The standard of living is going down for the average American

[Czcibor]

But the OP also brought up a comparison with the cost and how things have changed over time. Healthcare costs are very high in here.

OK, so effectively you pay more for longer life? How would you like to compare that? If you had a choice would you prefer to buy yourself somewhat cheaper healthcare plan that would not cover big part of new medications / procedures (nothing invented in last 20-30 years :D ), would cost roughly counting as much as few decades ago but you would live a few years less?
(of course if you claim that standard of living goes down with respect to healthcare, then choosing a shorter life for cheaper plan shall be preferred choice for practically anyone, except maybe top rich)

 

[russ_watters]

If you have given a definition of quality of life and the factors that determine it, please point me out to the post where you did, because I missed it.

I don't understand why you aren't getting this: I have accepted/used the OP's measure of quality of life.

No cherry-picking, nor goalpost-shifting: if you are wealthy, it is almost a tautology that your life will get better as time goes by.

Bringing up something that is different from the point of the discussion and can't help us understand the point of the discussion isn't cherry-picking or goalpost shifting, it is a new logical fallacycy: misdirection.

The real test is how well you do when you are _not_ wealthy. Your putting everyone in the same category...

I most certainly am not. I have yet to make reference to anyone above the median (note: average for the middle quintile is roughly at the median) and nothing I've said applies to the rich.

... An amazing rate, 19% and 13% in 46 years; just give it around 185 years and around 276 years respectively and the income will double.

No. Again, you are misunderstanding how a "trend" works. The trend is a much steeper increase and doubling time much shorter.

Are you serious, over an average working career--46 years -- your real income will increase by a "healthy" 19%, 13% respectively. Healthy? Now if you want to stick 100% to being better , then yes, but healthy? I don't think so. Go tell someone they can expect their real income to be 20% better over 46 years and see how excited they get.

Again: a goalpost shift. But as again, you misunderstand the data. This data does not compare individuals over time, it compares hypothetical/nonexistent different people at different times. Virtually nobody stays static in the distribution: I myself moved from the bottom quntile to the 4th quintile in about 15 years. If you stay exactly at the same spot in the distribution over several decades, then you must have had some seriously bad luck or done something seriously wrong. The point of this data is that if you, at a certain age are doing the same job as your father (or older uncle) was at that age, you are doing 20% better. How much better, qualatatively that is is tough to judge, but if you wanted to, that's buying another car or taking an extra European vacation every year (for someone on the median).

You stated I was wrong when I said you get less per dollar now than you did in the past. How am I wrong?

I most certainly did not. You are goalpost shifting and misrepresenting what I said by trying to fit what I said improperly into your goalpost shift.

What are the costs associated with that? Is it secondary to be barely able to afford to pay for healthcare? Not to me.

It is, to the title claim of the thread and your very first post in the thread, where you agreed with the OP. Claiming now that you get more but pay more-er is definitely true, but it is a different claim -- and a pretty bland one at that.

Maybe we just have different ideas of what a good life is.

Tough to be sure, since you've simply refused to accept naked facts at face value. Would having enough money to buy another car or take another Eurpean vacation every year be a significant quality of life boost, to you?
[Edit]. And I missed another goalpost shift: the idea of a "good life" has never been part of the discussion.

The country is going broke trying to pay for those costs; a secondary thing too, I guess.

Not necessarily secondary, just a totally different conversation. If you want to have that conversation, by all means we can, but given how much trouble you've had accepting naked facts, I'm not sure that will go well either. Little teaser though: I think we have a retirement savings time-bomb on our hands that is already holding back standard of living and is going to explode in about 15-20 years, leaving the country in a world of hurt.

So, excuse me for not buying 100% into your definition...

Again: we'll have to go with the OP's definition because despite repeated requests, you've never posted yours, you've just said it is "hard" to define.

Maybe you have no major issues with owning a larger house and being $40,000+ in debt, I do.

I'm sorry to hear that. Since it is a single data point, it is really neither here nor there, though. It doesn't tell us if it's a better or worse situation than an equivalent person would have had decades ago.

