upvote

points

by scottyah1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby saghm1 days ago|
next
[-]
How do you know that you're not the one hanging around the "wrong people" to know better? You could just as easily be surrounding yourself with wealthy people as they could be with non-wealthy.

Without data, it just sounds like "my social circle is more indicative of reality than yours". Maybe it is! But maybe not, so it's not particularly convincing

reply
upvoteby scottyah1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I'm not the only one with access to data though, if you're wanting to hold to your beliefs unless someone does the legwork for you and attempts to force it on you, I think your bias will overcome. Here is a source to begin anyway.

The middle class (especially upper middle) saw their share of income drop, but the bottom 50% increased.

https://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-income-data-for-2024-shows-t...

reply
upvoteby dfxm121 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The bottom 50% saw a 0.2% increase (to just 21%) over 5 years. OK, this is technically more, but it is a paltry increase of a tiny base spread out across so many people. It is reasonably seemingly imperceivable to any individual in the group. The top 10%'s increase, on the other hand, was greater than this. A greater percentage increase on a slice of pie that was almost twice as big. In the larger context, this just shows greater inequality.

If people are saying they feel the squeeze, even in social media comments, they are probably being honest.

reply
upvoteby MintPaw1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Data is the answer, it's just that so few people are willing to look at unbiased data. Although the start is asking a more measurable question.
reply
upvoteby kudokatz1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
some maybe-biased data for a steel man in [1]:

"The Census Bureau measure overstates current income inequality between the highest and lowest 20% of earners by more than 300% and claims that income inequality has risen by 21% since 1967, when in fact it has fallen by 3% ... In 2017, among working-age households, the bottom 20% earned only $6,941 on average, and only 36% were employed. But after transfer payments and taxes, those households had an average income of $48,806. The average working-age household in the second quintile earned $31,811 and 85% of them were employed. But after transfers and taxes, they had income of $50,492, a mere 3.5% more than the bottom quintile."

[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/income-equality-not-inequality-i...

reply
upvoteby roughly1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Data is also a really, really potent rhetorical tool, because it is definitionally never complete (a map that fully captures a territory is the territory), and by those omissions, the data can be made to say anything at all in a way that looks unbiased.
reply
upvoteby saghm1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What's the question I should be asking, and what data answers it? I'm genuinely asking
reply
upvoteby MintPaw1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not you particularly, I meant the original: "it feels like every share of income is at its lowest except for the ultra wealthy."

It's ambiguous in several way, no time scale, "ultra wealthy" isn't defined, and "income" somewhat ambiguous.

reply
upvoteby logicchains1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Median household income is the stat usually used to measure income and it's still increasing.
reply
upvoteby roughly1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
If my income goes up by 1% and my expenses go up by 2%, has my financial situation improved?
reply
upvoteby contagiousflow1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Source for this statistically?
reply
upvoteby scottyah1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
https://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-income-data-for-2024-shows-t...

Bottom 50% is increasing income with the top 10%, it's the middle class that's declining in the last 5 years. This was a quick google search, so I'll ask you to provide a source that's contrary else your comment was purely rhetorical and made in bad faith.

reply
upvoteby contagiousflow1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Well I would implore you to read your own source. And maybe start hanging around groups that read more
reply
upvoteby scottyah1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
With two attacks on my character and a demonstrated lack of reading comprehension later, how much better do you feel?
reply
upvoteby shimman1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There is but you have to ignore the lived reality that Americans are struggling to afford healthcare, housing, utilities, education, and food costs all while the ultra wealthy are demanding the public invests trillions into vaporware.
reply
upvoteby gegtik1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
maybe the disconnect here is the claim was about 'income' which in isolation of living conditions, perhaps continues to rise and thus by the most narrow and useless definition, the OP is incorrect
reply
upvoteby shimman1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Things barely increasing after nearly 40+ years of being completely flat isn't the win that poster thinks it is, maybe if you're doped up on neoliberalism it sounds nice but everything else people need to survive are also increasing in costs massively.
reply
upvoteby 1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply