Manhattan for Rich Only

I already forsee some on this board saying "$1500 a month!?!?!?! That is NOTHING. That is not for poor people, that is for MAIDS!!!!"

To put this in context, you can get a 1BR with parking (and often a pool) for under $1500 in the flats of Beveryly Hills, or in Santa Monica, Century City, WeHo, Fairfax Village, Westwood, Newport Beach, or any of other the "beaches" save Malibu or Manhattan. So in other words, in virtually all of the wealthiest neighborhoods of America's second largest city.

In not-quite-as-nice, but not ghetto either parts of the city of San Franscico - ditto. And that is of course America's second most expensive city.

I am from Cali and people who live in WEALTHY areas are shocked at how much condos or rentals go for in HARLEM, let alone south of their.

Perspective.

Oh, the best part is if you want Manhattan-style living, you can get a 24-hour DOORMAN BRAND NEW building with parking and a gym (and usually a pool and in-unit WD) in downtown LA or Miracle Mile for under $1500. For under $2000, add Westwood and Century city...

hate California: cold; damp

"14 Shocking Stats On The Rise Of Inequality In New York"

"Income distribution in New York City has become more skewed than most shack-and-castle principalities of the developing world. It is now the most unequal city in the most unequal state in the most unequal developed country in the world."

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-inequality-2011-1#

this is quite a silly article. it makes no sense to talk about income inequality in the city--the issue is income inequality in the nation. new york city is simply the place rich people most want to live, so we have a lot of them. but it is national policies, not municipal policies, that have created this income inequality.

Income inequality is pretty bad in the country as well.

One interesting thing I noticed in the article is that (in NYC, at least) the gap is increasing not simply because the rich are getting richer faster than everyone else, but also because the poor are getting poorer as well. That's much more troubling than if everyone was doing somewhat better, but the rich were just getting a disproportionate share of the gains. I don't know if that effect is peculiar to New York or not, though.

You realize all that data was measured as of 2007 right?

Maybe if the 'poor' would bother to stay in school, get an education and actually try to seek a decent career rather than relying on welfare and other government handouts that income gap would narrow.

California.

What kind of mental giant lives with nuclear reactors on a major tectonic fault line?

What kind of mental giant lives with nuclear reactors on a major tectonic fault line?

would that be 'dumb, to a fault'?

> "Harlem businesswoman Aisha Danae, 51, said the apartment at Fifth Avenue and 110th Street that cost her $500 a month a decade ago now goes for $1,500.

sorry Aisha, what type of business woman doesn't understand gentrification and inflation!?

> Oh, the best part is if you want Manhattan-style living, you can get a 24-hour DOORMAN BRAND NEW building with parking and a gym (and usually a pool and in-unit WD) in downtown LA or Miracle Mile for under $1500. For under $2000, add Westwood and Century city...

for a 2 bedroom? for a moment I thought I knew what you meant by "Manhattan-style living", but not after re-reading it. are you saying that manhattan-style living is having a doorman?

So you think everything is all good now?

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/09/28/rich_get_richer_poor_get_poorer

I don't think Manhattan is only for the rich...I think people who want to live in Manhattan will pay a larger percent of their income for housing than the rest of the country...I'm not rich but will always live in Manhattan. You just have a settle for less space.

Squid--you're an idiot. The income gap is rising between the rich and the middle class, as well, as any cursory study of the data would show. Even if the problem was that the poor were lazy slobs, why does this explain income inequality worsening over time. Is your theory that welfare is so much more generous these days that they're more inclined to fall back on it as opposed to working? (Hint: it's not.)

Here's a whole article dedicated to disproving your point: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/would-more-education-reduce-unemployment-and-income-inequality/69632/

exactly julia. in LA my family would need 2 cars, in NYC 0! the typical 2-car family spends $10k on them. plus the time you are spending driving everywhere. imho in NYC once you have housing settled you can manage with one stable income with good benefits. that's not the case in many parts of the country, where wages are very low.

> So you think everything is all good now?

not at all, but when it comes to anger and bitterness, you hadn't seen a thing. wait till it comes clear that serious cuts to pensions, Medicare and Medicaid to current beneficiaries are only a few years ahead of us. that's gonna make many people angry imho.

" imho in NYC once you have housing settled you can manage with one stable income with good benefits."

so a family of 4 can live in manhattan on a $80-100K salary and have kids go to decent schools?

tell me where in Manhattan this is.

