This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Define Irony: Janet Yellen Talks Inequality, Has Some Advice - Start A Business, Get Rich Parents
With no mention of the current turmoil in markets - or suggestion of QE99 - Janet Yellen's speech this morning on "Inequality and Opportunity" in America explains how the poor can get rich. After admitting that widening inequality resumed in the recovery (and "greatly concerns" her), as the stock market rebounded (driven by Fed's free money) and cost-conscious share buying-back companies defer wage growth as the healing of the labor market has been slow; she turns her attention to how the poor can beat the vicious cycle. Rather stunningly, she notes the 4 sources of income opportunity in America: The first two are widely recognized as important sources of opportunity: resources available for children and affordable higher education (so more student debt and servitude). The second two may come as more of a surprise: business ownership and inheritances. As she concludes, "this is how individuals and their families can improve their economic circumstances."
Janet Yellen becomes aware of the inequality "problem"...
And maybe understands why...
Full Janet Yellen Speech: Perspectives on Inequality and Opportunity from the Survey of Consumer Finances
The distribution of income and wealth in the United States has been widening more or less steadily for several decades, to a greater extent than in most advanced countries.1 This trend paused during the Great Recession because of larger wealth losses for those at the top of the distribution and because increased safety-net spending helped offset some income losses for those below the top. But widening inequality resumed in the recovery, as the stock market rebounded, wage growth and the healing of the labor market have been slow, and the increase in home prices has not fully restored the housing wealth lost by the large majority of households for which it is their primary asset.
The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me. The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression. By some estimates, income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of American history before then.2 It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority. I think it is appropriate to ask whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation's history, among them the high value Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity.
Some degree of inequality in income and wealth, of course, would occur even with completely equal opportunity because variations in effort, skill, and luck will produce variations in outcomes. Indeed, some variation in outcomes arguably contributes to economic growth because it creates incentives to work hard, get an education, save, invest, and undertake risk. However, to the extent that opportunity itself is enhanced by access to economic resources, inequality of outcomes can exacerbate inequality of opportunity, thereby perpetuating a trend of increasing inequality. Such a link is suggested by the "Great Gatsby Curve," the finding that, among advanced economies, greater income inequality is associated with diminished intergenerational mobility.3 In such circumstances, society faces difficult questions of how best to fairly and justly promote equal opportunity. My purpose today is not to provide answers to these contentious questions, but rather to provide a factual basis for further discussion. I am pleased that this conference will focus on equality of economic opportunity and on ways to better promote it.
In my remarks, I will review trends in income and wealth inequality over the past several decades, then identify and discuss four sources of economic opportunity in America--think of them as "building blocks" for the gains in income and wealth that most Americans hope are within reach of those who strive for them. The first two are widely recognized as important sources of opportunity: resources available for children and affordable higher education. The second two may come as more of a surprise: business ownership and inheritances. Like most sources of wealth, family ownership of businesses and inheritances are concentrated among households at the top of the distribution. But both of these are less concentrated and more broadly distributed than other forms of wealth, and there is some basis for thinking that they may also play a role in providing economic opportunities to a considerable number of families below the top.
In focusing on these four building blocks, I do not mean to suggest that they account for all economic opportunity, but I do believe they are all significant sources of opportunity for individuals and their families to improve their economic circumstances.
Income and Wealth Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances
I will start with the basics about widening inequality, drawing heavily on a trove of data generated by the Federal Reserve's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), the latest of which was conducted in 2013 and published last month.4 The SCF is broadly consistent with other data that show widening wealth and income inequality over the past several decades, but I am employing the SCF because it offers the added advantage of specific detail on income, wealth, and debt for each of 6,000 households surveyed.5 This detail from family balance sheets provides a glimpse of the relative access to the four sources of opportunity I will discuss.
While the recent trend of widening income and wealth inequality is clear, the implications for a particular family partly depend on whether that family's living standards are rising or not as its relative position changes. There have been some times of relative prosperity when income has grown for most households but inequality widened because the gains were proportionally larger for those at the top; widening inequality might not be as great a concern if living standards improve for most families. That was the case for much of the 1990s, when real incomes were rising for most households. At other times, however, inequality has widened because income and wealth grew for those at the top and stagnated or fell for others. And at still other times, inequality has widened when incomes were falling for most households, but the declines toward the bottom were proportionally larger. Unfortunately, the past several decades of widening inequality has often involved stagnant or falling living standards for many families.
