...and I would like to see evidence supporting or, preferrably, destroying this statement, so I can either know something new or shove it down the ignorant's throat. Unfortunately, I don't know where to start searching, and I am wondering if perhaps I can get a link or name to start reading.
The expanded version of what the hell I'm talking about:
So there's this guy who's a friend of a friend of mine. He said that the economical situation in America is like a diamond; there's the 1% at the top, the very rich; there's the middle class, which comprises the most people; and then there's the poor, at the bottom, another 1%. This guy is pretty okay, but every time I listen to him talk for an extended period of time he says something completely ignorant, but I don't have citations on me, so instead of correcting him with data all I can basically say is "Nuh uh!" and it aggravates me to be so ignorant myself.
It's just a hope that someone can point me in the right direction and I'm not expecting anything, I'm just hopeless at researching is all.
It's a diamond only if you accept an arrow-shaped object as meeting the definition for "diamond" http://www.businessinsider.com/the-tax-debate-about-5-of-us-households-2012-12
well, the inverted triangle in wealth distribution is a common thing amongst many countries, be it 1st or third world, it doesnt really matter... theres only very few niche countries in which inequality isnt as bad.
imsuppose the ideal distribution in equality would resemble a pyramid, but im not holding my breath...
basicly the X axis is total capital, and the Y axis is the social hierarchy.... and the total population isnt directly shown in those types of charts, but its generally known that lower hierarchies are more populous...
so if its wider at the top, it implies more capital, and since its up high, its very few people possessing it... that reflects how about how 80% of riches are in possession by 10% of the wealthy population... and by contrast, how the remaining 20% of riches is fought over by 90% of the population
Not a shape, but this should give you a better idea of what shape it would be:
(http://i.imgur.com/1uJ1aPB.jpg?1)
That graph feels like it's missing a "What it will become" line. With more austerity on the horizon the non-yellow sections are just going to get smaller.
Don't say too much or the job creators will get upset.
So, the argument is that the majority of Americans are middle class, and the very poor and very rich have a low population?
I did some poking around, and it turns out to be a fairly tricky question to answer accurately. First off, there's no commonly agreed-to definition of what "middle class" means, in regards to income. Because of this, your friend's friend can shape his argument however he pleases.
Also, lots of people like to call themselves middle class, which means the range could be anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000. So it seems the actual question itself may be meaningless, because "middle class" appears to be a social construct, rather than an economic one.
Then you have the problem of families. A $50,000 income is pretty good for an individual. But each added dependent changes how we see that income.
But let's go on. Let's say in 2002 (where I'm getting these numbers) an individual income of $50,000 could widely be agreed to as "middle class" in most parts of the country. And let's top it out at $100,000. That sounds fair, right? Ok, let's go to the numbers:
http://commadot.com/income-breakdown-in-us/
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7r4socqnfwM/UswGZOaSWXI/AAAAAAAAA50/kjkiYTdFpA4/w655-h428-no/Inequality%252C+real.JPG)
Looks to me like there are 92.5 Million people living below middle class, 26.6 Million firmly in the middle class, and 10.8 Million above middle class. Which ain't no diamond, it's a pyramid.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on January 07, 2014, 03:38:02 AM
So there's this guy who's a friend of a friend of mine. He said that the economical situation in America is like a diamond; there's the 1% at the top, the very rich; there's the middle class, which comprises the most people; and then there's the poor, at the bottom, another 1%.
Your friend is ignorant.
Well sure, that's the easy way to answer it... :lol:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 08:13:44 PM
Well sure, that's the easy way to answer it... :lol:
Beer. It cuts to the chase.
Also, I was driving on the autobahn today at 250 KPH, while everyone else in the car made this weird keening noise. The whole time. As a result, I do not have to tolerate pobuckers like Freaky's pal making dumb fucking comments that are neither factually correct nor even entertaining.
This ain't a jab at Freaky. Her instincts were to not believe his shit, so she isn't responsible.
That's like 72 leagues per hour! Kickass!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 08:25:30 PM
That's like 72 leagues per hour! Kickass!
The cars ahead of you get really big really fast sometimes. So you jam two lanes over, hit the gas, and howl like a banshee.
But the other 3 guys say I can't drive anymore. :sad:
You best have been howling with laughter non stop the whole way.
It's the only way to drive on the Autobahn.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 07, 2014, 08:31:14 PM
You best have been howling with laughter non stop the whole way.
It's the only way to drive on the Autobahn.
Actually, it was sort of an "YARGANARG!" sort of thing. Howls of triumph, diminished only by the fact that I was driving a French car.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 07, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 08:25:30 PM
That's like 72 leagues per hour! Kickass!
The cars ahead of you get really big really fast sometimes. So you jam two lanes over, hit the gas, and howl like a banshee.