And there is no job security anymore, so what do you do with that debt if you lose your job? It may be secondary to you, it is not so to me.

Job security is a door that swings both ways: employees changing jobs on purpose is a big part of why employees change jobs so often.

 

[WWGD]

Sorry, I don't know how to use multiquotes, which makes it hard for me to address your points as I would like to. Rich people almost always do well; I am breaking it down and giving more detail. Seriously, how is giving more detailed data, broken-down by quintile a goalpost shift? I don't see how that could be misleading. I thought more detailed data would be better; you can interpret the average person as not being rich, and best approximation for that in my data as I found it is being below the 80th percentile. And I chose 46 years worth of data because it is a nice long period of time, but not too long, and the data was available. It would be nice to see the increase in sq footage by population quintile, a bunch of McMansions by rich people may skew the data. How is it misleading to have more data? And I am breaking it it by quintiles; how is that misleading? I am trying to see how different quintiles fare.
So I am testing (or trying to test) whether the improvements are available across-the-board real-income-quintile-wise. It is a more detailed test, so I don't see how that would be misleading. And I am also qualifying the availability of medical improvements: how much do they cost: are they truly available in a realistic sense if the improvement will set you back, say $30,000 and your yearly income is $40,000?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, I can't parse that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

a bunch of McMansions by rich people may skew the data

If you are going to accuse people - which in this case means me - of provided "skewed"data, please explain how "a bunch of McMansions by rich people" can affect the median home size.

 

[Czcibor]

If you are going to accuse people - which in this case means me - of provided "skewed"data, please explain how "a bunch of McMansions by rich people" can affect the median home size.

I'd say that mansions in median would actually be a good sign ;)

 

[WWGD]

If you are going to accuse people - which in this case means me - of provided "skewed"data, please explain how "a bunch of McMansions by rich people" can affect the median home size.

I haven't accused you of any such thing. The relations between median and mean can be very complicated and one cannot conclude, e.g., skewness from the mean from these alone; that is all I meant; I understand the median is resistant to outliers. I also meant to bring up that the issue of upward/downward mobility is a difficult one, since there is no clear data to support neither the case that it exists in a significant way nor that it does not. If your real income is 40,000 and is expected to increase by 1/4 of 1% a year, I do not see how you would realistically expect to move up. Impossible no, but not likely either.
Anyway, I have obviously failed at making myself clear, so I will most likely not post in this thread anymore.

 

[Ghost117]

[mentors' note: This post has been heavily edited to avoid accidental violation of copyright law].

The following is from an American geopolitical thinktank that I have a subscription to. The key numbers, in proper context, are provided in the red paragraph.


https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/crisis-middle-class-and-american-power

...
The Crisis of the American Middle Class
The median household income of Americans in 2011 was $49,103. Adjusted for inflation, the median income is just below what it was in 1989 and is $4,000 less than it was in 2000. Take-home income is a bit less than $40,000 when Social Security and state and federal taxes are included. That means a monthly income, per household, of about $3,300. It is urgent to bear in mind that half of all American households earn less than this. It is also vital to consider not the difference between 1990 and 2011, but the difference between the 1950s and 1960s and the 21st century. This is where the difference in the meaning of middle class becomes most apparent.
...

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem with those kinds of anecdotal stories is that one can make up whatever they want. In the 1970's we had it tough. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night - half an hour before I went to bed - drink a cup of poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down at the mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. But today I live in a floating castle and am fed peeled grapes by servant girls is sarongs.

Friedman's "average family" is paying off student loans, but only 32% of the over 25's have a bachelors degree of associates (and another 10% have an associates, and another 16% have less than that). He has them spending $700/month on car loans, but compares it to a time when a family had one older and one newer car. If the $700 goes towards a single car, that's a very nice car indeed. If it goes to two cars, they both have to be newer.

This is why one needs a well defined statistical metric.

 

[Ghost117]

The problem with those kinds of anecdotal stories is that one can make up whatever they want.

I think you're focusing more on the story, and less on the first red paragraph, with the median income comparison adjusted for inflation, for the middle class and those below...