Since the survey began in its current form in 1989, the SCF has shown a rise in the concentration of income in the top few percent of households, as shown in figure 1.6 By definition, of course, the share of all income held by the rest, the vast majority of households, has fallen by the same amount.7 This concentration was the result of income and living standards rising much more quickly for those at the top. After adjusting for inflation, the average income of the top 5 percent of households grew by 38 percent from 1989 to 2013, as we can see in figure 2. By comparison, the average real income of the other 95 percent of households grew less than 10 percent. Income inequality narrowed slightly during the Great Recession, as income fell more for the top than for others, but resumed widening in the recovery, and by 2013 it had nearly returned to the pre-recession peak.8
The distribution of wealth is even more unequal than that of income, and the SCF shows that wealth inequality has increased more than income inequality since 1989. As shown in figure 3, the wealthiest 5 percent of American households held 54 percent of all wealth reported in the 1989 survey. Their share rose to 61 percent in 2010 and reached 63 percent in 2013. By contrast, the rest of those in the top half of the wealth distribution--families that in 2013 had a net worth between $81,000 and $1.9 million--held 43 percent of wealth in 1989 and only 36 percent in 2013.
The lower half of households by wealth held just 3 percent of wealth in 1989 and only 1 percent in 2013. To put that in perspective, figure 4 shows that the average net worth of the lower half of the distribution, representing 62 million households, was $11,000 in 2013.9 About one-fourth of these families reported zero wealth or negative net worth, and a significant fraction of those said they were "underwater" on their home mortgages, owing more than the value of the home.10 This $11,000 average is 50 percent lower than the average wealth of the lower half of families in 1989, adjusted for inflation. Average real wealth rose gradually for these families for most of those years, then dropped sharply after 2007. Figure 5 shows that average wealth also grew steadily for the "next 45" percent of households before the crisis but didn't fall nearly as much afterward. Those next 45 households saw their wealth, measured in 2013 dollars, grow from an average of $323,000 in 1989 to $516,000 in 2007 and then fall to $424,000 in 2013, a net gain of about one-third over 24 years. Meanwhile, the average real wealth of families in the top 5 percent has nearly doubled, on net--from $3.6 million in 1989 to $6.8 million in 2013.
Housing wealth--the net equity held by households, consisting of the value of their homes minus their mortgage debt--is the most important source of wealth for all but those at the very top.11 It accounted for three-fifths of wealth in 2013 for the lower half of families and two-fifths of wealth for the next 45. But housing wealth was only one-fifth of total wealth for the top 5 percent of families. The share of housing in total net worth for all three groups has not changed much since 1989.
Since housing accounts for a larger share of wealth for those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution, their overall wealth is affected more by changes in home prices. Furthermore, homeowners in the bottom half have been more highly leveraged on their homes, amplifying this difference. As a result, while the SCF shows that all three groups saw proportionally similar increases and subsequent declines in home prices from 1989 to 2013, the effects on net worth were greater for those in the bottom half of households by wealth. Foreclosures and the dramatic fall in house prices affected many of these families severely, pushing them well down the wealth distribution. Figure 6 shows that homeowners in the bottom half of households by wealth reported 61 percent less home equity in 2013 than in 2007. The next 45 reported a 29 percent loss of housing wealth, and the top 5 lost 20 percent.
Fortunately, rebounding housing prices in 2013 and 2014 have restored a good deal of the loss in housing wealth, with the largest gains for those toward the bottom. Based on rising home prices alone and not counting possible changes in mortgage debt or other factors, Federal Reserve staff estimate that between 2013 and mid-2014, average home equity rose 49 percent for the lowest half of families by wealth that own homes.12 The estimated gains are somewhat less for those with greater wealth.13 Homeowners in the bottom 50, which had an average overall net worth of $25,000 in 2013, would have seen their net worth increase to an average of $33,000 due solely to home price gains since 2013, a 32 percent increase.