But the other 3 guys say I can't drive anymore. :sad:
They are, quite obviously, lying through their teeth and must be educated. Play the "trip leader" (or whatever the title is) card and educate them all the way to peeing themselves. For management-science or some bullshit :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 07, 2014, 08:33:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 07, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 08:25:30 PM
That's like 72 leagues per hour! Kickass!
The cars ahead of you get really big really fast sometimes. So you jam two lanes over, hit the gas, and howl like a banshee.
But the other 3 guys say I can't drive anymore. :sad:
They are, quite obviously, lying through their teeth and must be educated. Play the "trip leader" (or whatever the title is) card and educate them all the way to peeing themselves. For management-science or some bullshit :evil:
Way ahead of you. I have the keys. Either I drive, or we all walk.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 07, 2014, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on January 07, 2014, 03:38:02 AM
So there's this guy who's a friend of a friend of mine. He said that the economical situation in America is like a diamond; there's the 1% at the top, the very rich; there's the middle class, which comprises the most people; and then there's the poor, at the bottom, another 1%.
Your friend is ignorant.
Not my friend, although he's okay when he isn't spouting such obvious bullshit.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 07, 2014, 03:52:02 AM
It's a diamond only if you accept an arrow-shaped object as meeting the definition for "diamond" http://www.businessinsider.com/the-tax-debate-about-5-of-us-households-2012-12
This is helpful as hell...
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2014, 08:53:03 AM
Not a shape, but this should give you a better idea of what shape it would be:
(http://i.imgur.com/1uJ1aPB.jpg?1)
...especially when paired with this.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 01:59:06 PM
So, the argument is that the majority of Americans are middle class, and the very poor and very rich have a low population?
I did some poking around, and it turns out to be a fairly tricky question to answer accurately. First off, there's no commonly agreed-to definition of what "middle class" means, in regards to income. Because of this, your friend's friend can shape his argument however he pleases.
Also, lots of people like to call themselves middle class, which means the range could be anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000. So it seems the actual question itself may be meaningless, because "middle class" appears to be a social construct, rather than an economic one.
Then you have the problem of families. A $50,000 income is pretty good for an individual. But each added dependent changes how we see that income.
But let's go on. Let's say in 2002 (where I'm getting these numbers) an individual income of $50,000 could widely be agreed to as "middle class" in most parts of the country. And let's top it out at $100,000. That sounds fair, right? Ok, let's go to the numbers:
http://commadot.com/income-breakdown-in-us/
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7r4socqnfwM/UswGZOaSWXI/AAAAAAAAA50/kjkiYTdFpA4/w655-h428-no/Inequality%252C+real.JPG)
Looks to me like there are 92.5 Million people living below middle class, 26.6 Million firmly in the middle class, and 10.8 Million above middle class. Which ain't no diamond, it's a pyramid.
Definitely a pyramid. That 1-50k is awkward, though, since they lump poverty with working and middle class.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on January 07, 2014, 09:31:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 01:59:06 PM
So, the argument is that the majority of Americans are middle class, and the very poor and very rich have a low population?
I did some poking around, and it turns out to be a fairly tricky question to answer accurately. First off, there's no commonly agreed-to definition of what "middle class" means, in regards to income. Because of this, your friend's friend can shape his argument however he pleases.
Also, lots of people like to call themselves middle class, which means the range could be anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000. So it seems the actual question itself may be meaningless, because "middle class" appears to be a social construct, rather than an economic one.
Then you have the problem of families. A $50,000 income is pretty good for an individual. But each added dependent changes how we see that income.
But let's go on. Let's say in 2002 (where I'm getting these numbers) an individual income of $50,000 could widely be agreed to as "middle class" in most parts of the country. And let's top it out at $100,000. That sounds fair, right? Ok, let's go to the numbers:
http://commadot.com/income-breakdown-in-us/
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7r4socqnfwM/UswGZOaSWXI/AAAAAAAAA50/kjkiYTdFpA4/w655-h428-no/Inequality%252C+real.JPG)
Looks to me like there are 92.5 Million people living below middle class, 26.6 Million firmly in the middle class, and 10.8 Million above middle class. Which ain't no diamond, it's a pyramid.
Definitely a pyramid. That 1-50k is awkward, though, since they lump poverty with working and middle class.
It's a very poorly labeled graph; ideally, how it would be labeled on the x-axis would make it clear that it's a continuum with 0 = 1k, 2 = 25k, 3 = 50k, and so on.
Yeah, that would probably have been a much better way to plot the data.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on January 07, 2014, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 07, 2014, 03:52:02 AM
It's a diamond only if you accept an arrow-shaped object as meeting the definition for "diamond" http://www.businessinsider.com/the-tax-debate-about-5-of-us-households-2012-12
This is helpful as hell...
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2014, 08:53:03 AM
Not a shape, but this should give you a better idea of what shape it would be:
(http://i.imgur.com/1uJ1aPB.jpg?1)
...especially when paired with this.
The following video expands on that visualization in a way that is somewhat surprising, even for cynical asshats like myself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM