income growth of 275%.
The same study showed there was almost no movement in income brackets.
And oh look, a study done by done by Pew, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute showed that we're actually had an DOWNWARD mobility.
there are perks to being poor. I went through Hell growing up having to do things blatantly against my interests. Since I'm young, my works sucked and will always suck.
@silljols, you may want to watch the video again, especially the first part. Also, the 400 richest have more "money" than the lower 95%? Really, you want to give us the numbers that support this? And by "money" do you actually mean "wealth"? Having an asset isn't the same thing as having it's value in a checking account. No doubt, a wealthy person can afford more than most people, but you should really be more careful when posting.
@Irod, while "most" of those who lost their job may still be jobless, "most" (your word, not mine), meaning over 50%, are not homeless. Please think a little longer before posting.
Justatadpole, nope it isn't, that's a completely separate question and discussion. A very large majority of those "losing" their home did because they were no longer able, for any number of reasons, to continue their payments.
@jigfun, and I forgot that you might want to look at the nominal figures he uses, they can very easily be adjusted for inflation. However, maybe you discovered after posting that the same is true for each income group, so the conclusion will be exactly the same once you adjust for inflation. It changes nothing.
@jigfun, so we should listen to someone (you) that throws out ideas without any numbers, or facts of any sort, and ignore the one who is making an informed argument based on statistics and reasoning? Interesting.
@popp, you're correct that he's right, however, he isn't missing anything in regards to certain minority groups since that is a completely different question, which no doubt has a completely different set of issues that need to be looked at when discussing it.
This guy doesn't account for inflation, and he is lumping people that are poor when they are young, go to college, and then become middle class with acctual poor people in the slums, ghettos, and trailer parks. These people are working 60 hours a week with two jobs and making pennies compared to most. They are stuck and their children are stuck. Look at reality not some asshole flipping out figures that don't mean anything.
It also should be put into consideration is the rising cost of living in this country. Sure, their overall income is slightly higher than it was in the seventies, but food costs a lot more now too. So do cars, homes, gas, electricity, and just about everything else. The percentage of the county below the poverty line has increased (ever so slightly, but increased) in the past thirty years.
Also, since when are political/opinionated views and videos on the top of EVERY "related videos" column?
The definition of socialism is government , instead of the free market controlling prices , (which leads , obviously, to a government monopoly) republicans need to stick to this issue and no other , ending subsidies, bailouts, tax credits,incentives,deductions, and worst of all Market orders "national reserves" etc. cheaper socialism is still socialism, less intrusive, or nicer socialism or state level , or republican controlled socialism is still socialism.
He left out the fact that most people who fell into the "poor" category in 2007 were, and since the recession of 2008, maybe still to this day in 2012 are still HOMELESS AND JOBLESS
what about the fact that income inequality is the highest its ever been? what about the fact that the bottom 50% of Americans only own 2.5% of the total assets of America? what about the fact that the wealthiest 400 people have more money than the bottom 95% of Americans combined? isn't this a problem?
The point about the size of the pie makes no sense. It isn't a point about the disparity in the quality of life between a few decades ago and now, it is ABSOLUTELY about the fact that more of the country's wealth and therefore means of production and economic control are being seized by the upper crust wealthy aristocrats and conned from the working class. I would also press you to speak about what is happening to the middle class in America since that is far more relevant in these times.
The problem with this argument is that while the poor are having an increase in income, prices are rising faster then their income. The rich are not as effected by inflation as poor people and sometimes even benefit from it. Government rigged price indices don't show any inflation, but any common man can see it when they buy food or gas. A gallon of gas is still a silver dime, as it always has been.
I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. But if we continue to keep getting more and more "pizza" as a group, why should the poor keep getting a smaller and smaller slice by percentage, even if it is physically bigger?
@ZigZagzGoon the "poor" are getting smaller AS a group at least with a fixed definition, the poor from 50 years ago were much much worse than the poor in this day and age. the definition of poor is always rising! hell, most in (middle class) america are living like the nobles of the past, the rich like kings and emperors! point is, yes there are still poor but there are less of them, statistically with fixed wealth as a variable with inflation! we lower the standard of what is poor
@ZigZagzGoon "why should the poor keep getting a smaller and smaller slice by %, even if it's bigger?" I'd venture it's perhaps because the the lowest skilled/able attract the lower pay grades (supply/demand) so do not move up the pay grades, 'poor' is relative, and the overall 'country earnings pizza' grows (as a nation evolves from an industrial to an information economy?). In addition, wage fixing slows or even halts employment of the very low-skilled.
This guy is a complete bullshitter. In 1972 the average U.S. worker made $10/hour, and a typical house cost $25,000 (income=80% of the price of a house). Now, the average worker in the U.S. makes $11/hour and the average house is $350,000 (income=6.3% of the price of a house). The poor are much poorer now than ever - just fuck'n admit asshole!
Listen up people. If you cannot tell that this is just a propaganda channel for libertarian policies then I feel sorry for you. You will not get the truth. Instead you will get pieces of information to believe into the libertarian way of thinking.
Let me just add that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE POOR. I didn't care about "them" when I was poor. I only cared about dragging myself out of being poor, and that's why I am no longer poor. Indeed, even "the poor" don't care about the poor. As Ayn Rand said, the best thing you can do for humanity is do for yourself. Politicians and political activists use "The Poor" as a stepping stone. No poor = one less stepping stone. More poor = greater stepping stone.
I can personally attest to this. Single-parent family of 6 kids, on welfare, poor like "hope-they-don't-shut-off-the-electricity" poor. Food stamps, WIC, welfare check, gubmint cheese, church handouts, 4 to a bedroom poor. 4 out of 6 of us are no longer poor. Not even close. None of us have a degree. The other 2 fk'd off every opportunity and stayed poor. 1 of those is just now figuring out he wasn't destined to be poor, but in fact chose that path, and is now working on changing that.
So, poor people don't often stay poor, but there are plenty of new poor to take their places as they work their way into less-poor strata. I'm not as poor as my parents, so I guess that makes sense.
top 1% of americans increased income over 275% after taxes(4 times more than the rest of the top 20%),middle class had a 40% increase, the poor had a 18% increase, between years 1979-2007...(inflation adjusted)...according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. My opinion is everyone is getting richer but do to inflation and cost of living....i lost my train of thought.
The only people not interested in facts are the people that made this video.
In absolute terms we are in fact poorer.
Real wages were higher in the 1970s then they are today. That means, even adjusting for stagflation, people got paid more money 30 years ago then today.
For anyone that was working, and not just minimum wage but working, 30 years ago are you telling me you got better off today?
@AndroidPolitician cite your sources, please. In the 1970s we had cars that got crappy milage and would kill you in a 30 mph crash. No cell phones. No GPS. No internet. No cancer treatments. No Viagra. Do you really want to go back to that time? I guess the music was a lot better, and George Lucas hadn't discovered CGI yet. Those things were better.
Real wage data can be found here is(.)gd/9nYnDY (remove parentheses).
I want to make the point that standard of living is different than wages and isn't relevant here, like, no one today is hoping for holograms and for 50% of the population to be in poverty.
That aside, where do you think GPS, Internet, Satellites etc. came from? It came from the government.
@AndroidPolitician It is true, global communication technology came from ICBMs, the Internet is the child of DARPANET, and GPS was first developed for the Navy. However, it is rash to say with certainty that they would not have developed in absence of government funds. Also, look at what part of government created these technologies: the Military.