Another major source of wealth for many families is financial assets, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and private pensions.14 Figure 7 shows that the wealthiest 5 percent of households held nearly two-thirds of all such assets in 2013, the next 45 percent of families held about one-third, and the bottom half of households, just 2 percent. This figure may look familiar, since the distribution of financial wealth has concentrated at the top since 1989 at rates similar to those for overall wealth, which we saw in figure 3.15
Those are the basics on wealth and income inequality from the SCF. Other research tells us that inequality tends to persist from one generation to the next. For example, one study that divides households by income found that 4 in 10 children raised in families in the lowest-income fifth of households remain in that quintile as adults.16 Fewer than 1 in 10 children of families at the bottom later reach the top quintile. The story is flipped for children raised in the highest-income households: When they grow up, 4 in 10 stay at the top and fewer than 1 in 10 fall to the bottom.
Research also indicates that economic mobility in the United States has not changed much in the last several decades; that mobility is lower in the United States than in most other advanced countries; and, as I noted earlier, that economic mobility and income inequality among advanced countries are negatively correlated.17
Four Building Blocks of Opportunity
An important factor influencing intergenerational mobility and trends in inequality over time is economic opportunity. While we can measure overall mobility and inequality, summarizing opportunity is harder, which is why I intend to focus on some important sources of opportunity--the four building blocks I mentioned earlier.
Two of those are so significant that you might call them "cornerstones" of opportunity, and you will not be surprised to hear that both are largely related to education. The first of these cornerstones I would describe more fully as "resources available to children in their most formative years." The second is higher education that students and their families can afford.
Two additional sources of opportunity are evident in the SCF. They affect fewer families than the two cornerstones I have just identified, but enough families and to a sufficient extent that I believe they are also important sources of economic opportunity.
The third building block of opportunity, as shown by the SCF, is ownership of a private business.18 This usually means ownership and sometimes direct management of a family business. The fourth source of opportunity is inherited wealth. As one would expect, inheritances are concentrated among the wealthiest families, but the SCF indicates they may also play an important role in the opportunities available to others.
Resources Available for Children
For households with children, family resources can pay for things that research shows enhance future earnings and other economic outcomes--homes in safer neighborhoods with good schools, for example, better nutrition and health care, early childhood education, intervention for learning disabilities, travel and other potentially enriching experiences.19 Affluent families have significant resources for things that give children economic advantages as adults, and the SCF data I have cited indicate that many other households have very little to spare for this purpose. These disparities extend to other household characteristics associated with better economic outcomes for offspring, such as homeownership rates, educational attainment of parents, and a stable family structure.20
According to the SCF, the gap in wealth between families with children at the bottom and the top of the distribution has been growing steadily over the past 24 years, but that pace has accelerated recently. Figure 8 shows that the median wealth for families with children in the lower half of the wealth distribution fell from $13,000 in 2007 to $8,000 in 2013, after adjusting for inflation, a loss of 40 percent.21 These wealth levels look small alongside the much higher wealth of the next 45 percent of households with children. But these families also saw their median wealth fall dramatically--by one-third in real terms--from $344,000 in 2007 to $229,000 in 2013. The top 5 percent of families with children saw their median wealth fall only 9 percent, from $3.5 million in 2007 to $3.2 million in 2013, after inflation.
For families below the top, public funding plays an important role in providing resources to children that influence future levels of income and wealth. Such funding has the potential to help equalize these resources and the opportunities they confer.
