/biz/ - Business & Finance

what's to be done about it without fucking over our economy?

>>12949300
what happened in 1971

>>12949314
USA went off the gold standard

>>12949300
It's working well, the chart is showing a very fortunate trend. In a few decades 200k+ incomes will rise to 100% of households and there no longer will be poor people.

smash capitalism and communism, back to the good old times of the German Holy Roman Empire economics, a powerhouse never seen again.

>>12949300
The graph shouldn't end at 200k numbnut

>>12949300
Each year there are more rules and regulations. Each year we move away from capitalism and towards corporatism/modern socialism (aka neoliberalism). Yet, it's capitalism's fault everything is going to shit. Go figure.

Wrong, drama-queen. The rich are now profiting globally, while the rest are still waging locally. There was no theft.

>>12949300
This graph is garbage

>>12949300

This isn't capitalism this is central bank policy, e.g. low interest rates and QE after 2008 which raised asset prices > more gains for the top 1%. One of the reasons anyway.

>>12949326
you are a fucking retarded turd

>>12949300
quit complaining. read the resolve token distribution white paper

>>12949342
>i am a retard
well, ok.

>>12949375
> What is inflation?

>>12949336
This. They're also profiting from black market labor people like the faggot OP support. While we already struggle to keep up with an overall population that doubled from the time our parents were born until now. Meanwhile, China has become proportionally more prosperous as they've largely moved away from the policies the niggerbrained mongoloid that made this thread demand we enact here

>Incomes increase and distribute more evenly across all income shares
>Middle class shifts due to inflation
>Rich are still as proportionally rich as they've always been

>>12949323
Aaaah yes, where 99.99% of the population was poor and people fought in wars of how to practise religion

>>12949300
> decreased magnitude of middle income values and lower, except for lowest income value which doubles
>increased magnitude of all income values greater than middle income
>thinking this means anything other than more wealth
Kek

>>12949300
Us had much stronger capitalistic ideals in the 1970s than it has now

>>12949300
Extremely low IQ point.

Household income increasing over time means people getting richer, yet the cut-off point to the right is at 200k.

200k was a filthy amount of money to earn in 1971, but in 2015 its very common.

that graphic panders to low iq people and shows why socialism flourishes in low iq countries

>>12949415
how is inflation related to the graph "ending" at 200k?

>>12949467
OP is a dummy, the graph literally shows that people are wealthier and that the 200k+ grew like fuck

Kikes in one gif

>>12949322
>What is inflation

>>12949415
YOU ARE SO FUCKING DUMB
THE GRAPH IS NORMALIZED TO 2014 DOLLARS. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SAYING STUPID SHIT

>>12949300
This GIF literally shows the middle class grow richer over time

>>12949300
>They literally stole our money.
I think you have your axes swapped. Your animation shows prosperity increasing across the board (except during the recession following 2008)

But it's meaningless, since it seems to be based on nominal income.

>>12949311
If super-rich people move their capital away, they cannot do business with the middle-class anymore, which is still the most profitable class to do business with, if you target a general audience.

Hence why e.g. minimum wage did not had the feared effect of vanishing jobs, when Germany introduced it 2015. It even had the opposite effect - less fluctuation in low-income jobs, which led to more efficiency.

>>12949300 (OP)
>They literally stole our money.
I think you have the axes swapped in your head. Your animation shows prosperity increasing almost across the board (except during the recession following 2008).

>>12949300
A direct consequence of the money supply being controlled by a communist central bank, which engages in large-scale money printing in order to "redistribute" middle class wealth by robbing it of its purchasing power.

you fucking kikes who can't read the distribution of a graph. they killed middle class. killed it. destroyed it but inequality. capitalism killed the world. each and every single player you have and you will have in the future can be retraced to this simple graph
they fucking killed this planet. the riches are a disease and their time has come. Its time for them to pay for their sins.

>>12949300
Because running a big business is still a niche compared to some office job. Plenty of kids coming out of college that could do that office job, not enough kids that could run a sucessfull business.

College was a niche, now it's normal so expect the wage to be normal or below normal.