 

[Vanadium 50]

But for median income isn't the plot that Russ showed better? There you can see the trends.

 

[Ghost117]

But for median income isn't the plot that Russ showed better? There you can see the trends.

But the numbers don't match. Compare his 2011 to what Stratfor has provided.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you're focusing more on the story, and less on the first red paragraph, with the median income comparison adjusted for inflation, for the middle class and those below...

But that's the problem: even the part in red is just a story. It isn't very well tied to real data.

But the numbers don't match. Compare his 2011 to what Stratfor has provided.

They don't match because the article is two years old and thus missing two years of inflation adjustments.

More to the point, the article does the same cherry-picking of timeframes many people do to try to make the situation look worse than it is, as we saw earlier in the thread. I lose trust in people very quickly when they are dishonest with me. It makes it hard to even read the rest of the article.

I can't wait until the 2014 income data comes out in September, when people will have to stop trotting-out the insulting/misleading comparison to 1989.

 

[Ghost117]

the article does the same cherry-picking of timeframes many people do to try to make the situation look worse than it is,

Not sure what you mean... The article just states that for the bottom half of the population in the US, income hasn't really risen much at all in a long time. While as for the middle class proper, it hasn't risen nearly as fast as they were expecting. As far as I know, there's nothing even controversial about this, it's pretty much well accepted. Although, I don't have much of an interest in economic data so I don't do deep dives myself, I haven't heard any analyst contradict this view. If I'm missing something here let me know...

The article itself is essentially about the "longer term" consequences in social perception due to this, you should read it.

p.s. The article is 2 years old, but I doubt the recent numbers affect the conclusions of the article significantly.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure what you mean... The article just states that for the bottom half of the population in the US, income hasn't really risen much at all in a long time.

Right. And as you can see from the data itself, that's clearly false. The rise in the 1990s was huge: even unprecedented.

[edit]
Here's some stats for that:
-From 1993-1999, the middle quintile gained 15%. That's the most significant period of growth since they started the deata collection in 1967.

-The second-best growth period was 1982-1989, where the gain was 13%.

-Incomes in 1982 were lower than in 1969. That's a shorter period of years, but it is two economic cycles, just like the current 1989-2011 people like to talk about. And, the intervening years saw much lower gains in the cycles than in the more recent period. For example, 1971-1973 was the shortest expansion period in the data's history.

 

[Curious Phil]

average American. The economic pie just isn't growing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the population growth. It's interesting how, when it comes to the big costs in life -- housing, health care, education -- everyone is paying more and getting less, yet no one seems to realize this. As long as the average Millennial has the latest iPhone (bought for on credit) and vehicle (leased), he thinks he's better off than his parents.

To look at the economic pie (an imprecise concept), is a very complex thing. First of all, things are in my view, quite distorted by the public's inclination to consider such things as the sales volumes of goods and services, the inflation of consumer prices, etc. (which are all being inappropriately bloated by the ill-advised use of easy credit) as components of the pie. People who live debt-free are experiencing a time of great economic opportunity and wealth. Costs associated with the three things that you mention (housing, health care and education) have especially been disturbed and pumped up because of the manipulation of money - public debt, private debt, "insurance," etc. And the public's perception of the value associated with these three things doesn't seem to be based on rational thinking.

 

[Ghost117]

Right. And as you can see from the data itself, that's clearly false. The rise in the 1990s was huge: even unprecedented.

[edit]
Here's some stats for that:
-From 1993-1999, the middle quintile gained 15%. That's the most significant period of growth since they started the deata collection in 1967.

-The second-best growth period was 1982-1989, where the gain was 13%.

-Incomes in 1982 were lower than in 1969. That's a shorter period of years, but it is two economic cycles, just like the current 1989-2011 people like to talk about. And, the intervening years saw much lower gains in the cycles than in the more recent period. For example, 1971-1973 was the shortest expansion period in the data's history.

But I clearly said the "bottom half", not the "middle quintile". Look at this graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

This is sourced from the http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf apparently. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but seems like the bottom half has experience almost zero growth since the 60s.