Social safety-net spending is an important form of public funding that helps offset disparities in family resources for children. Spending for income security programs since 1989 and until recently was fairly stable, ranging between 1.2 and 1.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with higher levels in this range related to recessions. However, such spending rose to 2.4 percent of GDP in 2009 and 3 percent in 2010.22 Researchers estimate that the increase in the poverty rate because of the recession would have been much larger without the effects of income security programs.23
Public funding of education is another way that governments can help offset the advantages some households have in resources available for children. One of the most consequential examples is early childhood education. Research shows that children from lower-income households who get good-quality pre-Kindergarten education are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college as well as hold a job and have higher earnings, and they are less likely to be incarcerated or receive public assistance.24 Figure 9 shows that access to quality early childhood education has improved since the 1990s, but it remains limited--41 percent of children were enrolled in state or federally supported programs in 2013. Gains in enrollment have stalled since 2010, as has growth in funding, in both cases because of budget cuts related to the Great Recession. These cuts have reduced per-pupil spending in state-funded programs by 12 percent after inflation, and access to such programs, most of which are limited to lower-income families, varies considerably from state to state and within states, since local funding is often important.25 In 2010, the United States ranked 28th out of 38 advanced countries in the share of four-year-olds enrolled in public or private early childhood education.26
Similarly, the quality and the funding levels of public education at the primary and secondary levels vary widely, and this unevenness limits public education's equalizing effect. The United States is one of the few advanced economies in which public education spending is often lower for students in lower-income households than for students in higher-income households.27 Some countries strive for more or less equal funding, and others actually require higher funding in schools serving students from lower-income families, expressly for the purpose of reducing inequality in resources for children.
A major reason the United States is different is that we are one of the few advanced nations that funds primary and secondary public education mainly through subnational taxation. Half of U.S. public school funding comes from local property taxes, a much higher share than in other advanced countries, and thus the inequalities in housing wealth and income I have described enhance the ability of more-affluent school districts to spend more on public schools. Some states have acted to equalize spending to some extent in recent years, but there is still significant variation among and within states. Even after adjusting for regional differences in costs and student needs, there is wide variation in public school funding in the United States.28
Spending is not the only determinant of outcomes in public education. Research shows that higher-quality teachers raise the educational attainment and the future earnings of students.29 Better-quality teachers can help equalize some of the disadvantages in opportunity faced by students from lower-income households, but here, too, there are forces that work against raising teacher quality for these students. Research shows that, for a variety of reasons, including inequality in teacher pay, the best teachers tend to migrate to and concentrate in schools in higher-income areas.30 Even within districts and in individual schools, where teacher pay is often uniform based on experience, factors beyond pay tend to lead more experienced and better-performing teachers to migrate to schools and to classrooms with more-advantaged students.31
Higher Education that Families Can Afford
For many individuals and families, higher education is the other cornerstone of economic opportunity. The premium in lifetime earnings because of higher education has increased over the past few decades, reflecting greater demand for college-educated workers. By one measure, the median annual earnings of full-time workers with a four-year bachelor's degree are 79 percent higher than the median for those with only a high school diploma.32 The wage premium for a graduate degree is significantly higher than the premium for a college degree. Despite escalating costs for college, the net returns for a degree are high enough that college still offers a considerable economic opportunity to most people.33
Along with other data, the SCF shows that most students and their families are having a harder time affording college. College costs have risen much faster than income for the large majority of households since 2001 and have become especially burdensome for households in the bottom half of the earnings distribution.
Rising college costs, the greater numbers of students pursuing higher education, and the recent trends in income and wealth have led to a dramatic increase in student loan debt. Outstanding student loan debt quadrupled from $260 billion in 2004 to $1.1 trillion this year. Sorting families by wealth, the SCF shows that the relative burden of education debt has long been higher for families with lower net worth, and that this disparity has grown much wider in the past couple decades. Figure 10 shows that from 1995 to 2013, outstanding education debt grew from 26 percent of average yearly income for the lower half of households to 58 percent of income.34 The education debt burden was lower and grew a little less sharply for the next 45 percent of families and was much lower and grew not at all for the top 5 percent.35
Higher education has been and remains a potent source of economic opportunity in America, but I fear the large and growing burden of paying for it may make it harder for many young people to take advantage of the opportunity higher education offers.
Opportunities to Build Wealth through Business Ownership
For many people, the opportunity to build a business has long been an important part of the American dream. In addition to housing and financial assets, the SCF shows that ownership of private businesses is a significant source of wealth and can be a vital source of opportunity for many households to improve their economic circumstances and position in the wealth distribution.