>>12949300
The animation/graph says that more peole get rich, and in particular, the percentage of those earning a lot went from 1% to over 5%.

So what exactly is there to defend?

>>12949807
What it shows is that money is being drained from 99% of the graph and fed into 1% of the graph.

History has shown time and time again, this is unsustainable and will eventually lead to collapse and/or civil war.

>>12949740
If anything your graph shows that they killed the poor, and grew the riches, the % of middle class has remained almost the same.

>>12949888
this fucking site always have a hard time reading distributions, no one is being drained, the whole fucking distribution is being shifted to the right.

>>12949300
END THE FED REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>12949759
This is bait post, the economy in the 70s is totally different from now

>>12949940
Yes, but disproportionately into the $200k+. You don't have to eyeball it from this animation. The statistics are readily available. The simple fact is that the wealth gap is growing out of control.

>>12949300
the government's own Congressional Budget Office has just published a report whose statistics flatly contradict this claim. The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average incomes for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years.
Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited, showing the top brackets improving their positions more so than anyone else?

The answer is that the data cited by the Congressional Budget Office are based on Internal Revenue Service statistics for specific individuals and specific households over time. The IRS can follow individuals and households because it can identify the same people over time from their Social Security numbers.

Most other data, including census data, are based on compiling statistics in a succession of time periods, without the ability to tell if the actual people in each income bracket are the same from one time period to the next. The turnover of people is substantial in all brackets -- and is huge in the top 1 percent. Most people in that bracket are there for only one year in a decade.

All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that "top one percent" is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year, for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial.

>>12950240
Every time some new income statistics come out, two predictable fallacies follow in their wake: 1) The rich are getting richer, while the poor are falling behind, and 2) the real income of American families has not risen significantly for years.

An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 have also been in the top 20 percent at some time since then. Most Americans don’t stay put in any income bracket. At different times, they are both “rich” and “poor” — as these terms are recklessly thrown around in the media.

There are of course some people who remain permanently in the bottom 20 percent. But such people constitute less than one percent of the American population, according to data published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in its 1995 annual report. Perhaps the intelligentsia and the politicians have been too busy waxing indignant to be bothered by anything so mundane as facts.

Alarmists are not talking about real flesh and blood people. They are talking about abstract categories like the top or bottom 10 percent or 20 percent of families or households. So long as all incomes are not identical, there will always be top and bottom 10 percents or 20 percents or any other percents. But these abstract categories do not contain the same people over time.

Behind both the statistics on inequality that are spotlighted and the statistics on ever-changing personal incomes that are ignored is the simple fact that people just starting out in their careers usually do not make as much money as they will later, after they have had years of experience.

Who should be surprised that 60-year-olds have higher incomes and more wealth than 30-year-olds? Moreover, that was also true 30 years ago, when today’s 60-year-olds were just 30. But these are not different classes of people. They are the same people at different stages of their lives.

>>12949300
I see nothing wrong with this.

Just get to the top. Be the elite instead of a peasant complaining about the elite.

This is reason biz is poor.

>>12949326
This is very important. As the middle distribution drifting to the right, the tail is also drifting to the right. cutting the graph of prematurely creates an illusion by bundling a significant part of the tail in to one bar.

It appears that middle income is rising, less people are making $10k-50k, more people are making $70k-$100k and lotdls more people are making $200k or more

what's wrong with this?

>>12949300

>>12950338
Marxist dont care. Because there is that 0.01% that have alot. We cant have that.

>>12949300
>mu...muh iPhones

>>12950410
It's almost as if countries with socialists policies become poorer.
It's almost as if they would rather lose 1000$ and have their neighbor lose 10,000$, then gain 1000$ and have their neighbor gain 10,000$.
It's almost as if they talk about income inequality, instead of making the poor richer

Buy crypto and at least force them to steal your money the old fashioned way.

>>12949300
This has nothing to do with capitalism but with the history of humanity. The %1 ALWAYS get more and more money until something catastrophic happens (massive war, plague etc.) where a large chunk of population dies and society becomes more egalitarian again. This in turn kicks off another process to %1 accumulation.