Well, the paper at the very least should control for changes in college degrees, how many dubious degrees were granted to "creative writing", "women studies" ... and the like in the 70s and 80s? he's not controlling for changes in his proxy for "education". many college courses nowadays should be taught in high-school, a high-school diploma in hte public system back then was worth more in terms of education than right now.

another issue with this paper is that it's wrongly accounting for wages when comparing it with labor productivity. wages had not been stagnant since the 70s and 80s once you include the fact that FICA taxes trebled (yes, from 5% up to 15%) and when adding the increasing cost of health care benefits. it remains true that the worker's net wage is stagnant or even went lower in real terms. much of the rewards for the productivity gains went to health care and SS/Medicare.

If you already own an apartment (paid off or with an older mortgage), doable. If not, no way.

If dubious degrees were handed out in the 70s and 80s, that should result in the gap closing over time, not increasing, no?

In any case, Squid's argument was that the reason for income inequality is that people are basically lazy, so the quality of education being provided should be irrelevant in any case since you still have to spend the effort to go through college regardless of whether or not the outcome is as helpful now as it used to be.

The fact remains that the share of earnings of the top income groups (5%, 1%, .1%) have grown significantly relative to the rest of the population (feel free to choose any comparison group you want). There's no way that's explainable by anything having to do with college degrees--after all, the number of people with college degrees has been growing as well!

Final fact check: FICA was 5% in the early 60s, and roughly half the current rate (7.5%) by the 70s, so the FICA increase is <8% over 40 years. It would only take a .2% real annual increase in wages to have fully paid for that.

> If you already own an apartment (paid off or with an older mortgage), doable. If not, no way.

there has to be some local population, born and raised in the city, that get a fully paid for house from their family through inheritances. i honestly don't know any of these individuals... but they have to be around.

"hate California: cold; damp"

What? SF has a dry, Mediterranean climate. LA is the same. Its NEVER as humid there as here, any time of year. Wikipedia "Mediterranean climate" and the average precipitation, by year, for SF, SD, and LA versus NYC.

SF gets 22.3 inches a year and an average of 70 rainy days.
LA gets 15.1 inches a year and an average of 35 rainy days.
NYC gets 49.7 inches a year of rain including 22 inches of snow and an average of 64.6 days with some precipitation.

As for colder....in the dead of winter in SF, its 60 degrees. In LA, its been in the 70s and 80s the last few weeks. And with microclimates, if you go ten miles outside of SF or away from the coast in LA, it will be 20-40 (yes FOURTY) degrees warmer. Its common for the weathermen to say "His will be in the 60s near the coast in Bay Area today, reaching nearly 100 inland." As in, Concord or Danville can be 100, San Mateo 85 degrees, downtown San Fransisco 75 degrees, and the Golden Gate Bridge 65 degrees. At. The. Exact. Same. Moment.

What its NEVER is snowy.

SF is colder in June, July, and August than any other large city - but it's 20-30 degrees warmer in Sept-Nov.

I NEVER owned a sweater or a hat living in SF. And in LA its common to wear shorts on Christmas day.

lady: tramp

> What? SF has a dry, Mediterranean climate.

Huh? You ever been there?

San Fran is a Warm-summer Mediterranean climate. "Unlike typical Mediterranean climates, for the majority of the year, these regions experience generally cloudy, damp and cool conditions. During these months, sunshine is seldom seen."

> LA is the same.

If you are claiming that LA has the same climate as San Fran, then you've already lost the argument.

> If dubious degrees were handed out in the 70s and 80s, that should result in the gap closing over time, not increasing, no?

meant the opposite, more worthless degrees are granted now than back then.

the 0,2% that you think is so little is not. it takes 20% of the wage increase in a year in which its gross growth was 1% (hence... not irrelevant). you calculated it on a continuous rate, so check out how much it takes from wage increases when the growth is negative (it keeps on biting the next year you get a positive one!). see? so for a year with negative wage increase (common during recessions) what you get is that 20% bite passed on to the next year. hence the following year if the increase in wage was meant to be 1% again, FICA increase takes more than 40% of it. compound interest is a bitch.

also check out the % of wage that went to health care, there are good papers on this, unlike the one you are referring to. let me know how much it is, this is cool stuff!