While business wealth is highly concentrated at the top of the distribution, it also represents a significant component of wealth for some other households.36 Figure 11 shows that slightly more than half of the top 5 percent of households have a share in a private business. The average value of these holdings is nearly $4 million. Only 14 percent of families in the next 45 have ownership in a private business, but for those that do, this type of wealth constitutes a substantial portion of their assets--the average amount of this business equity is nearly $200,000, representing more than one-third of their net worth. Only 3 percent of the bottom half of households hold equity in a private business, but it is a big share of wealth for those few.37 The average amount of this wealth is close to $20,000, 60 percent of the average net worth for these households.38
Owning a business is risky, and most new businesses close within a few years. But research shows that business ownership is associated with higher levels of economic mobility.39 However, it appears that it has become harder to start and build businesses. The pace of new business creation has gradually declined over the past couple of decades, and the number of new firms declined sharply from 2006 through 2009.40 The latest SCF shows that the percentage of the next 45 that own a business has fallen to a 25-year low, and equity in those businesses, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest point since the mid-1990s. One reason to be concerned about the apparent decline in new business formation is that it may serve to depress the pace of productivity, real wage growth, and employment.41 Another reason is that a slowdown in business formation may threaten what I believe likely has been a significant source of economic opportunity for many families below the very top in income and wealth.
Inheritances
Along with other economic advantages, it is likely that large inheritances play a role in the fairly limited intergenerational mobility that I described earlier.42 But inheritances are also common among households below the top of the wealth distribution and sizable enough that I believe they may well play a role in helping these families economically.
Figure 12 shows that half of the top 5 percent of households by wealth reported receiving an inheritance at some time, but a considerable number of others did as well--almost 30 percent of the next 45 percent and 12 percent of the bottom 50. Inheritances are concentrated at the top of the wealth distribution but less so than total wealth. Just over half of the total value of inheritances went to the top 5 percent and 40 percent went to households in the next 45. Seven percent of inheritances were shared among households in the bottom 50 percent, a group that together held only 1 percent of all wealth in 2013.43
The average inheritance reported by those in the top 5 percent who had received them was $1.1 million. That amount dwarfs the $183,000 average among the next 45 percent and the $68,000 reported among the bottom half of households. But compared with the typical wealth of these households, the additive effect of bequests of this size is significant for the millions of households below the top 5 that receive them.
The average age for receiving an inheritance is 40, when many parents are trying to save for and secure the opportunities of higher education for their children, move up to a larger home or one in a better neighborhood, launch a business, switch careers, or perhaps relocate to seek more opportunity. Considering the overall picture of limited resources for most families that I have described today, I think the effects of inheritances for the sizable minority below the top that receive one are likely a significant source of economic opportunity.
Conclusion
In closing, let me say that, with these examples, I have only just touched the surface of the important topic of economic opportunity, and I look forward to learning more from the work presented at this conference. As I noted at the outset, research about the causes and implications of inequality is ongoing, and I hope that this conference helps spur further study of economic opportunity and its effects on economic mobility. Using the SCF and other sources, I have tried to offer some observations about how access to four specific sources of opportunity may vary across households, but I cannot offer any conclusions about how much these factors influence income and wealth inequality. I do believe that these are important questions, and I hope that further research will help answer them.
* * *
So that's it... Start a business (but you won't be able to), get rich parents (a little late), get an education (take on huge debt with only modest upside potential for earnings)
»
- 11700 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What? She did not show us her tits?
And what else J-bitch, change your surname to end with -Stein or start with Wein-???
This hag dont know shit, how do you start a business with NO money, a ton of debt and a bad credit....PLUS, no wealthy Jewish buddies to lend you a hand with capital they stole from others.
...Best for White Americans to go "Full Retard"...shoe polish themselves into African Americans and get free sh*t handouts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q
sarc off
Hey its only 100 years that 90% had to walk outside to take a shit.
The bottom 50% should just be happy they have indoor plumbing
The tribe dirt bags always pretend to be for the little guy. It just fucking amazes me how truly stupid the goy is in believing this bullshit. And the fucks get away with this bullshit for centuries until the social order breaks down and they are drawn and quartered by the few who understand this evil bullshit. Nasty evil motherfuckers.
Janet go tell the tribe to fuck some more of NYC’s finest whores while it last. Change is coming.