The other point was that income for the middle class hasn't risen as fast as the middle class -expected- (taking into account post 90s downturn.) No one is saying it hasn't risen at all since the 60s, but that's besides the point the article is making. These two issues combined is what that article is about.

 

[Pythagorean]

Note that that graph is absolute income, not percentage of income.

 

[Ghost117]

Note that that graph is absolute income, not percentage of income.

Yep, it still says a lot I think.

 

[russ_watters]

Right. And as you can see from the data itself, that's clearly false. The rise in the 1990s was huge: even unprecedented.

But I clearly said the "bottom half", not the "middle quintile".

Pick any group you want -- it doesn't matter: all have shown long-term gains. The article gave data for the median, but then jumps around, citing bits and pieces of different things. That incoherence is their fault, not mine. They didn't, however, provide any real data to back-up their claims about the "bottom half".

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but seems like the bottom half has experience almost zero growth since the 60s.

What you are doing there is looking at a graph and making a qualitative judgement instead of doing the math and seeing what the actual change was. In this particular case, the scale of the graph is way too wide to make it easy to see how much the change was. So you tell me: how much has it actually changed, for which groups? If you don't have the actual data in front of you, I can provide you a link to it.

[edit] Bah - I don't feel like waiting. In the past I've always needed to get the data myself eventually anyway. So here it is:

Since 1967, the second quintile's income has risen an average of $96 per year. That's .34% per year or 16% over the entire timeperiod.

The other point was that income for the middle class hasn't risen as fast as the middle class -expected- (taking into account post 90s downturn.) No one is saying it hasn't risen at all since the 60s, but that's besides the point the article is making. These two issues combined is what that article is about.

I accidentally let the article get away with that in my last post. The article says "persistent decline in the middle class' standard of living". Not rising as fast as expected (who's expectation?) is still rising, not falling. The article contradicts itself.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yep, it still says a lot I think.

.
Consider one group that makes $10 and gets a $1 increase. Their increase is not going to show on a graph that includes a group that makes $10000 and gets a $1000 increase. Yet both increased 10%.

 

[Ghost117]

Since 1967, the second quintile's income has risen an average of $96 per year. That's .34% per year or 16% over the entire timeperiod.

I don't understand how you're pointing to an increase of $96/year for a quarter of the population (and it's probably even lower for the lowest quintile) and calling it " long-term gains"... If a child requires vitamins a, b, and c to survive, and you increase his vitamin supply from just a, to include b, you've doubled his vitamin variety, but the child is still going to die without c. If we take your argument and apply it here, the child should just thank us for doubling his nutrition, right up until the day he dies, and be happy for it. (Morbid example, yes, but the point is that percentages have to be taken in qualitative context, they're meaningless otherwise.)

I accidentally let the article get away with that in my last post. The article says "persistent decline in the middle class' standard of living". Not rising as fast as expected (who's expectation?) is still rising, not falling. The article contradicts itself.

You may disagree with the following statement, but it's not an internal contradiction. They did justify it in the article (which you said you didn't want to read fully): "Where a single earner could support a middle class family in the generation after World War II, it now took at least two earners. "

.
Consider one group that makes $10 and gets a $1 increase. Their increase is not going to show on a graph that includes a group that makes $10000 and gets a $1000 increase. Yet both increased 10%.

I've responded to this above, Russ made the same case.

 

[Pythagorean]

But that's a different argument...

 

[Ghost117]

Is it really? Ok then, in that case I'll just withdraw because we clearly can't even agree on definitions of what constitutes "long term gain"... So for me to argue here is basically pointless.

 

[Pythagorean]

Your argument is that the gains are insufficient for the quality of life, not that there were no gains. If you clearly stated that from the beginning we could discuss that.

 

[Ghost117]

Your argument is that the gains are insufficient for the quality of life, not that there were no gains. If you clearly stated that from the beginning we could discuss that.

I posted an article which made this very clear, (I think at least), right in the beginning.