Jason, I lived in California and you're like, giving me flashbacks, dude. You see when somebody like alanhart says something like: "hate California: cold; damp"

That's what people in the northeast call irony. With a Randy Newman reference thrown in for fun. Hella cool. But its all good.

notadmin : I think the burden's on you to show that a college degree today is less likely to be practical than 40 years ago, and you'd have to show that the portion of people earning useful degrees is declining, which seems like an even more dubious proposition. The .2% is still small relative to real growth in GDP during the same period, which is why productivity gains have been running ahead of wage increases for so long. Also, only half of the FICA should affect wages in any case since the employee-paid portion of FICA will still show up as wages.

I agree that health care costs are part of the reason why wage growth has been stagnant, but it's far from sufficient to explain why the people at the top of the income distribution have continued to see huge increases in income and share of income. Moreover, the amount that individuals are spending on health care is increasing as well, so the growth of health care cost further penalizes those down on the income scale. People with lower incomes tend to have higher copays and premiums, and tend to spend a larger portion of their income on health care relative to richer people as well.

The question is always about equal opportunity vs equal outcome. New York will never be about equal outcome no matter how much the left tries. Doing so would kill the city.

But we should have equal opportunity. This means access to education and equal protection under the law, and hopefully equal access.

There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a home in this borough, as opposed to a home in Queens, Brooklyn, Jersey , etc.

Riversider--I think that's a nonsequiter here. There's always been haves and have-nots in NYC. That doesn't explain why the haves are getting more while the have-nots are getting less; even if it provided an economic rationale, it doesn't mean that it's a good direction for society to head in.

Jordyn,
In this regard I think NY is just a reflection of what's going on at a national level.
The Fed Targets a wealth effect from rising stock prices that only the upper class can benefit from and at the same time targets inflation that affects basic goods that the lower classes have to buy.
The problem is not in allocation of apartments or town houses but on government policies that increase the income gap by reducing the opportunities for some over others.

> notadmin : I think the burden's on you to show that a college degree today is less likely to be
> practical than 40 years ago,

College degrees simply mean less now. Admission standards have declined outside of the top schools. Folks coming in are dumber. More than 50% of CUNY attendees have to take remedial math and/or english. Again, high school grads and college students who have math and basic english issues.

While there are many smart, capable people gradating from City University of NY, I doubt the averages bear any resemblance to Wharton, UCLA or Georgetown, etc.

College degrees are still as valuable today as forty years ago, but not all college degrees have the same value. The issue of CUNY standards are another issue.. Do they still automatically grant four year admissions to graduates of two year CUNY programs? A very significant number of Associates degree CUNY students are not at the high school level.

Riversider : I agree that this is generally a national problem rather than a NYC problem, although it's really acute here given the disparity between banker's wages and almost everyone else.

somewhereelse: It would be interesting to see some data, but I think it's more likely that the pool of people going to college has increased than that the same people who would have gone to college 40 years ago are getting a less valuable degree than they would have at that time. Supposing your argument is true, though, it still means that Squid is an idiot, since you're just saying that the argument for getting a college degree is becoming weaker as time goes by.

CUNY has long been a provider of education to those for whom English is a second language. in recent years the college application process has been more cutthroat than it has ever been, given demographics. Without some substantiation I doubt swe's assertion. the value of the degree has certainly declined in terms of what it gets a grad due to lack of opportunity, but that doesn't reflect the applicant pool. In the past plenty of grads of marginal schools got jobs in sales, insurance, human resources, admin, etc. now, not so much.

Alan, I got it. Clearly should have LOL'd you at the time.

Squid, really? REALLY?
One person in my college class is a very wealthy hedge funder, one is in the Cabinet, and just about everybody else has had a tough decade, finance-wise, regardless of choice of profession.

Ali r.
DG Neary Realty

ali, in my class it's much more mixed, but it's a couple of years earlier. our friends who hopped to and went right off to law school or got mbas have done very well. those who took a few (or more) years to find their careers have been VERY MUCH behind those who got going only three to five years earlier.

>I am from Cali and people who live in WEALTHY areas are shocked at how much condos or rentals go for in HARLEM, let alone south of their.

Fantastic. Last week we had comparisons to Wayne, NJ, this week to California.

> many college courses nowadays should be taught in high-school, a high-school diploma in hte public system back then was worth more in terms of education than right now.