The best way to get ahead is have AIPAC front your nomination so you can be right at the FIAT Control Center where you can print ALL you want for the tribe.
Rubbing it in. Bitchez!
Her communist bullshit can be summarized in a few sentences:
1) we need to spend MOAR on public "educayshun", preferably via taxation at the national level, because for the children.
2) we need to spend MOAR on college, because everyone knows that colleges make good jobs, or something.
3) small business good! LOOK A SQUIRREL...
4) rich people pass their money to their children! WOWWW!! If only that money could be used for good not evil...hmmmmm...
The 'data set' that predicted the Ebola cruise ship problem? http://wtfrly.com/2014/10/17/data-set-that-predicted-the-ebola-cruise-sh... Cruise ship denied port in Belize as US tries to evacuate Dallas nurse who handled Ebola sample http://wtfrly.com/2014/10/17/cruise-ship-denied-port-belize-us-tries-to-...
So all I have to do is convince Warren Buffett to adopt me???
Or do what Becky Quick is trying to do....unfortunately for her, shes aging real bad and Uncle Warren has younger sleeker options to seek.
And how do you get rich parents? I know a ton of girls marry rich ugly guys for their wealth, but guys doing that??? I know I cant.
How do I get a loan for my biz?!?!
I know I would.... Don't tell my wife, though. She might take it badly if I left her for an 80 year old.
Just be charming and the type of guy Muffy thinks will piss her dad off. Then when your business is well established dump Muffy for a younger, more pneumatic type. That's what the father of the man who bought my farm did. Then the buyer inherited several million when his grandmother died.
So all I have to do is convince Warren Buffett to adopt me???
He might have a vacancy for one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKWp29rEgj8
She did not show us her tits?
You always want to hold something back.....might need it later.
When the publc demands she stops giving taxpayer's money to the Fed shareholders in the form of QE....she might have to.
Print tits and or cash. Who gives a shit right now. Look anyone holding cash in a big bank is part of the problem. Anyone buying corporate food deserves the health benefits they deserve. Ultimate prepper challenge is trying not to drink all your scotch at once. Ive been drunk for days.just bring this cunt down already....
I thought being a prepper meant making a still and stocking barley instead of bottles of scotch. Maybe I am doing it wrong...
Translation: Yellen will be asking for a raise, having learned her salary of about $205,000 lags behind that of many other Federal Reserve executives, including the Fed's IG, who makes over $300,00 a year, according to Reuters.
Meanwhile, from NBCNews: DANGEROUS HURRICANE GONZALO HEADING FOR BERMUDA... ...LIKELY TO BRING DAMAGING WINDS AND A LIFE-THREATENING STORM SURGE LATER TODAY...
Let's hope Gonzalo totally wrecks and levels former NYC Mayor Bloomberg's mansion complex in Bermuda. As a hurricane, Gonzalo is immune from Bloomberg's stop and frisk policy, even with a Spanish name.
Yeah, being on the hook for his insurance deductible will show him!
She normally does - they had to pay more to stop her from doing it.
Excellent....
Reaching for ztraws if Mr yellin has to say bottom half Inheritance will make up for the avg Net worth of $2.50
"There ain't nuthin uglier than an old white woman." Fred Sanford, Sanford & Son
I think i'm going to be sick...
Gotta get rid of the estate tax. This country needs more lazy, fat and stupid silver spoon cocksuckers! Why don't we go full monarchy and start calling these families lords, dukes and barons? I'm sure many on here would be perfectly happy with that.
Aristocracy takes more generations than we've been around in this country. You can't just assume that chip on your shoulder, it needs cultivated by generations of your family doing absolutely nothing yet continuiously getting richer for it. And as it is today, we have so much shit we can buy, it's harder to do that, though many families still earn in interest more than they can spend.
So give it time. Duke Walton should be born in about 5 more generations or so.
some floppy pancakes those must be...
Hey Bitch, how about creating a policy to allow the money to trickle to the rest of us?
It's QE until there is a currency crisis.
Then onward to replace the dollar with IMF SDRs.