In any case, you guys can argue about what constitutes a "long term gain" for your countrymen. I'm not American so I'll leave you people to decide that for yourselves.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand how you're pointing to an increase of $96/year for a quarter of the population (and it's probably even lower for the lowest quintile) and calling it " long-term gains"...

If the numbers go up, they are "gains". If they go down, they are "declines". The article claimed a "decline" when, in fact, there is a gain.

Words have meanings -- people are not entitled to just toss them around willy-nilly. You (or, rather, the writer of the article) can't cite a gain and call it a decline. That's just dishonest.

[separate post]

I posted an article which made this very clear, (I think at least), right in the beginning.

The article claimed a "decline" in its thesis statement. So it was clear to me that the main point of the article was to discuss a decline. Turns out, the theis statement is predicated on a faleshood.

You are mixing-and matching, but if what you really want to talk about is not enough gain, I'd probably be willing to discuss it. But do you honestly not see the difference between a "decline" and "not enough gain"? One is a positive number and the other negative!

This is really bizarre to me.

You may disagree with the following statement, but it's not an internal contradiction. They did justify it in the article (which you said you didn't want to read fully): "Where a single earner could support a middle class family in the generation after World War II, it now took at least two earners. "

That's a different issue entirely. Yes, women don't get to be housewives anymore if families want to continue to see rising standards of living.

...though the "at least" bit made me laugh.

 

[Ghost117]

You (or, rather, the writer of the article) can't cite a gain and call it a decline. That's just dishonest.

For the record, i said "almost zero growth" for the bottom half, so i think my words were quite apt and honest, considering your own figure of $96/year increase in their income...

The article claimed a "decline" in its thesis statement.

Yes, in the standard of living. Case in point:

Yes, women don't get to be housewives anymore if families want to continue to see rising standards of living.

Incorrect. Not "continue to see rising standards" but to maintain the same standards this class had after WWII, that's what this example was pointing out, and it has done that quite clearly. That's the decline, but apparently according to you that's a separate argument entirely... Fine, whatever, have fun convincing your own people.

if what you really want to talk about is not enough gain, I'd probably be willing to discuss it.

Like I said, I'm not an american and this is stuff you people have to figure out for yourselves.

 

[nitsuj]

I see a fundamental difficulty trying to relate changes in "real household income" as defined by various bodies to changes in 'standard of living'. If a smartphone didn't exist in 1989 (at any cost), and a median household has at least one smartphone now (not sure if this true, but seems plausible; change median to appropriate quartile if not true), how do you compare standard of living? What is the 'weight' of a smartphone? You could make a ridiculous claim that it is infinite because it could not be had at any price in 1989.

Surely there is a stat for the spread in "Real Household income". The larger the spread, the larger a group of "worse off" households. To your point how do you quantify the "standard of living" for average Jane 'n Joe of 2015 to average Jane 'n Joe of 1970? Do we not have to use the value of how they compared to their peers at that time? I don't think there is a question with respect to quality of goods 'n services; but to that of life. I'd suspect this to be housing, education and health in the context of "household income".

Though that would mean a homeless person with nothing 2015 is worse off than a homeless person with nothing in 1970.

to flip the smartphone comparative around, some guy just offered me 10,000 "car phones" from 1970 for free! Those things are like 4k piece! Far more fancy than some smartphone that can be had for $100, in 1970's dollars that's about $16.25. (using Canadian inflation valued with CPI).

Anyways, for those "car phones" I'm now selling, after adjusting to 2015 dollars they can be had for a mere $24,600. So if the OP thinks cell phones are on credit today...

So maybe the standard of living has to someway weigh the value of hundreds of hours of tap tap tapping angrybirds & cat vids, not the smartphone itself.

 

[russ_watters]

For the record, i said "almost zero growth" for the bottom half, so i think my words were quite apt and honest,

You posted the article with no comment at all, initially. It was natural for me to assume that you agreed with its thesis.

Yes, in the standard of living.

Based on the citation of income, and an attempt to make it look like incomes were decreasing, it seemed reasonable to me that the intent was to tie income to standard of living: to support the claim of a decrease in standard of living by making it seem like income was decreasing.