Exactly. In the past you could get a highly-competent, loyal assistant who went to the Katerine Gibbs school. Today, people in their late 20s, and 30s are borrowing large sums from the government to go to Berkley College or University of Phoenix Online.

>much of the rewards for the productivity gains went to health care and SS/Medicare.

That's a great point

>The fact remains that the share of earnings of the top income groups (5%, 1%, .1%) have grown significantly relative to the rest of the population (feel free to choose any comparison group you want).

Why does that matter? If someone middle-class can afford the same things today as they could in the past, what do they worry if the top .1% are people worth $1 billion and up or $2 billion and up?

hfscomm1.

getting a little impatient.

>SF has a dry, Mediterranean climate. LA is the same.

Ah, now San Fran and LA have the same climate.

nice work.

hfscomm1

"Why does that matter? If someone middle-class can afford the same things today as they could in the past, what do they worry if the top .1% are people worth $1 billion and up or $2 billion and up?"

Because the economy as a whole is growing, but all of the rewards are going to a tiny handful of people. The super-rich are not the only ones generating that growth but they're the only one benefiting. That's inequitable and, as pointed out by the original article, generally describes third world countries rather than developed nations. This is not a situation of a rising tide raising all boats. In fact, as discussed above, many people are actually losing ground in real terms while the rich get richer, so it's not even the case that the non-rich can afford the same things today as they could in the past.

>Because the economy as a whole is growing, but all of the rewards are going to a tiny handful of people.

Except that isn't happening. People have abundant food, better homes and better home comforts (what % of people have AC today vs. 30 years ago?), a ridiculous array of entertainment and communication than ever before, low cost air travel, safer cars, advances in medicine, ...

"Huh? You ever been there?"

I was born and raised there, numbnuts. Lived there until I was 29.

As for Mediterranean climate - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate

"Most large, historic cities of the Mediterranean basin, including Athens, Barcelona, Beirut, Jerusalem, Marseille and Rome, lie within Mediterranean climatic zones, as do major cities outside of the Mediterranean, such as Cape Town, Los Angeles, Adelaide, Perth, San Francisco and Santiago de Chile."

Unlike you dummies, I lived there year-round.

Also proof positive: Wine Country in NORTH of San Francisco. Because Napa's climate is like...wait for it...the Mediterranean.

"Wine regions with Mediterranean climates

Wine regions with Mediterranean climates

* Tuscany and most other Italian wine regions
* Most Greek wine regions
* Most Israeli wine regions
* Most Lebanese wine regions
* Southern Rhone Valley
* Catalonia
* Languedoc
* Provence
* Coastal Portuguese wine region
* Primorska Slovenian wine region
* Napa Valley and other coastal California wine regions {!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
* Western Australia and South Australia wine regions
* Most Chilean wine regions
* Coastal South African wine regions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate_%28wine%29#Wine_regions_with_Mediterranean_climates

>Unlike you dummies, I lived there year-round.

We are glad you left and joined us all here.

I love SF, but come on JS1K6, you know SF's climate is nothing like Napa, Palo Alto, San Jose or Oakland. SF is a little penisula sticking out into a cold and windy ocean. Heavy, misty fog at 45 degrees won't contribute much to the average rainfall, but it is cold and damp. Winter is worse.

The National Park Service says SF's Presidio is in a Mediterranean zone: http://www.nps.gov/prsf/naturescience/mediterranean-climate.htm

You fucking dummies. You don't think they teach us about California and the Bay Area in school from an early age? Or that the Park Service knows less than you fucking tourists?

Yeah, huntersburg. You are so much smarter than all of those people who actually collect data on this.

The only way your theory is correct (that prosperity is actually increasing) is if the government is consistently overstating inflation so that real wages were actually growing. You'd probably be the only person in the world who believes this, but it would be great to see what leads you to this conclusion.

A series of .gov sources listing SF's climate as such.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=san-francisco+%22Mediterranean+climate+%22+site%3A.gov&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

A series of climatology websites saying the same:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=san-francisco+%22Mediterranean+climate+%22+site%3A.edu&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

morons.

"...San Francisco is really more of a temperate-Mediterranean climate...." - The University of California Botanic Gardens at Berkeley

"the San Francisco Bay Area is.... characterized by a moderate Mediterranean climate..." - National Park Service

"The [Bay Area] region has a dry summer subtropical climate, also known as a “Mediterranean” climate." - the Federal Transportation Authority

"...Northern California enjoys a Mediterranean climate..." home page of Stanford Business School

I hate morons.