It most likely would not have, just look at today, do you see companies spending billions of dollars on particle accelerators? The only reason the economy could function the way it does is because of government.
It doesn't have to be the military, for instance in Japan the MITI just directly tells which company will research what instead of indirectly from the military like in the US.
The pizza argument is worthless because it doesn't take into account the rise in costs of living. Would you rather have 1/6 of a small pizza as a child, when it doesn't take a lot of food to feel "full"? Or would you rather have 1/9 of a larger pizza as an adult, when it takes a great deal more food to feel "full"?
@Greggor88 Thank you so much for the reminder on that point, I KNEW there was something wrong here. I'm gonna have inflation tattooed on my arm so I don't forget it.(hyperbole, but still)
Hum.. what he failed to mention is the inflation rates, witch is vital to understand how much money is actually worth. Putting up numbers between 20 years doesn't mean anything. You have to have some kind of comparison. I bet in next 20y the "poor" will have much higher income (in numbers) than us. But it doesn't mean that they have higher living standards.
@icchiism Except that his primary argument doesn't rely on this. Mobility in income level IS relevant. He's not just saying the poor today have more money than they used to. He's saying they're not the same people that used to be poor.
@icchiism It actually does mean they have higher living standards according to the numbers there. Right now you are also assuming it is not adjusted to inflation. But besides all of that, whether adjusted or not, the poorest 20% are having their salaries increase more then the top 20% as an average, and inflation cannot change this, you would need 2,300% inflation over 16 years to validate your premise that the poor are not better off between the two years.
@blastsummit... As opposed to making a biased opinion not using data? Where is your data to show that this video is incorrect (seriously, I would like to know)?
@DMAN123223 derp when it comes to economics, it's not a hard science. and have you ever heard that data can be manipulated to support a skewed point of view? he's using data that doesnt apply now
@blastsummit Well, you could have avoided the argumentum ad hominem before and put in the actual objection to the data, as you objected to his point of view before and not the data. The only reason economics isn't a "hard science" is because the logical fallacies made by Keynesian economics used today.
@DMAN123223 you're a fool. friedman has had great influence on american policy, and guess what, genius, he didn't have everything neatly packaged into a scientific theory, either. and i am 100% sure that you have a trifling understanding of keynesian economics. your view point has been manufactured by right-wing think-tanks. you just ape what you have heard that fits in with your beliefs.
@blastsummit And back to ad hominem, one might think someone could not hide valid argument in personal attack, assuming there's valid argument. Friedman wasn't Keynesian and clearly libertarian. Advocated free markets, criticized the feds position over monetary policy and worked for Reagan. And you say how dare I hold truthful principles over the economy, how dare I. Before I was libertarian I was liberal and guess what? My beliefs changed according to clear logical argument, no indoctrination.
@DMAN123223 and my point is friedman hasn't proved himself correct, either. and your phrase 'truthful principles over the economy' is stilted language. and there are no free markets. back to the proposition of this video: the rich ARE getting richer and the poor poorer. thats a fact
@blastsummit You need to explain further, when you say correct it sounds like you're talking about morally correct. For example, when interest rates go down, gold correlates up, that is factual. Whether it's a correct thing morally or not is decided by human perception, like yours on Friedman. "there are no free markets" see Hong Kong. I agree to an extent the poor are getting poorer, because of quantitative easing (more money, more that can be grabbed by the wealthy).
Friedman working for Reagon says it all to be honest.
Here's a decent article showing how protectionist Reagon was:
Ronald Reagan: Protectionist
by Sheldon L. Richman (this is available online so google it; apologies, for some reason I cannot post the link)
Friedman's support for Reagon means Friedman was either unprincipled or blind to what Reagon actually did (putting aside the media concocted Reagon myth).
@QuickNickHeidfeld First I'd like to say Friedman worked under him, not as an equal therefore his voice in matters may not have projected. Second, Reagan (Not "Reagon") was indeed a hypercrit, this was due to the obvious cooperate ear-piece.
Friedman: 'Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market.' That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
Friedman: 'Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market.' That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
Friedman: 'Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market.' That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
Friedman: Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market. That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
Friedman: Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market. That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate".
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
@LordDirk keep in mind the recession, but the tendency is still true today. It also offers a link with more data up until 2005 that would be more current.
I wonder if liberals overt their eyes when the truth is in front of them. It’s always been my theory that liberals simply don’t understand math, and I’m sure that’s true for most, but some just try to skew it to fit their agenda. Obama thinks everyone is stupid and will listen to his claims without finding the facts. When you look at groups like OWS and posts here you have to wonder if he is right.
I wonder if conservitives overt their eyes when the truth is in front of them. It’s always been my theory that conservatives simply don’t understand math, and I’m sure that’s true for most, but some just try to skew it to fit their agenda. GOP thinks everyone is stupid and will listen to his claims without finding the facts. When you look at groups like Tea Party and posts here you have to wonder if they is right.
@henleythecat See, when funding for a study runs out, the study itself ceases. Perhaps you need to get a basic grasp of how real money works. And though the study stops at 1991, it is yet more than the evidence you present to counter his argument.
@henleythecat the study STOPPED, there was no way of knowing the economic situation ahead, so the fact that it stopped shows no bias, besides the early 90s were a minor recession, the economy got better, therefore no bias is evident.
The vid was posted Feb 2011 using data that stopped in 1995 and you are calming that there is no bias? If that is correct, it is also misleading and irrelevant given that they are making a argument today with no data for the last 16 years!!
@henleythecat What leads to you believe that the patterns presented in the video about 1986-1995 suddenly reversed themselves? Are you trying to claim that in today's economy, young and uneducated workers do not comprise the vast majority of poor people, and that in today's economy, poor people have little no income mobility?
Anyways, there's a comment in the video that links to data for 1996-2005 (they do 10-year studies so that's the best you can get).
@HeyItzMeDawg "What leads to you believe that the patterns presented in the video about 1986-1995 suddenly reversed..."
I am not making any assumptions on what happened after 1995. But I think it is misleading to make the assumptions they are making today, using data that old when there is a wealth if more recent data available from other sources.
IMHO, this is not a educational piece, but a manipulative opinion piece pretending to be education.
there are alot of poor people who arent even counted in the census and what about the people who live off the grid who classify themselves as rich meaning they have enough food to eat, their children are safe at home, etc while the government lists thems as poor?
The first statistic he gives is deceiving: in 2007 (a more recent date) the richest 20% of all Americans own 93% of the total wealth. If you look at social mobility the U.S. ranks dead last behind many other developed countries. And all this talk about "oh the poor can afford computers which means they're not poor," it's because computers are cheaper, not because people are making more. The average cost of a computer in the 1990's was $1000-$2000, now it's around $500.
@wangsta25 ""it's because computers are cheaper, not because people are making more."
show me statistics that say the median salary of poor individuals stays the same or goes down over time. This guy showed 2 studies that claim your statement is absolutely false, including one that said poor people made an increase of more than 20,000$ over 20 years of their life.
I love the number of fuck-offs who don't even mention the name of a paper in which what is said in the video is contradicted. They use maybe half the charter count to say this man in lying or being misleading and then don't offer any proof of the claim. They say it is out of date even tough their is an annotation in the video of more recent data (up to 2005) showing the same trend of households in the lower quintile moving to a higher quintile.Meaning they moved up in relation to the median.
I love the number of fuck-offs who don't even mention the name of a paper in which what is said in the video is contradicted. They use maybe half the charter count to say this man in lying or being misleading and then don't offer any proof of the claim. They say it is out of date even tough their is an annotation in the video of more recent data (up to 2005) showing the same trend of households in the lower quintile moving to a higher quintile.Meaning they moved up in relation to the median.
