I wonder if you've ever looked at a graph of wealth accumulation of every economic strata in the US, or just inequality. There's nothing wrong with inequality if the poor are getting richer, have more access to resources, and a higher quality of life with time.

Except they're getting relatively poorer - having less access to housing, lower purchasing power, lesser access to medical care and are dying sooner (even before COVID).

But that's a nice hypothetical you've got there.

Not according to the data.

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-poor-get-poorer-w...

That's not data, that's extremely bad propaganda.

Median wealth was the same in 1995 as it was in 2016 [0].

Median inflation adjusted household income was the same in 1974 as in 2016 [1]. If you go the full range it's gone from $54k to $67k between 1968 to 2021.

That is technically higher, but it's not CPI adjusted.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...

[1] https://dqydj.com/household-income-by-year/

There's these things called citations, there's tons of them throughout the piece, those pieces further cite primary sources for the data.

Learn these things before you try to engage in conversations about this topic:

The difference between income and total compensation.

The difference between income and wealth.

The dynamic nature of economic mobility over the course of someone's life. (Older people have more human capital and therefore more wealth).

Fun fact Denmark is one of the most wealth unequal countries.

> There's these things called citations, there's tons of them throughout the piece, those pieces further cite primary sources for the data.

I clicked 10 or so citations that all went to the same guys blog where he at best had skewered pew research I sourced directly instead.

> Learn these things before you try to engage in conversations about this topic:

> The difference between income and total compensation.

If you have data on median compensation (outside of regular income) we can discuss it. It would however already be represented in wealth data, so it seems negligible.

> The difference between income and wealth.

Which is why I provided both.

> The dynamic nature of economic mobility over the course of someone's life. (Older people have more human capital and therefore more wealth).

How is this relevant to median income/wealth measured over time? It's not measuring one person's wealth growth, but a time series of snapshots of everyone's (meaning all ages).

lol at thinking Daniel Mitchell is just a "guy"

>How is this relevant to median income/wealth measured over time?

Because the age and dominant generation of the population massively affects the median household wealth. It's why the median wealth of Japanese Americans is significantly higher than Hispanic Americans. The median age of the Japanese American population is almost double that of Hispanic Americans.

> lol at thinking Daniel Mitchell is just a "guy"

He's a global warming denialist often citing Daily Mail as a source. I know who he is. "just a guy" would've honestly been a better resume. What he is not is a primary source or a good source of unbiased anything.

> Because the age and dominant generation of the population massively affects the median household wealth. It's why the median wealth of Japanese Americans is significantly higher than Hispanic Americans. The median age of the Japanese American population is almost double that of Hispanic Americans.

Ok, median age in the 1990s was 32.9, and 37.9 in 2016 [0], so the wealth being the same means it actually shrunk even more since older people should have more. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241494/median-age-of-the...

>What he is not is a primary source or a good source of unbiased anything.

Oops I guess the Senate finance committee fucked up then

https://medium.com/beyond-pen-and-paper/the-poor-arent-getti...

So from blog to medium post, this isn't getting stronger. Make a statement and link a source, or disprove the ones I made.

I have repeatedly, your inability to observe data from the CBO and BLS is not my problem

> I have repeatedly, your inability to observe data from the CBO and BLS is not my problem

So we have this scenario where either

1) you can't explain how my points are wrong, and direct me to read some blogs you like.

2) you don't want to

In either case, why are you even responding? If everything on the internet is self-explanatory, everyone should agree. So why aren't we? This is why we explain how something is wrong, and support it using data from mutually reliable sources. You repeatedly sidestep this, for whatever reason I don't know.

Mate there's CBO, BLS, Journal of Economic Research, IMF, and several academic study citations in the video, post, blog, and all over the internet.

It's a myth that the poor get poorer. Market economies are not zero sum. Whether or not you want to explore that seriously or just participate in an exercise of confirmation bias is, again, not my problem.

All you've provided are ad hominems against sources that directly counter your initial contentions without sincerely examining the information or data contained within. I'm not interested in hearing your regurgitated, scripted nonsense on this topic that every ignorant believer in this myth spews out. I've participated in this conversation too many times to be surprised by how it goes or the points made. Nothing you've stated is new, unaccounted for, or unexplainable if you'd spend 5 minutes challenging your world view. It's not my job to provide sources only you approve of.

>> This is why we explain how something is wrong, and support it using data from mutually reliable sources. You repeatedly sidestep this, for whatever reason I don't know.

> Mate there's CBO, BLS, Journal of Economic Research, IMF, and several academic study citations in the video, post, blog, and all over the internet.

Yet the only thing you've linked is a blog and a medium post, not IMF, or BLS or the sources you seem to agree are reputable. Why is that? Is it because they don't say the things your blogs claim they do?

> There's these things called citations, there's tons of them throughout the piece, those pieces further cite primary sources for the data.

The author cites his own blog, which also cites his own blog. Almost all the citations in his blog are to his own blog. One single link in the article did not go to his own blog but instead went to a video at reason.com. This is not a pattern which gives confidence in the material.

First, Dan Mitchell is a primary source. Second, many of the pieces source BLS data or similar entities.