Incorrect. Not "continue to see rising standards" but to maintain the same standards this class had after WWII, that's what this example was pointing out, and it has done that quite clearly.

So is this a new claim you are making? That's the first time the word "maintain" has appeared here. So be clear:
1. Are you claiming that standard of living is stagnating?
2. Are you claiming that to maintain a stable standard of living requires rising income?
3. Are you claiming that standard of living is rising because household incomes are rising, which in part is due to women bringing income into the household?

What you are saying is vague. It implies several possibilities, most of which are false.

That's the decline, but apparently according to you that's a separate argument entirely...

What is the decline? A "decline" is a negative number. Show me the negative number you are referring to.

The why of how the data is changing is a different discussion than just citing and accepting the data. I seem to be having a hard time getting people to accept data at face value. I'm really not sure why it is so difficult.

 

[WWGD]

But that's the problem: even the part in red is just a story. It isn't very well tied to real data.

They don't match because the article is two years old and thus missing two years of inflation adjustments.

More to the point, the article does the same cherry-picking of timeframes many people do to try to make the situation look worse than it is, as we saw earlier in the thread. I lose trust in people very quickly when they are dishonest with me. It makes it hard to even read the rest of the article.

I can't wait until the 2014 income data comes out in September, when people will have to stop trotting-out the insulting/misleading comparison to 1989.

I repeat, I don know how to use multiquotes, which makes it harder for me to address points in an effective way.

What is insulting to me is for you to :
1) Insult me after I stated I was most likely leaving. Send me a PM telling me you think I am dishonest so I can give my side.
2) Continuing to accuse me of doing a comparison to 1989 I _clearly stated_ I did not know why I was using 1989 as a benchmark, where I agree I have no basis , then start bringing up data --by quintiles -- from 1967 to 2013. I never brought up 1989 after that, but now you keep bringing it up. How fair is that? Who's doing the misrepresentation? and then have you accuse me of changing the goalpost, _because I am bringing up more detailed data_ . And, of course, you do not even consider the possibility that you may have misinterpreted something; you start accusing me of being dishonest instead .

_I told you I did not know how to use multiquotes_.
Instead of showing me how to do it, you keep trashing me _ for not addressing your points clearly or one-by-one... after I told you I was most likely leaving this thread_ .Apparently more detailed data represents goalshifting to you.. And maybe _you_ should read my posts more carefully , specially after accusing me of not reading your posts carefully-enough.

And how about your handwaving on your assumption of upward mobility and lack of job security; you state that income distribution is dynamic, which it is : still, how likely are you to move upward/downward ? Do the two cancel each other out? if the probability is low, then the static description of income is a good approximation.

Do you want me to give you a clearer description of what I am referring to?

_ It is extremely hard for me to do so because I don't know how to use multiquotes_

_ I don't know how to use multiquotes_ ; they seem to be disabled.
And you ignored the fact that job security is not a choice anymore . Do you believe most people would choose to change jobs if they could choose job safety instead ( assuming similar pay/job conditions )? Most people are risk-averse, preferring a known situation than just-about any unknown.

EDIT 1Maybe you should look into yourself some more and stop trashing anyone you believe is not acting as they should.

EDIT2 : And you left out a big one in your favor: the existence of the Internet itself and the access to just-about -everything it gives to anyone with access to it .

 

[OCR]

I repeat, I don know how to use multiquotes, which makes it harder for me to address points in an effective way.

WWGD, you do not have to use multiquotes... just copy and past from the post you're replying too, highlight the text and click the plus sign, then click quote...

I repeat, I don know how to use multiquotes, which makes it harder for me to address points in an effective way.

What is insulting to me is for you to :

1) Insult me after I stated I was most likely leaving. Send me a PM telling me you think I am dishonest so I can give my side.

Or... highlight the text from the post you're replying to, and click reply...