As a question of economic mobility, trying to look at is without a comparison is always difficult. But what does XX% that where poor became rich mean? Is that good or bad? Compared to what? The reasonable thing to do is to compare the US economic mobility against other similar countries, mostly the EU. This would be the same we would do on education or healthcare. The 2004 Corak study compare the US to 8 others and the US got 8th place, with only the UK doing slightly worse.
@ElasticGiraffe It gets negative ratings because some viewers are smart enough to know better. This data doesn't bear one jot on the current economic crisis, and even then, it cherrypicks its data and skips back and forth between real income and inflation adjusted figures. Nor does it cite its data, because it would become clear that the methodology is off. This is hocus pocus, and you're falling for it. This guy is Austrian School econ - which is a joke for serious economists.
It's just like the bible. Just because it was data from a long time ago doesn't mean we are not dealing with it today, and that if we look back at it, we can fix what we are dealing with in our current time. I'm tired of seeing comments complaining that this data is old. Much data is old on the internet, and it still holds some truth. Yes, there a few flaws, but it doesn't make it totally untruthful.
@UltimegaSeven You missed the point. Use the rest of your brain to expand your thought. They're using old data to refute a post-recession complaint. People are trying, if anything, to get back to the pre-80's system of financial checks and balances. This video doesn't address the problem in any sense, it skirts around it. This is called, even in economic circles, "being a douche."
@niclasjt I'm not a economist, but have taken several economics courses for my business degree, and that's exactly what I thought of this guy with his explanation. A douche. LOL! That that was very funny. Yeah this guy is over simplifying and being a douche. He's using positive economic principles (factual) mixing with a normative economics (opinion). At the same time using the factual logic that could be argued in contrary or support any economic and political regime.
Cherrypicking. This is the feel-lucky-you-whining-poor-man approach to dealing with crisis. First, none of this data - and notice he doesn't cite his sources - accounts for fundamental changes like deregulation, manufacturing loss, union death, NAFTA, etc.. His figures cut out, without showing Americans that they're nearly back where they started. He then drops real income in favor of average non-inflation adjusted earnings to suggest change. This is smoke and mirrors economics discourse.
@XeutonMojukai Quick, someone gave me a 16 year span in which something contradictory to my world view occurred! Make up a reason to call it useless data.
The economy spent most the 1970s in a rut and their was a recession in the 80s. The data this man used spanned a fairly long time and was within recent history.
@frostedpornflakes Word to the wise: confirmation bias goes both ways. Best way to avoid looking like you're taking advantage of it is to point it out when you give out info that furthers your cause.
@ElasticGiraffe This video is using outdated data. I think if you used todays data you would get a different result. The socialist policies of the Western nations have bankrupted them. Get used to ordinary people getting much poorer.
@ElasticGiraffe the video getting so many dislikes has nothing to do with his conclusions. Its more like that he himself uses methods that can be easily questioned and scrutinized. His main message might be right, but anyone who studied economics will agree that he omits lots of things in order to present the data the way he wants.
occupy wall st protesters are stupid. They do not realize that if CEO's lose their business then employees would be fired. no income means no money, no money means starvation and poverty for America.
If you complain about how much these CEO's are making, then make your own business and become a CEO, that way you can employ other people and probably make them a CEO too.
if the CEO's business fails a lot of people lose jobs. It's as simple as that. If a business id not making profit, we're F&*^%
Your data is so skewed. Blatant manipulation of facts. And how can you possibly justify using "1997," "1991," as your "today" data??? Stop trying to sell this BS as fact.
In all this game, the devil is losing and at the end will be accused of everything because GOD don’t want any rivals. Conclusion: live at the full in the freedom of GOD (praying in a right form, following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible - keeping the 10 commandments - including keeping the Saturday as the 7th day etc.) instead of in the incapacity and limited power of devil because he is just a temporary puppet. Jesus Christ is the savior and hope.
@ElasticGiraffe i think its because most people probably find it pointless because its not a updated information he is using information before the recession this is from 2011
the info he should be using is comparing 1975 to 1997 to 2011 cause its a waste of time to learn about how things were in the past before the global economy changed drastically
Yes! America as a whole is economically prosperous when it competes with the rest of the world. You're completely ignoring the actual implications of this data; that children within low-income America are losing resources to compete with other Americans. They can't choose what school to go to, they can't choose to live in a good neighborhood, they can't choose to see either of their parents for more than a few hours every day.
Eh, it didn't really provide the cost of living of the poor and I'm pretty sure a bunch of various things also. It's skewed! Or at least, the study isn't complete...something's off and missing. I can't point my fingers on it really.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be richer within the next 10 years down if Im still paying off my college debt (particularly if you're an art major or something along those lines..)
@frdrcksncn If your liabilities go from -$80,000 to $0 over then next ten years, you got richer. Something you would know if you didn't blow huge sums of money on a useless art major.
@TG1212able Going from negative to nothing is not getting richer. It's an improvement, but it's not getting richer. The word "richer" would imply rich to begin with, with the definition of rich basically being an abundance of something (money, land, etc.). Negative $80,000 is not rich. $0 is not rich. Neither negative nor nothing constitute rich. I would know this even without my business degree.
@BPKesq Really? You can only get richer if you were rich to begin with? So if the temperature is 20 degrees, and in few hours its 30 degrees, it didn't get warmer? If I plant a tree and today its 2 feet tall, and in a year its 5 feet tall, it didn't get "taller"? If I'm riding the break at 3 mph, and then accelerate to 10 mph, I am not going "faster"? 0 isn't greater than -20?
You really are a dumb motherfucker. How can somebody be as stupid as you and not have choked on their shoelaces?
@TG1212able Yes, you can only get richer if you were rich to begin with. A tree that was two feet "tall" that grows to five feet "tall" has gotten taller, because is already had height (how tall it is) to begin with.
What's the root word of richer? Rich! Just like dumb is the root word of dumber. I'll use it in a sentence. TG1212able proved he was dumb when he said someone was rich for having gone from negative to nothing, but now he has proven he's even dumber by using bad analogies.
@BPKesq Wealth isn’t just about the assets you have. Its not just the possessions. It’s a duality between one’s assets and liabilities. Getting $10 in assets is the same as losing $10 of liabilities. When wealth increases, you become richer. In terms of wealth, paying off $80k in debt is the same as getting $80k. You seem to be relying on some dictionary definition of the word ‘rich’ so you can play your semantics game instead of the practical meaning of the word. Only an asshole would do that.
@TG1212able No need to get your panties in a twist.A decreasing liability is a good thing, but going from negative worth to zero worth is simply not getting richer. It's going from indebtedness to broke. Now, going from broke to abundance would be getting rich. Going from abundance to more abundance is getting richer. I don't know of anyone who, in practical terms, would think they were getting richer by merely paying off their debts.
@BPKesq If that's your pedantic view on the word 'richer' then whatever. I will continue to be like most people and consider 'richer' as generally being an increase in one's financial state. On another point, no one goes from paying off student loans to zero. Those student loans paid for something, a college education, which is an intangible asset that sticks with you. Once you pay off your loans, you are up the education over your prior position.
The fact that everyone giving the video a "Thumbs Down" wouldn't be able to do so if they were getting "poorer" is evidence of Marxist indoctrination in public schools and colleges.
If the "poor are getting poorer" then by now the internet would be the exclusive domain of "Richers."