Jason, what's the weather going to be like this weekend? Don't feel like going to weather.com.

jason..aren't schools advertising themselves a biased source?...

bob420: "Jason, what's the weather going to be like this weekend? Don't feel like going to weather.com"

ROTFL!!! you're the man dude

So in summation, Frisco's tourist bureau buzzword for this year is "Mediterranean".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hETw3-OMUHo

@Squid (and I guess jordyn):

We don't have to get too much into it, but let's just say your comment adds nothing to the discussion. If the quality of teachers, books and supplies, financial investment, etc in poor neighborhoods was ANYWHERE close to that of even in middle class school, you would have a point. Doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on. And of course people won't be in any position to continue to college when they have no basic educational foundation whatsoever. Again, has nothing to do with the reason why Manhattan is expensive. In fact, if those poor had more opportunity and thus higher earnings on average, price would probably be higher as demand would increase.

But in general, there's a lot of cache living in Manhattan, space issues, etc that make the price of things especially high. Add to that, it is very easy to access NYC from many suburban states especially using public transportation, so it makes it that much more of a center hub for jobs. Thus, even more reason for people to desire to be in the center of it all. Everything else follows.

One thing I also realized: Things are at least partially relative. The excessive consumption that characterized the last decade also accounts for the feeling that Manhattan is for the rich only. Contrary to what the Fed said the past two decades, I feel not EVERYONE is a candidate for home ownership. If you rent in Manhattan, especially before kids, you can definitely live a decent life with some savings and a mediocre job. At least that;s been my experience.

Once you have kids, then yes, space is at a huge premium. But you have to realize that NO city in the US has the conveniences NYC has. I've heard countless, countless complains of people that move away and can't get the expectation out of their heads of being able to walk two block at any time of the day or night and grab food, groceries, supplies, etc.

> Once you have kids, then yes, space is at a huge premium. But you have to realize that NO city in the US has the conveniences NYC has. I've heard countless, countless complains of people that move away and can't get the expectation out of their heads of being able to walk two block at any time of the day or night and grab food, groceries, supplies, etc.

exactly, i just came from the supermarket that just closed. got a little walk done and some weight lifting while doing so. what a pleasure! let's face it, neither sidewalks can be taken for granted in most of USA. when we need/want a car, we use zipcar. it's efficient to share what we don't use 24x7. we save around $10k/year after tax by not having the 2 cars that most families need elsewhere.

it's also good for the country, more than half of the trade deficit comes from oil imports. walking helps against obesity. i would love to see urban planning efforts towards making USA cities more walkable.

This rich getting richer, poor getting poorer is such a tired spurious argument. It is the result of one simple concept anyone with half a brain and a few extra dollars understands - compounding.

The poor person manages to double the $1000 bucks they have saved in X years. They made $1000 bucks and while the "rich" person doubles their $1,000,000 in X years, has made $1,000,000 for the same amount of "work", risk and return. No rocket science here yet people still act as if this is some sort of crazy Bilderberg conspiracy or something.

@notadmin:

As always, the problem is its too difficult to convince people of the upfront investment in things like public transportation infrastructure. The long term benefit would outweigh the cost of dependence on several things, including oil/gas.

On an unrelated note, I think I'll end up moving to suburbia when I have kids for a decent public school AND space. But I really like how growing up in NYC (especially the other boroughs) makes kids a hell of a lot more mature, cultured, and confident in their independence.

> This rich getting richer, poor getting poorer is such a tired spurious argument. It is the result of one simple concept anyone with half a brain and a few extra dollars understands - compounding. The poor person manages to double the $1000 bucks they have saved in X years. They made $1000 bucks and while the "rich" person doubles their $1,000,000 in X years, has made $1,000,000 for the same amount of "work", risk and return. No rocket science here yet people still act as if this is some sort of crazy Bilderberg conspiracy or something.

so true! besides, those with a sizable portfolio tend to be more financially literate or can afford better advisers if they aren't.

And, directly or indirectly, they manipulate government policy to get more and more and more.

bhh--If the trend is the inevitable result of compounding, why did the rich/poor gap close during significant periods of economic expansion in the past, such as the 50s and 60s?