2) Continuing to accuse me of doing a comparison to 1989 I _clearly stated_ I did not know why I was using 1989 as a benchmark, where I agree I have no basis , then start bringing up data --by quintiles -- from 1967 to 2013. I never brought up 1989 after that, but now you keep bringing it up. How fair is that? Who's doing the misrepresentation? and then have you accuse me of changing the goalpost, _because I am bringing up more detailed data_ . And, of course, you do not even consider the possibility that you may have misinterpreted something; you start accusing me of being dishonest instead .

Or... do the same as above and delete the post number and member number... ( " post: 5027229, member: 69719" )

You get...

_I told you I did not know how to use multiquotes_.
Instead of showing me how to do it, you keep trashing me _ for not addressing your points clearly or one-by-one... after I told you I was most likely leaving this thread_ .

Or put them in by hand...

_ I don't know how to use multiquotes_ ; they seem to be disabled.

 

[russ_watters]

What is insulting to me is for you to :
1) Insult me after I stated I was most likely leaving.

I was referring to your source, not you. I'm quite willing to believe that your source deceived you into believing something that isn't true. On this issue in particular, people hear it a lot and start believing it.

2) Continuing to accuse me of doing a comparison to 1989...

Nothing else in the post you quoted had anything to do with you. I was quite content to let you leave. The comparison to 1989 remains relevantly irrelevant because it was brought-up again by someone else in another article. It seems to be a popular misrepresentation.

_I told you I did not know how to use multiquotes_.
Instead of showing me how to do it...

I do it manually by typing-in the html tag: hit "quote" for the post, then type them in manually where you want the breaks. But in either case, you didn't ask for help!

And how about your handwaving on your assumption of upward mobility and lack of job security...

I grow tired of being the only one who is responsible for posting data. That one also wasn't my claim and it isn't an issue I consider very relevant here, so I decided not to put any more effort into it than was put into bringing it here: it was hand-waved in my direction, so I hand-waved it away.

...you state that income distribution is dynamic, which it is : still, how likely are you to move upward/downward ? Do the two cancel each other out? if the probability is low, then the static description of income is a good approximation.

And you ignored the fact that job security is not a choice anymore . Do you believe most people would choose to change jobs if they could choose job safety instead ( assuming similar pay/job conditions )? Most people are risk-averse, preferring a known situation than just-about any unknown.

Yes, most people are risk averse, so your assumption is begging the question: people don't change jobs on purpose because they want a lateral move with the same pay, they do it because it is a good way to move up.

Since this still isn't a point I brought up, I'm still going to let someone else do their own research on it (for now, at least).

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, most people are risk averse, so your assumption is begging the question: people don't change jobs on purpose because they want a lateral move with the same pay, they do it because it is a good way to move up.

Since this still isn't a point I brought up, I'm still going to let someone else do their own research on it (for now, at least).

[sigh] Who am I kidding: I care about knowing. Here's a graph:

And an article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-less-likely-to-change-jobs-now-than-in-1980s-2014-01-10

Bottom line: I hadn't looked into this issue in a while (like I said, not something I care much about) and as it turns-out, people are sticking with jobs longer than they did 10 years ago. Looks like a lot of that is related to recessions, but there does seem to be an overall upward trend, albeit over a relatively short timeframe. And according to economists, lower turnover is a bad thing:

A high “churn” rate is typically seen as a reflection of a healthy economy. “People are holding on to their jobs not because they want to, but because they don’t have as much opportunity as they once did,”

See, here's the thing: unless an employee sucks, or the company isn't doing well, there is no reason to fire them. It costs a lot of money to hire and train new workers and it's a gamble. So "job security" is mostly the choice of the workers, not the companies they work for.

As the economy continues to improve, though, we should expect turnover to rise. And probalby a lot: there are a lot of unhappy workers who want to change jobs but haven't due to the recession. Expect that pent-up frustration to cause high turnover.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread started with an OP that made claims without citing any facts or sources and hasn't really improved since, despite my and a few others' efforts to tie it to reality. As repeated requests for people taking-up the OP's argument to make explicit and fact-supported arguments have failed to improve it, it is therefore locked.

 

[Evo]

I have done further cleanup of posts.