@thomaserossi Yes because the internet and electricity are scarce resources, and to own either is the true mark of affluence. Or perhaps the ones clicking dislike are those who indeed are better off, and realize the growing disparity in income. Either way, that statement is inane
@thomaserossi I've known of homeless people who have had access to the internet through public libraries or by retaining a laptop as one of their few possessions and utilizing random,wi-fi hot spots.
Then again,who am I to try and shatter your view of yourself as some rugged,Randian individualist struggling against the deluge of public educated, Marxist robots.
@thomaserossi Technological innovation, development, and profusion doesn't have anything to do with poverty. A person can be poor - but have a fridge and car - both once tech wonders. It's relative. The complaint many Americans have is that they're more productive workers than they've ever been, but they're losing their jobs, or getting their pay slashed - while taxes are still lower in relative terms for the wealthy. No one is pining for life in an Indian slum.
@thomaserossi You can spin your stuff as much as you like. The fact is we are wealthier only because of hydrocarbon inventions. Take that away and we all die, we have to high a population without hydrocarbons. It has little to do with any economic system. And I have to tell you I know lots of old people and young alike eating cat food, dog food, and if lucky roman noodles. Its about the same. Other than social security has helped many not be out on the streets.
You managed to compare 1975 to 1997, 1975 to 1991, and 1979 to 1988.
How about you use more relevant dates? ...Perhaps the most recent government studies? Also you managed to not even be consistent with your irrelevant date choices and used three different points of comparison. That makes it hard to listen to your video with such fundamental errors. It makes me think you have an agenda.
Youre video would be much better if you provided consistent evidence.
funnywhiteroots 16 hours ago
A video showing the claim to be true when comparing the top 2-3 percent of earners vs the bottom 20 percent (or less) would have been far more convincing.
The fact that the top _20_ percent was chosen seems to be a problem for a lot of my statist socialist friends. I humbly request a video be made with the same angle and intent, but with the aforemented percentile adjustments. Surely the video's message is still true when we narrow it down to the who controls 42 percent of American Wealth?
Eldeecue 1 day ago
I like legos. Well now I have to become a libertarian.
ZombiBuddy 2 days ago
I love this channel and most rational thinking people would agree with it. But the top 20% is not contributing to the problems in the news today. It's not even the top 1%. It is the top .01%. Run the same formula for inequality not against the top 20% but the 99.99% vs .01%.
wingman2k 2 days ago
how did you account for inflation?
KingOfTheEstate 2 days ago in playlist Favorites
I watched a bunch of other videos from this organization and i noticed this video had a much higher percentage of dislikes. i could be wrong but i feel like people think that this organization in this video is trying to attack the poor's position. this video is merely trying to show how this particular fact might not be entirely true. I'm kinda sad that people would be so adverse to simple information, even if one disagrees with this, the video doesn't make grandiose claims just analyzes data.
TheHeterosapien 2 days ago
@TheHeterosapien the data this guy uses is completely wrong because it doesn't factor in inflation. Also why he didn't include more recent data is also questionable. The fact that people start off poor and get wealthier over time is an important fact, but he doesn't apply this to the already wealthy who will gain a far amount more in the same amount of time.
MrFORDE69 2 days ago
I would like data from 2001, 2008, and 2012 please. Though it may not seem like it, the 90's were very much a different era.
OnlyBrainLeft 3 days ago
exactly right, most liberals that complain that they are poor are young and have no priorities. big screen TV's, high speed internet, full satellite, etc. when i move out, i dont plan on expecting to make what my parents make, hell, when i was young my family was poor as shit, used to have to buy broken cans of food to eat. now my family is in the top tax bracket. thats just life.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 3 days ago
@LearnLiberty You realize that it's 2011 not 1991? Your data smells of cherry picking.
kaanatakan 3 days ago 2
As a graduate from LSE, I can say that this man is dead wrong. According to data, the top 1% of income earners, on both sides of the Atlantic, have been held by the same families for the past 200 years. There have been instances where there is some wealth mobility, but it is a short-term event.
EnhancedImagination 4 days ago
Thanks for the so-called factual "data" from the 1980s!
NormalStreet 4 days ago 7
@LearnLiberty
And by the way, there's no way these facts are accurate.
The CBO showed that for 30 years, the bottom 20% had income growth of 18%, while the top 1% made an income growth of 275%.
The same study showed there was almost no movement in income brackets.
And oh look, a study done by done by Pew, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute showed that we're actually had an DOWNWARD mobility.
AndroidPolitician 5 days ago 6
@AndroidPolitician cite your sources, please
MrHamncheez 4 days ago
disabled people never get out of their conditions of Hell.
returnoftheramble 5 days ago
there are perks to being poor. I went through Hell growing up having to do things blatantly against my interests. Since I'm young, my works sucked and will always suck.
returnoftheramble 5 days ago
2011 data doesn't even compare to data from 1991 - shit was a lot better back in 1991! This guy has his head up his ass...
TheBasementAtheist 5 days ago
the rich get richer and the poor get CHILDREN
brightstars369 5 days ago
@silljols, you may want to watch the video again, especially the first part. Also, the 400 richest have more "money" than the lower 95%? Really, you want to give us the numbers that support this? And by "money" do you actually mean "wealth"? Having an asset isn't the same thing as having it's value in a checking account. No doubt, a wealthy person can afford more than most people, but you should really be more careful when posting.
adamas1971 1 week ago
@Irod, while "most" of those who lost their job may still be jobless, "most" (your word, not mine), meaning over 50%, are not homeless. Please think a little longer before posting.
adamas1971 1 week ago
Justatadpole, nope it isn't, that's a completely separate question and discussion. A very large majority of those "losing" their home did because they were no longer able, for any number of reasons, to continue their payments.
adamas1971 1 week ago
@jigfun, and I forgot that you might want to look at the nominal figures he uses, they can very easily be adjusted for inflation. However, maybe you discovered after posting that the same is true for each income group, so the conclusion will be exactly the same once you adjust for inflation. It changes nothing.
adamas1971 1 week ago
@jigfun, so we should listen to someone (you) that throws out ideas without any numbers, or facts of any sort, and ignore the one who is making an informed argument based on statistics and reasoning? Interesting.
adamas1971 1 week ago
@popp, you're correct that he's right, however, he isn't missing anything in regards to certain minority groups since that is a completely different question, which no doubt has a completely different set of issues that need to be looked at when discussing it.
adamas1971 1 week ago
Is this why so many people are losing their homes?
JustATadpole 1 week ago
This guy is right but he did not account for the hood or poor black or spanish neighboorhoods. They stay poor.
popp119 1 week ago
This guy doesn't account for inflation, and he is lumping people that are poor when they are young, go to college, and then become middle class with acctual poor people in the slums, ghettos, and trailer parks. These people are working 60 hours a week with two jobs and making pennies compared to most. They are stuck and their children are stuck. Look at reality not some asshole flipping out figures that don't mean anything.
jjgfun 1 week ago
so smart
pjerry72 1 week ago in playlist Favorites
It also should be put into consideration is the rising cost of living in this country. Sure, their overall income is slightly higher than it was in the seventies, but food costs a lot more now too. So do cars, homes, gas, electricity, and just about everything else. The percentage of the county below the poverty line has increased (ever so slightly, but increased) in the past thirty years.
Also, since when are political/opinionated views and videos on the top of EVERY "related videos" column?
PinballWizard249 1 week ago in playlist Favorites
HAHAHA, $54000 for a household puts you in the top 20%? geezus, that makes me a regular bill gates!