Also, your argument would explain why capital income was increasing, but it wouldn't explain why the rich have been claiming a larger portion of other income as well, which has also been happening.

> As always, the problem is its too difficult to convince people of the upfront investment in things like public transportation infrastructure. The long term benefit would outweigh the cost of dependence on several things, including oil/gas.

i know of "cities" like dallas where voters opted for not having public transportation not cause of the cost, but to make sure poor people will not move in. as gas prices go up those decisions might end up being regretted, who knows.

you don't have to be an "investor" to reap the benefits of, or suffer from compounding. A 5% raise on minimum wage is not nearly the bump in salary a 5% raise on a $500,000 salary is. Even so, The extra dollars that come along with the larger of the 100% returns funnels into higher education, other businesses, other investments, better accountants, etc. Higher education after all isn't free and really is just another investment, complete with opportunity cost, ROI, etc.

As for the income gap closing in the 50s and 60s... honestly, that is news to me but I'll take you word for it. I imagine it has something to do with a demographics which is now working against us.

btw, I'm not rich and I live in Brooklyn so I really have no business participating in a "Manhattan for Rich Only" thread but I figured I would throw my 4 cents in anyway ;-)

If everyone gets a 5% raise, the share of total income that rich people get remains constant even though it may be a $25,000 raise for a rich person and a $500 raise for poorer folks. The problem we're seeing is that rich people are getting 10% raises and everyone else is getting 2% raises. That's not inevitable and it doesn't happen in other developed countries and it hasn't happened for much of the history of our economy.

You're right that there's a lot of systemic advantages built into starting off wealthy--this, of course, contradicts the notion that others have tried to advance that there's something resembling equal opportunity for everyone.

Actually it's the reverse....

Coming into the Kennedy years, taxes were extremely high on the rich. It basically created a cap of $2 million in earnings per year. The flood of money was reinvested into infrastructure and government programs, many of which helped the poor. It's funny how things work though. The same typical conservative, Republican households that tend to be in an uproar about higher taxation on the rich now were much more willing to be taxed back then. It was all in the approach... Kennedy had the whole "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" campaign. People actually wanted to help the nation.

One must be careful with the use of the word causation, but there was a STRONG correlation in this "redistribution of wealth" and the rapid expansion and good years we saw.

I don't think anyone would honestly argue there were not advantages to starting of "wealthy", however one chooses to define it. But that is not really the point IMHO. Simple laws of supply and demand state that a position that can be filled by 1,000,000 uneducated persons is not going to demand the same retention premium (raise %) as a position that can be filled by a smaller number people with a more specialized skill set/experience. Incremental gains cost more in every facet of life. A car that goes 180 miles per hour cost way more than 2x a car that goes 90. I'm really just repeating what my parents taught me when I had to go without something as a child, life isn't fair - suck it up and make the best of what you have. Blaming others is just an easy excuse for failure.

> Coming into the Kennedy years, taxes were extremely high on the rich. It basically created a cap of $2 million in earnings per year. The flood of money was reinvested into infrastructure and government programs, many of which helped the poor

1st thing right, 2nd not that much. marginal tax rates on higher earners were much higher but revenue actually wasn't. income inequality was mostly limited pre-tax as many wealthy weren't working full time after their marginal rates hit too high levels. dual income couples were a total non-sense money wise as the wife's first dollar would be punished by too high rates, volunteering was a better deal. Reagan ended that by lowering those very high marginal rates.

there's the argument that although incomes of the rich were lowered by this high tax, it ended up subsidizing leisure for the rich. so they don't suffer either way. there's a couple of good papers on this, not that old actually, one by the CBO.

another big variable was higher capital mobility as part of globalization, which brings much more investment opportunities. the rich benefit from that one the most obviously.

> It was all in the approach... Kennedy had the whole "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" campaign. People actually wanted to help the nation.

i would dare say that the civil rights act has much more to do with improvement of living standards of the poor (ok, some whites were also poor) than those public works and shared sacrificed through higher taxation you are referring.

in fact, kennedy was president from 1961, the marginal tax rate from $100k on was 90% before him, a WWII legacy. in 1964 it was lowered to 70%, which still subsidizes leisure. take into account that other taxes need to be added on top of that 70%.

OMG, you all got jason calling people names again, LOL.