>>12951077
by the way the current level of inequality isn't even close to the history's worst levels of inequality (the whining might be though)

Why are dumbfucks blaming capitalism for the results of fiat monetary policy?
Protip: google Cantillon effect

Middle income grew to a wider range of people what are you talking about ?

>>12949509
The graph is adjusted for inflation, mr intelligent.

>>12951077
Secular Cycles - Peter Turchin

>>12951089
materially we are all better off than at any point in history. wouldn't conflate that with better off in general. being an average poor fuck today means no woman will want you and since we are constantly bombarded with media, you are at all times reminded that you are a failure and undesireable. This is a large contrast compared to say, a medieval peasant. For one a peasant isn't constantly told he is a failure since there is no ideology of the "American Dream". In the "American Dream" anyone can make it, which means those who do not are somehow incompetent or lesser human beings. A medieval peasant was just a peasant without the ideological apparatus attacking his identity constantly. A medieval peasant could also get a modest wife who would presumably not hate him for not being a CEO 10k a day with a Lambo that she hooked up with once back in college. And since most people were faithful, they had heaven to look forward to.

>>12951140
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Leveler-Inequality-Twenty-First-Princeton/dp/0691165025

This one is good as well

"They literally stole our money"
Doesn't say who stole the money.
OP = Massive cope

yacht

>>12949300
Leterally shows nothing besides that more households are making >50k since 1971. It's literally because of inflation. The % of people making over 200k will increase naturally with inflation. We need this chart adjusted for inflation before we csn draw any real data from it.

>>12949300
Literally shows nothing besides that more households are making >50k since 1971 and less households are making <50k. It's literally because of inflation. The % of people making over 200k will increase naturally with inflation. We need this chart adjusted for inflation before we can draw any real data from it.

>>12951343
dude stop saying stupid shit you don't understand. the graph is adjusted to inflation.

why dont leftypol users kill themselves already? everyone is sick of these faggot spam threads

>>12951357
Chart doesn't say adjusted for inflation. Assumes it was adjusted for inflation.

>>12951125

this is the REAL GDP (i.e. POST-inflation) per capita in the US.
at least do your fucking research before you filthy subhumans start responding to things you have zero clue about.

fucking retard.

>>12949300
Literally shows nothing besides that more households are making >75k since 1971 and less households are making <75k. If we assume that this chart is already adjusted for inflation like >>12951357 Is saying the % of households making over 200k increasing is a sign that the lower class is shrinking and the upper class and middle class is growing. If it's not adjusted for inflation its a sign that the ultra wealthy are stealing our wealth. So which is it? Is the chart adjusted for inflation or not?

>>12949300
This chart is literally saying that the middle and upper class is growibg and the lower class is shrinking. How can somethibg like that even fucking happen? How can people as a whole be richer? Where is the wealth coming from?

I hate the ways these things always show "households"

I don't give a shit about a household. Give me the individual statistics, or fuck off.

>>12949314

Qe1 was prepped

Kill yourself commie.

>>12949300
But its gonna trickle down again sooner or later anon. Any day now

>>12949300

>an infinite growth Ponzi scheme is bad for society

Who would’ve thought?

>>12949300
what a stupid gif, all this shows is society overall becoming richer, you'd have to be a brainlet to not understand this

>>12949300
Capitalism: poor people getting cucked

The magic of capitalism is in this very thread, aka all the cuckolds who are poor but think they'll be rich one day. They are so fucking cucked they defend the rich and hate socialism and any programs that are designed to help them.

Capitalism is genius. It has completely cucked American society. I guarantee 3/4 of the cucks defending capitalism in this thread are poorfags.

>>12952773

Yep. They literally think shilling for billionaires will make them rich

>>12952773
>programs that are designed to help (((them)))

Retarded faggot

>>12949300
A lot dumb people in the world
Not everyone can make $200k+ per year

If you don't defend that gif then you're a commie bastard

>>12949740
So man up and murder some, send a message.