Slashn64 1 week ago in playlist Favorites
The definition of socialism is government , instead of the free market controlling prices , (which leads , obviously, to a government monopoly) republicans need to stick to this issue and no other , ending subsidies, bailouts, tax credits,incentives,deductions, and worst of all Market orders "national reserves" etc. cheaper socialism is still socialism, less intrusive, or nicer socialism or state level , or republican controlled socialism is still socialism.
halloranedward 1 week ago
He left out the fact that most people who fell into the "poor" category in 2007 were, and since the recession of 2008, maybe still to this day in 2012 are still HOMELESS AND JOBLESS
lrod312 1 week ago
what about the fact that income inequality is the highest its ever been? what about the fact that the bottom 50% of Americans only own 2.5% of the total assets of America? what about the fact that the wealthiest 400 people have more money than the bottom 95% of Americans combined? isn't this a problem?
silljos1 1 week ago
The point about the size of the pie makes no sense. It isn't a point about the disparity in the quality of life between a few decades ago and now, it is ABSOLUTELY about the fact that more of the country's wealth and therefore means of production and economic control are being seized by the upper crust wealthy aristocrats and conned from the working class. I would also press you to speak about what is happening to the middle class in America since that is far more relevant in these times.
becanshrman 1 week ago
Free people are NEVER equal economically.
Equal people are NEVER free.
NAGGERNUTZ 1 week ago
1461 people didn't notice that the professor didn't answer the question. (Who cares about the nineties?)
AmbientSmiley 1 week ago
i liek legos
ICANSEEMATUREVIDSNOW 1 week ago
The problem with this argument is that while the poor are having an increase in income, prices are rising faster then their income. The rich are not as effected by inflation as poor people and sometimes even benefit from it. Government rigged price indices don't show any inflation, but any common man can see it when they buy food or gas. A gallon of gas is still a silver dime, as it always has been.
ltajambi 1 week ago 2
@ltajambi, price of what is increase fast? Houses? NO! Food? NO! Computers? NO! Cars? Only if you buy a new one! Wake up!
ndyt 1 week ago
I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. But if we continue to keep getting more and more "pizza" as a group, why should the poor keep getting a smaller and smaller slice by percentage, even if it is physically bigger?
ZigZagzGoon 1 week ago
@ZigZagzGoon the "poor" are getting smaller AS a group at least with a fixed definition, the poor from 50 years ago were much much worse than the poor in this day and age. the definition of poor is always rising! hell, most in (middle class) america are living like the nobles of the past, the rich like kings and emperors! point is, yes there are still poor but there are less of them, statistically with fixed wealth as a variable with inflation! we lower the standard of what is poor
Gunnarr123abc 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZigZagzGoon "why should the poor keep getting a smaller and smaller slice by %, even if it's bigger?" I'd venture it's perhaps because the the lowest skilled/able attract the lower pay grades (supply/demand) so do not move up the pay grades, 'poor' is relative, and the overall 'country earnings pizza' grows (as a nation evolves from an industrial to an information economy?). In addition, wage fixing slows or even halts employment of the very low-skilled.
jontycampbell 1 week ago
DUDE LOOK AT THE SIDE OF YOUR HEAD, YOU BOLD! GET A WIG BRO.
ENDAMERICASOON 1 week ago
Lets see if he has the balls to walk into a homeless shelter and say dont worry guys your all getting richer than the social elite.
Flimsii 1 week ago
yea not buying your argument...
therealallpro 1 week ago
+1 for using LEGO to explain economics!
XCritonX 1 week ago
This guy is a complete bullshitter. In 1972 the average U.S. worker made $10/hour, and a typical house cost $25,000 (income=80% of the price of a house). Now, the average worker in the U.S. makes $11/hour and the average house is $350,000 (income=6.3% of the price of a house). The poor are much poorer now than ever - just fuck'n admit asshole!
VeryHugeAss 1 week ago
Comment removed
Shamaho0 1 week ago
Listen up people. If you cannot tell that this is just a propaganda channel for libertarian policies then I feel sorry for you. You will not get the truth. Instead you will get pieces of information to believe into the libertarian way of thinking.
AlexSpartan 1 week ago in playlist Favorites 2
how much stuff could you buy for average monthly paycheck in 1950 and how much can you buy today?
andipat100 1 week ago
Let me just add that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE POOR. I didn't care about "them" when I was poor. I only cared about dragging myself out of being poor, and that's why I am no longer poor. Indeed, even "the poor" don't care about the poor. As Ayn Rand said, the best thing you can do for humanity is do for yourself. Politicians and political activists use "The Poor" as a stepping stone. No poor = one less stepping stone. More poor = greater stepping stone.
HomelessOnline 2 weeks ago
I can personally attest to this. Single-parent family of 6 kids, on welfare, poor like "hope-they-don't-shut-off-the-electricity" poor. Food stamps, WIC, welfare check, gubmint cheese, church handouts, 4 to a bedroom poor. 4 out of 6 of us are no longer poor. Not even close. None of us have a degree. The other 2 fk'd off every opportunity and stayed poor. 1 of those is just now figuring out he wasn't destined to be poor, but in fact chose that path, and is now working on changing that.
HomelessOnline 2 weeks ago 17
@HomelessOnline amen good for you and your family.. America is a great place..
SuperGuitarman69 6 days ago
So, poor people don't often stay poor, but there are plenty of new poor to take their places as they work their way into less-poor strata. I'm not as poor as my parents, so I guess that makes sense.
Danarchistic1 2 weeks ago
That is only one way of looking at it.
HalfStarFilms 2 weeks ago
top 1% of americans increased income over 275% after taxes(4 times more than the rest of the top 20%),middle class had a 40% increase, the poor had a 18% increase, between years 1979-2007...(inflation adjusted)...according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. My opinion is everyone is getting richer but do to inflation and cost of living....i lost my train of thought.
rezolution5 2 weeks ago
@rezolution5 oh wait i didnt see your second post, you understand that ha
Gunnarr123abc 2 weeks ago
wait 54k a year is rich?
rezolution5 2 weeks ago
@rezolution5 yes it is, at least on a world standpoint. it is very good. But besides that, it was just the average of the top 20%
Gunnarr123abc 2 weeks ago
551 people aren't interested in facts.
WalterLiddy 2 weeks ago 47
@WalterLiddy @LearnLiberty
The only people not interested in facts are the people that made this video.
In absolute terms we are in fact poorer.
Real wages were higher in the 1970s then they are today. That means, even adjusting for stagflation, people got paid more money 30 years ago then today.
For anyone that was working, and not just minimum wage but working, 30 years ago are you telling me you got better off today?
AndroidPolitician 5 days ago 5
@AndroidPolitician cite your sources, please. In the 1970s we had cars that got crappy milage and would kill you in a 30 mph crash. No cell phones. No GPS. No internet. No cancer treatments. No Viagra. Do you really want to go back to that time? I guess the music was a lot better, and George Lucas hadn't discovered CGI yet. Those things were better.
MrHamncheez 4 days ago
@MrHamncheez
Real wage data can be found here is(.)gd/9nYnDY (remove parentheses).
I want to make the point that standard of living is different than wages and isn't relevant here, like, no one today is hoping for holograms and for 50% of the population to be in poverty.
That aside, where do you think GPS, Internet, Satellites etc. came from? It came from the government.