Manhattan for the rich only, which borough will be dedicated for the poor?

our much larger middle class in the 50's and 60's consisted of mostly single income households with earner having significant job security, as well as life security: families were raised in houses lived in for years where one parent was on hand to raise children most of the time, health care was provided at behest of doctors, cutting edge high-tech products like cars and televisions were affordable, earners worke 8-10 hours per day M-F and sat at the dinner table as a family each night, those who put in 30+ honest years of work could rely on pensions and social security to retire under reasonable
circumstances

now "productivity" has been wrung from the middle class with all benefits going to the very wealthy, mostly completely unproductive elements of our society--and this wringing has been from every component to QOL, with real income declines in the face of new dynastic wealth accumulation an emblem of this

the rovian right has done a very nice job effecting this

wow my hasty writing is a disgrace to my education, most of which was cast in high school

leave jason alone--he's a good guy--gets cranky once in a while

oh.. and hfs/hburg/lucy'ssorry/etcetcetc--the newbies will engage you, until you flip out again as you very predictably will

how's about now??

bhh : Your theory of supply and demand explains why high earners should earn more than low earners. It doesn't particularly explain why their raises should be bigger every year and they should claim an ever larger fraction of the total pie. It particularly doesn't explain why some people are actually losing ground in real terms despite growth in the economy. But that's what's happening--when the economy grows, almost all of the gains get routed to a tiny handfull of people despite everyone getting more productive.

Also, your theory sounds good when comparing "elite" jobs to something that anyone can do, but the share that the top .1% is earning is growing relative to the top 1%, the share that the top 1% is growing relative to the top 5%, etc, so we're talking about gaps widening relative to pretty smart and capable people, not just the poor. Just as importantly, if you look at what people do to earn this money, it's increasingly skewed toward executive management and finance and away from other professions. Are doctors less valuable than they were 40 years ago--and in particular, is the value of one of the very best doctors lower? Your theory doesn't explain why this should be the case, yet their share of the top .1% and the top 1% has been declining over time as income gaps widen.

>leave jason alone--he's a good guy--gets cranky once in a while

You are the only one who has posted about Jason's "panties."

"..The San Francisco Bay Area's Mediterranean climate, with arguably the best (or at least some of the most temperate weather in the world) is ..." - SF Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/sf-in-san-francisco/our-unique-and-fragile-mediterranean-climate

"...Besides the Mediterranean Basin, the regions having a Mediterranean climate include much of California and small parts of the adjacent Pacific Northwest, the Western Cape in South Africa, central Chile, the coastal areas of southern Western Australia and western South Australia....

...As an example, San Francisco in California, USA..." - About.com

If you Google either SF or Bay Area and the "Mediterranean Climate", you get over 200,000 hits, including EVERY relevant meteorological, geographic, encyclopedic, academic, journalistic and government sites.

Now will someone please post a link to a reputable source that says otherwise? Look at ANY online encyclopedia. you will NOT find one that does NOT include it as such. Please, go ahead and try.

And people wear shorts at Stanford in December and January a few days each year, BTW.

wbottom, lucy is not the comm poster, although her shameful recent conduct has certainly been trollish.
i've talked to jason before, so hopefully he doesn't share your pov.

but re your longer post, it was always my (possibly incorrect) understanding that the middle class golden age of the 50s was in no was an organic developent, but an anomalous result of 2 world wars which crippled the entire "civilized" world, but form which we mostly profitted. wouldn't you say that the only reason our middle class became as prosperous as we did was because we were the only game in town in terms of production? it would appear that the decline of the american middle class has been mirrored with the rise of manufacture in the rest of the world. what if the only way for the masses in the us to have that kind of life is the complete destruction of any possible competition? i'm not the comm troll, and any other. fwiw, they are all much more knowledgeable than lucy in ways of finance, law and just about everything else. but i know jersey!

^it was in no WAY and organic development

oh good lord. nevermind. just comment if you feel like it.

Lucille: Your theory doesn't explain why extreme/rising inequality is almost exclusively an American phenomenon. If the only way to sustain a middle class is to blow up your competitors, why do Europe and Japan manage to maintain much narrower rich/poor gaps?