AndroidPolitician 4 days ago
@AndroidPolitician It is true, global communication technology came from ICBMs, the Internet is the child of DARPANET, and GPS was first developed for the Navy. However, it is rash to say with certainty that they would not have developed in absence of government funds. Also, look at what part of government created these technologies: the Military.
MrHamncheez 3 days ago
@MrHamncheez
It most likely would not have, just look at today, do you see companies spending billions of dollars on particle accelerators? The only reason the economy could function the way it does is because of government.
It doesn't have to be the military, for instance in Japan the MITI just directly tells which company will research what instead of indirectly from the military like in the US.
AndroidPolitician 1 day ago
@WalterLiddy I am a libertarian, but he did not metion whether or not he accounted for inflation, so he may or may not be skewing facts.
andrewfink1 3 days ago
The pizza argument is worthless because it doesn't take into account the rise in costs of living. Would you rather have 1/6 of a small pizza as a child, when it doesn't take a lot of food to feel "full"? Or would you rather have 1/9 of a larger pizza as an adult, when it takes a great deal more food to feel "full"?
Greggor88 2 weeks ago
@Greggor88 Thank you so much for the reminder on that point, I KNEW there was something wrong here. I'm gonna have inflation tattooed on my arm so I don't forget it.(hyperbole, but still)
helios5868 2 weeks ago
Needed more recent data.
MrFreddieBurgoyne 2 weeks ago
Hum.. what he failed to mention is the inflation rates, witch is vital to understand how much money is actually worth. Putting up numbers between 20 years doesn't mean anything. You have to have some kind of comparison. I bet in next 20y the "poor" will have much higher income (in numbers) than us. But it doesn't mean that they have higher living standards.
icchiism 2 weeks ago
@icchiism Except that his primary argument doesn't rely on this. Mobility in income level IS relevant. He's not just saying the poor today have more money than they used to. He's saying they're not the same people that used to be poor.
WalterLiddy 2 weeks ago
@icchiism It actually does mean they have higher living standards according to the numbers there. Right now you are also assuming it is not adjusted to inflation. But besides all of that, whether adjusted or not, the poorest 20% are having their salaries increase more then the top 20% as an average, and inflation cannot change this, you would need 2,300% inflation over 16 years to validate your premise that the poor are not better off between the two years.
Gunnarr123abc 2 weeks ago
this video is bullshit. typical example of using data to enforce one's biased opinion.
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit... As opposed to making a biased opinion not using data? Where is your data to show that this video is incorrect (seriously, I would like to know)?
Klarkedude 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit Yes, you see, in science when one's opinion (hypothesis) uses data to prove the opinion, then it becomes fact (scientific theory).
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223 derp when it comes to economics, it's not a hard science. and have you ever heard that data can be manipulated to support a skewed point of view? he's using data that doesnt apply now
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit Well, you could have avoided the argumentum ad hominem before and put in the actual objection to the data, as you objected to his point of view before and not the data. The only reason economics isn't a "hard science" is because the logical fallacies made by Keynesian economics used today.
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223 you're a fool. friedman has had great influence on american policy, and guess what, genius, he didn't have everything neatly packaged into a scientific theory, either. and i am 100% sure that you have a trifling understanding of keynesian economics. your view point has been manufactured by right-wing think-tanks. you just ape what you have heard that fits in with your beliefs.
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit And back to ad hominem, one might think someone could not hide valid argument in personal attack, assuming there's valid argument. Friedman wasn't Keynesian and clearly libertarian. Advocated free markets, criticized the feds position over monetary policy and worked for Reagan. And you say how dare I hold truthful principles over the economy, how dare I. Before I was libertarian I was liberal and guess what? My beliefs changed according to clear logical argument, no indoctrination.
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223 and my point is friedman hasn't proved himself correct, either. and your phrase 'truthful principles over the economy' is stilted language. and there are no free markets. back to the proposition of this video: the rich ARE getting richer and the poor poorer. thats a fact
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blastsummit You need to explain further, when you say correct it sounds like you're talking about morally correct. For example, when interest rates go down, gold correlates up, that is factual. Whether it's a correct thing morally or not is decided by human perception, like yours on Friedman. "there are no free markets" see Hong Kong. I agree to an extent the poor are getting poorer, because of quantitative easing (more money, more that can be grabbed by the wealthy).
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223
Friedman working for Reagon says it all to be honest.
Here's a decent article showing how protectionist Reagon was:
Ronald Reagan: Protectionist
by Sheldon L. Richman (this is available online so google it; apologies, for some reason I cannot post the link)
Friedman's support for Reagon means Friedman was either unprincipled or blind to what Reagon actually did (putting aside the media concocted Reagon myth).
QuickNickHeidfeld 2 weeks ago
@QuickNickHeidfeld First I'd like to say Friedman worked under him, not as an equal therefore his voice in matters may not have projected. Second, Reagan (Not "Reagon") was indeed a hypercrit, this was due to the obvious cooperate ear-piece.
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223
Friedman: 'Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market.' That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
QuickNickHeidfeld 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMAN123223
Friedman: 'Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market.' That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
QuickNickHeidfeld 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMAN123223
Friedman: 'Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market.' That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
QuickNickHeidfeld 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMAN123223
Friedman: Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market. That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate" :).
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
QuickNickHeidfeld 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMAN123223
Friedman: Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market. That's not exactly criticism.
Also in relation to spelling, hypocrite not "hypercrit" and corporate not "cooperate".
I'm not Friedman's biggest fan though I find some of his attitudes quite sensisble. However, I cannot understand his support for Reagan who has been considered the most protectionistic president since Hoover (others say more so than all post war presidents combined).
QuickNickHeidfeld 2 weeks ago
The Data used is almost 2 decades old, which makes me skeptical of the claims made in this video which is related to 2011.
LordDirk 3 weeks ago
@LordDirk keep in mind the recession, but the tendency is still true today. It also offers a link with more data up until 2005 that would be more current.
490310001 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so households where poor, now they are not, means they are rich?
i doesn't like how he thinks what "rich" people are.... (thats the 1% and not the 20% of the wealthiest)
SuperEliteboy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
SuperEliteboy 3 weeks ago
I'm curios of how inflation would effect the statistics that he presented.
craigsetf 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
@craigsetf i'm sure that was taken into account, but if it wasn't inflation hasn't gone up so much to make $1,000 the same as $28,000
490310001 3 weeks ago
I wonder if liberals overt their eyes when the truth is in front of them. It’s always been my theory that liberals simply don’t understand math, and I’m sure that’s true for most, but some just try to skew it to fit their agenda. Obama thinks everyone is stupid and will listen to his claims without finding the facts. When you look at groups like OWS and posts here you have to wonder if he is right.
kuhioffxi 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kuhioffxi
I wonder if conservitives overt their eyes when the truth is in front of them. It’s always been my theory that conservatives simply don’t understand math, and I’m sure that’s true for most, but some just try to skew it to fit their agenda. GOP thinks everyone is stupid and will listen to his claims without finding the facts. When you look at groups like Tea Party and posts here you have to wonder if they is right.
henleythecat 3 weeks ago
Yay, so by the time I'm 40, I'll be earning the money that I needed right now! :D
Densoro 3 weeks ago
And why does his data stop at 1991?
Cherry picking the data are we?
henleythecat 3 weeks ago 3
@henleythecat The study stopped.
XCRunner88 3 weeks ago
@XCRunner88 "The study stopped." at 1991
Cherry picking the study are we?
henleythecat 3 weeks ago
@henleythecat See, when funding for a study runs out, the study itself ceases. Perhaps you need to get a basic grasp of how real money works. And though the study stops at 1991, it is yet more than the evidence you present to counter his argument.
XCRunner88 3 weeks ago
@henleythecat the study STOPPED, there was no way of knowing the economic situation ahead, so the fact that it stopped shows no bias, besides the early 90s were a minor recession, the economy got better, therefore no bias is evident.
akallstar5 3 weeks ago
@akallstar5 No bias... WTF?
The vid was posted Feb 2011 using data that stopped in 1995 and you are calming that there is no bias? If that is correct, it is also misleading and irrelevant given that they are making a argument today with no data for the last 16 years!!
Are you fucking brainwashed?
henleythecat 3 weeks ago
@henleythecat What leads to you believe that the patterns presented in the video about 1986-1995 suddenly reversed themselves? Are you trying to claim that in today's economy, young and uneducated workers do not comprise the vast majority of poor people, and that in today's economy, poor people have little no income mobility?
Anyways, there's a comment in the video that links to data for 1996-2005 (they do 10-year studies so that's the best you can get).
HeyItzMeDawg 2 weeks ago
@HeyItzMeDawg "What leads to you believe that the patterns presented in the video about 1986-1995 suddenly reversed..."
I am not making any assumptions on what happened after 1995. But I think it is misleading to make the assumptions they are making today, using data that old when there is a wealth if more recent data available from other sources.
IMHO, this is not a educational piece, but a manipulative opinion piece pretending to be education.
henleythecat 2 weeks ago
there are alot of poor people who arent even counted in the census and what about the people who live off the grid who classify themselves as rich meaning they have enough food to eat, their children are safe at home, etc while the government lists thems as poor?
mayflowerstein 3 weeks ago
The first statistic he gives is deceiving: in 2007 (a more recent date) the richest 20% of all Americans own 93% of the total wealth. If you look at social mobility the U.S. ranks dead last behind many other developed countries. And all this talk about "oh the poor can afford computers which means they're not poor," it's because computers are cheaper, not because people are making more. The average cost of a computer in the 1990's was $1000-$2000, now it's around $500.
wangsta25 3 weeks ago
@wangsta25 ""it's because computers are cheaper, not because people are making more."
show me statistics that say the median salary of poor individuals stays the same or goes down over time. This guy showed 2 studies that claim your statement is absolutely false, including one that said poor people made an increase of more than 20,000$ over 20 years of their life.
poonhounds2 3 weeks ago
@wangsta25 If computers are cheap then it means the purchasing power of a poor person is better than what it was. So poor people are better off.
If the cost of living halves and wages stayed similar everyone is richer, including the poor.
N330AA 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love the number of fuck-offs who don't even mention the name of a paper in which what is said in the video is contradicted. They use maybe half the charter count to say this man in lying or being misleading and then don't offer any proof of the claim. They say it is out of date even tough their is an annotation in the video of more recent data (up to 2005) showing the same trend of households in the lower quintile moving to a higher quintile.Meaning they moved up in relation to the median.
frostedpornflakes 3 weeks ago
I love the number of fuck-offs who don't even mention the name of a paper in which what is said in the video is contradicted. They use maybe half the charter count to say this man in lying or being misleading and then don't offer any proof of the claim. They say it is out of date even tough their is an annotation in the video of more recent data (up to 2005) showing the same trend of households in the lower quintile moving to a higher quintile.Meaning they moved up in relation to the median.
frostedpornflakes 3 weeks ago
As a question of economic mobility, trying to look at is without a comparison is always difficult. But what does XX% that where poor became rich mean? Is that good or bad? Compared to what? The reasonable thing to do is to compare the US economic mobility against other similar countries, mostly the EU. This would be the same we would do on education or healthcare. The 2004 Corak study compare the US to 8 others and the US got 8th place, with only the UK doing slightly worse.
Loathomar 4 weeks ago
I wonder how much money this guy got for this ? All i know for sure is that this guy definitely got richer ;)
muchookees 4 weeks ago
@muchookees Classic brain-dead occutard response. "Who's paying you!?"
HamsterFueledRocket 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
@HamsterFueledRocket
you are quite naive aren't you ?
muchookees 3 weeks ago
@muchookees Sure hon, and you've got it all figured out.
HamsterFueledRocket 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
muchookees 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElasticGiraffe It gets negative ratings because some viewers are smart enough to know better. This data doesn't bear one jot on the current economic crisis, and even then, it cherrypicks its data and skips back and forth between real income and inflation adjusted figures. Nor does it cite its data, because it would become clear that the methodology is off. This is hocus pocus, and you're falling for it. This guy is Austrian School econ - which is a joke for serious economists.
niclasjt 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
niclasjt 4 weeks ago
It's just like the bible. Just because it was data from a long time ago doesn't mean we are not dealing with it today, and that if we look back at it, we can fix what we are dealing with in our current time. I'm tired of seeing comments complaining that this data is old. Much data is old on the internet, and it still holds some truth. Yes, there a few flaws, but it doesn't make it totally untruthful.
UltimegaSeven 1 month ago
@UltimegaSeven You missed the point. Use the rest of your brain to expand your thought. They're using old data to refute a post-recession complaint. People are trying, if anything, to get back to the pre-80's system of financial checks and balances. This video doesn't address the problem in any sense, it skirts around it. This is called, even in economic circles, "being a douche."
niclasjt 4 weeks ago
@niclasjt I'm not a economist, but have taken several economics courses for my business degree, and that's exactly what I thought of this guy with his explanation. A douche. LOL! That that was very funny. Yeah this guy is over simplifying and being a douche. He's using positive economic principles (factual) mixing with a normative economics (opinion). At the same time using the factual logic that could be argued in contrary or support any economic and political regime.
jmitterii2 4 weeks ago
Cherrypicking. This is the feel-lucky-you-whining-poor-man approach to dealing with crisis. First, none of this data - and notice he doesn't cite his sources - accounts for fundamental changes like deregulation, manufacturing loss, union death, NAFTA, etc.. His figures cut out, without showing Americans that they're nearly back where they started. He then drops real income in favor of average non-inflation adjusted earnings to suggest change. This is smoke and mirrors economics discourse.
niclasjt 1 month ago
1975-1991 = Boom period. This data = useless.
XeutonMojukai 1 month ago
@XeutonMojukai Quick, someone gave me a 16 year span in which something contradictory to my world view occurred! Make up a reason to call it useless data.
The economy spent most the 1970s in a rut and their was a recession in the 80s. The data this man used spanned a fairly long time and was within recent history.
frostedpornflakes 3 weeks ago
@frostedpornflakes Word to the wise: confirmation bias goes both ways. Best way to avoid looking like you're taking advantage of it is to point it out when you give out info that furthers your cause.
XeutonMojukai 3 weeks ago
but that doesnt account for a lot of other things.... theres too much to say. You are ridiculous. hahaha this is so anti-socialist video hahahaha
arnojargueta 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@ElasticGiraffe It's because the occupiers have been getting on youtube.
woopsme 1 month ago
Finally someone with some sense. You should be president, that way you can systematically destroy anything else that liberals try to spout.