As has been pointed out countless times, it's not that the economy is shrinking or that overall productivity or output is declining, nor are the people at the top disproportionately responsible for those gains. The last couple of years notwithstanding, the economy as a whole does better and better, but the rewards have been almost exclusively (or, if we really want to control for FICA and health care to avoid that debate, predominantly) channeled to a small few. There's no fundamental economic or societal imperative that forces this to happen, and in most parts of the world and much of our own history, it hasn't.

jordyn, i don't have a theory, i am asking a question. i don't that much about japan, but europe is socialist. politics aside for a minute, you have to add into you analysis 1)the fact that they don't have, and DON'T NEED, a military. we offer military portection to "european interests" on the house. i put that in quotes because what defines european interests or even europe for that matter is an entirely different conversation. and 2)despite popular and populist belief, many other aspects of the great european society are also subsidized by the american sucker. one thing that immidiately leaps to mind is prescription drugs.

i completely agree with you that corporate leadership compensation in this country is outright theft. indusrty leaders in europe recieve a fraction of their american counterparts.

a fraction of what their american couterparts recieve. they don't actually recieve pieces of our ceos, that i know of. look, sorry, i type fast. sorry ahead of time.

Jordyn: don't overidealize the "middle class" in Japan or Europe. It's not quite the same deal as in the U.S. or Canada. Agree with Lucille that the 50s & 60s were possibly anomalous due to almost total destruction of industry in Europe & Japan & China in throes of Communist Revolution (remember that the Brits had to bring in opium to gain the upper hand in the China trade).

I don't understand why Europe not having a military or being subsidized by us would lead to income inequality. I agree that the issues exist, I just don't see how they're relevant.

On the other hand, you're very much on target when talking about executive compensation. U.S. executives make way more than their counterparts in other countries (twice as much as equivalent roles in Europe and Japan, apparently), and executive compensation is one of the main drivers of the trend.

oh.. and hfs/hburg/lucy'ssorry/etcetcetc--the newbies will engage you, until you flip out again as you very predictably will

"Jordyn: don't overidealize the "middle class" in Japan or Europe. It's not quite the same deal as in the U.S. or Canada"

I have no idea what that means. You'll have to elaborate for me to take it seriously.

But in any case, it's not about the middle class or the poor. It's really the extremely rich outpacing the rich and the rich outpacing *everyone else*. I'm not idealizing other countries, I'm just saying this phenomenon doesn't happen in other places, so it's by no means inevitable.

I thought your primary concern was the disappearance of the middle class, rather than the rich outpacing everyone else & you made a point about the gap between rich & poor being smaller in Europe/Japan (true, btw).

But just because the rich & poor are closer in wage in those places doesn't necessarily mean that they have a large, exuberant middle class with an abundance of opportunities.

I'll throw out an example. In Western Europe, children are streamed very early into a university-bound academic track & trade school type track. And then when you graduate, yes, you don't have to worry about medical cost or starving, but jobs are hard to come by and it's also quite difficult to rent your own place as an adult (outside NYC & maybe SF, the latter is not true of the U.S.) even when you make a good wage. So, if I were a member of the middle class in Western Europe, I don't think I would be happy with the opportunities that my children would have as individuals even though I would be appreciative of the social safety net as a whole.

jordyn, i'm very sorry, but i come here to learn myself. i can't help you to understand how military action by a nation is often a function of economic prosperity. or what impact the fact that only one nation is providing the military action, while all of her "allies" reap the rewards, may have on that nation. i also really really can't help you to understand that very rich Rich and very poor Poor, are the norm in this world, not the exception.

wbottom, that's just over my head.

"I also really really can't help you to understand that very rich Rich and very poor Poor, are the norm in this world, not the exception"

Sorry, but that's just not true in other developed countries. If by "norm in the world", you mean that most people live in developing countries and in this respect the US resembles a developing country, well I agree you're onto something, but I certainly don't celebrate the fact.

"I thought your primary concern was the disappearance of the middle class, rather than the rich outpacing everyone else & you made a point about the gap between rich & poor being smaller in Europe/Japan (true, btw)."

My concern is that essentially all of the benefits of increased productivity and economic growth is being funneled to a tiny handful of people. I don't think the middle class in the US is disappearing, it's just working harder, longer, and more productively without realizing any of the gains for doing so.

I do agree that the US has more dynamic opportunities for both success and failure relative to your starting point than in Europe, but one of the things that has historically been true in the US is that each generation would be better off than previous ones. For many people, that no longer seems to be the case.