Tbone155817 1 month ago
@ElasticGiraffe This video is using outdated data. I think if you used todays data you would get a different result. The socialist policies of the Western nations have bankrupted them. Get used to ordinary people getting much poorer.
grantukip 1 month ago
did you guys account for inflation in the numbers
iv54 1 month ago
@ElasticGiraffe the video getting so many dislikes has nothing to do with his conclusions. Its more like that he himself uses methods that can be easily questioned and scrutinized. His main message might be right, but anyone who studied economics will agree that he omits lots of things in order to present the data the way he wants.
nrekk 1 month ago
This guy did not consider Inflation and his findings is bullshit because there is a lot of factors he is hiding.
aceone1988 1 month ago
so I guess it's all about time.
vonGleichenT 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Please this has to be true.
vonGleichenT 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
The 2005 info is promising. I'd be interested to see if the trend is still holding 6 years later. The economy has changed a bit in that time.
brento73 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
occupy wall st protesters are stupid. They do not realize that if CEO's lose their business then employees would be fired. no income means no money, no money means starvation and poverty for America.
If you complain about how much these CEO's are making, then make your own business and become a CEO, that way you can employ other people and probably make them a CEO too.
if the CEO's business fails a lot of people lose jobs. It's as simple as that. If a business id not making profit, we're F&*^%
j12torts 1 month ago in playlist (Political)
+1 for Brett Bretterson reference from homestarrunner.
davidb22585 1 month ago
Your data is so skewed. Blatant manipulation of facts. And how can you possibly justify using "1997," "1991," as your "today" data??? Stop trying to sell this BS as fact.
thefirstnodle 1 month ago
@thefirstnodle They gave more recent data, you're just too lazy to read or click.
piemonkey321 1 month ago
Infinate Growth is impossible
ImperatorZor 1 month ago
I think the most important fact here is that the Lego man's name is Brett Bretterson. Teen Girl Squad, anyone?
xBraincloudx 1 month ago 2
@xBraincloudx i'm glad i wasn't the only one that noticed that!! hahaha
jaysgottavtec 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In all this game, the devil is losing and at the end will be accused of everything because GOD don’t want any rivals. Conclusion: live at the full in the freedom of GOD (praying in a right form, following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible - keeping the 10 commandments - including keeping the Saturday as the 7th day etc.) instead of in the incapacity and limited power of devil because he is just a temporary puppet. Jesus Christ is the savior and hope.
diptdipt 1 month ago
Did this study take into account inflation?
ImAznnn 1 month ago
@ElasticGiraffe i think its because most people probably find it pointless because its not a updated information he is using information before the recession this is from 2011
the info he should be using is comparing 1975 to 1997 to 2011 cause its a waste of time to learn about how things were in the past before the global economy changed drastically
JappyChan 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Yes! America as a whole is economically prosperous when it competes with the rest of the world. You're completely ignoring the actual implications of this data; that children within low-income America are losing resources to compete with other Americans. They can't choose what school to go to, they can't choose to live in a good neighborhood, they can't choose to see either of their parents for more than a few hours every day.
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Jeesh, a lot of poor people love to bitch in these comments.
trevor1787 1 month ago 6
Eh, it didn't really provide the cost of living of the poor and I'm pretty sure a bunch of various things also. It's skewed! Or at least, the study isn't complete...something's off and missing. I can't point my fingers on it really.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be richer within the next 10 years down if Im still paying off my college debt (particularly if you're an art major or something along those lines..)
frdrcksncn 1 month ago
@frdrcksncn If your liabilities go from -$80,000 to $0 over then next ten years, you got richer. Something you would know if you didn't blow huge sums of money on a useless art major.
TG1212able 1 month ago
@TG1212able Going from negative to nothing is not getting richer. It's an improvement, but it's not getting richer. The word "richer" would imply rich to begin with, with the definition of rich basically being an abundance of something (money, land, etc.). Negative $80,000 is not rich. $0 is not rich. Neither negative nor nothing constitute rich. I would know this even without my business degree.
BPKesq 1 month ago
@BPKesq Really? You can only get richer if you were rich to begin with? So if the temperature is 20 degrees, and in few hours its 30 degrees, it didn't get warmer? If I plant a tree and today its 2 feet tall, and in a year its 5 feet tall, it didn't get "taller"? If I'm riding the break at 3 mph, and then accelerate to 10 mph, I am not going "faster"? 0 isn't greater than -20?
You really are a dumb motherfucker. How can somebody be as stupid as you and not have choked on their shoelaces?
TG1212able 1 month ago
@TG1212able Yes, you can only get richer if you were rich to begin with. A tree that was two feet "tall" that grows to five feet "tall" has gotten taller, because is already had height (how tall it is) to begin with.
What's the root word of richer? Rich! Just like dumb is the root word of dumber. I'll use it in a sentence. TG1212able proved he was dumb when he said someone was rich for having gone from negative to nothing, but now he has proven he's even dumber by using bad analogies.
BPKesq 1 month ago
@BPKesq Wealth isn’t just about the assets you have. Its not just the possessions. It’s a duality between one’s assets and liabilities. Getting $10 in assets is the same as losing $10 of liabilities. When wealth increases, you become richer. In terms of wealth, paying off $80k in debt is the same as getting $80k. You seem to be relying on some dictionary definition of the word ‘rich’ so you can play your semantics game instead of the practical meaning of the word. Only an asshole would do that.
TG1212able 1 month ago
@TG1212able No need to get your panties in a twist.A decreasing liability is a good thing, but going from negative worth to zero worth is simply not getting richer. It's going from indebtedness to broke. Now, going from broke to abundance would be getting rich. Going from abundance to more abundance is getting richer. I don't know of anyone who, in practical terms, would think they were getting richer by merely paying off their debts.
BPKesq 1 month ago
@BPKesq If that's your pedantic view on the word 'richer' then whatever. I will continue to be like most people and consider 'richer' as generally being an increase in one's financial state. On another point, no one goes from paying off student loans to zero. Those student loans paid for something, a college education, which is an intangible asset that sticks with you. Once you pay off your loans, you are up the education over your prior position.
TG1212able 1 month ago
The fact that everyone giving the video a "Thumbs Down" wouldn't be able to do so if they were getting "poorer" is evidence of Marxist indoctrination in public schools and colleges.
If the "poor are getting poorer" then by now the internet would be the exclusive domain of "Richers."
thomaserossi 1 month ago 11
@thomaserossi Yes because the internet and electricity are scarce resources, and to own either is the true mark of affluence. Or perhaps the ones clicking dislike are those who indeed are better off, and realize the growing disparity in income. Either way, that statement is inane
IllegalAmigo07 1 month ago
@thomaserossi Not at all. People working away their entire existence at Foxconn allow "poor" Americans to have computers.
mataka47 1 month ago
@thomaserossi The wicked take the truth to be hard.
chaz706 1 month ago
@thomaserossi I've known of homeless people who have had access to the internet through public libraries or by retaining a laptop as one of their few possessions and utilizing random,wi-fi hot spots.
Then again,who am I to try and shatter your view of yourself as some rugged,Randian individualist struggling against the deluge of public educated, Marxist robots.
Shemywinks 1 month ago
@thomaserossi Technological innovation, development, and profusion doesn't have anything to do with poverty. A person can be poor - but have a fridge and car - both once tech wonders. It's relative. The complaint many Americans have is that they're more productive workers than they've ever been, but they're losing their jobs, or getting their pay slashed - while taxes are still lower in relative terms for the wealthy. No one is pining for life in an Indian slum.
niclasjt 4 weeks ago
@thomaserossi You can spin your stuff as much as you like. The fact is we are wealthier only because of hydrocarbon inventions. Take that away and we all die, we have to high a population without hydrocarbons. It has little to do with any economic system. And I have to tell you I know lots of old people and young alike eating cat food, dog food, and if lucky roman noodles. Its about the same. Other than social security has helped many not be out on the streets.
jmitterii2 4 weeks ago