It's why Bernanke and his son are loading up on debt. Borrow all you can and pay back in worthless dollars.
i still havent been able to work something out.
im totally on board with their next play, crash the system, only clean balance sheet is IMF, bring in the SDRs.
my question is how are they going to sell this to the sheeple? is it even going to be explained or are they going to try to move so fast that no one will have time to think? are the sheeple going to be so scared that they are willing to give up our FRNs (which to the sheeple represent american exceptionalism). i feel like the idea that the IMF can take over our economy and save the day will be a difficult (blue) pill for people to swallon. but maybe people are just that fucking stupid.
Most people only manage to inherit the collective debt of their forefathers, thanks to the Fed.
That Janet, she's such a yenta!
Cue Barbra: PEOPLE PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE are the...
She also mentioned that rich people have more money than poor people.
There is a difference between poor people and those poor people.
We are quickly becoming the latter.
The circus is looking for frumpy clowns like Yellen. Always good for a laugh.
Wasn't she in the last epispde of American Horror Story - Freakshow.
The dwarf speaks
Or in janet's case: the willingness, at a tender age, to take a different dick in each hole at the same time and be videotaped by a Rothschild family friend for future blackmail purposes.
Speech on Janet, speech on. Who the fuck knows who's actually listening to you.
So if I go to school to open my own adoption brokerage, I win?
Reminds me of a joke my dad told me... "you have two opportunities to be rich in life... when you are born and when you are married.... you blew the first one"
So let me get this straight.. you get rich from inheritences, but they are taxed at 50+%?!!? So basically own a business.. but not one of the 80% that blow up in the first 3 years.
Chuckroan - That is a funny joke. I don't know if the figure of 80% failure rate is correct but think it is close. Last I checked at SBA before 2008 it was 70%. The main reason why these businesses fail is lack of a business plan. There is decent software you can pick up cheap that guides you through the important considerations and templates it out. An important consideration is could your business survive in a tough cycle where revenue was halved and cost doubled?
Back in 2008 one of the suggestions I provided President Bush was using the SBA and tying in macro-prudential policy (targeted credit) for entrepenuars to spur job creation. It wasn't an end all be all solution, just something to help around the margins. The SBA has a wonderful program of mentoring, old successful guys that review your plan for no charge for its viability. My suggestion was creating and automating the review process into a system with a viability score. Then those entrepenuars would get a higher chance for SBA loan. If your going to start a business I highly recommend you write a plan and bring it to the SBA mentors, pricelesss free advice even if you can't get a loan and have to save for awhile to start your venture.
I did see a couple articles here from that gent from Scotia Bank talking about macro-prudential policies regarding credit. That would be wise. A percent of talented people make decent income and recovered from 2008 but don't qualify for loans. Credit scores was nicked hard in the crash in various forms be it bankruptcy, foreclosure/short sale and knock-on social effects like divorce which can screw your finances up further. But a percent landed on there feet and risks regarding credit should be re-evaluated by the banks at this point.
Starting a running a successful business is not easy, even in better times. Your married to it for years until you can staff up to take vacations. But the great part is you don't have to have a corporate boss asking you to do tasks you know are meaningless, detrimental to the company and put up with ugly power mongering attitudes, especially from the rise of female feminazi executives. Some businesses can be run from home too which is real nice. I can't be anything else but a business owner at this point, I would tell every other person to kiss off at work I am sure.
Investing in "big" everything cycle (with a lot of government support) is winding down as returns diminish. So entrepenuars wishing to raise Angels/Angel Groups or VC money will finally be a getting a shot again, probably 2016 a decent year to go out and seek funds that way.
dupe
Reminds me of a joke my dad told me... "you have two opportunities to be rich in life... when you are born and when you are married.... you blew the first one"
So let me get this straight.. you get rich from inheritences, but they are taxed at 50+%?!!? So basically own a business.. but not one of the 80% that blow up in the first 3 years.
Im not sure why you guys are so sceptical of her, its quite a sound advice.
I mean, if someone wants to get out of poverty, they will need to get some money rite, otherwise how else can they become rich?
By buying a 1 cent loaf of bread.
Own a printing press and use the counterfeit money to steal tangible assets? That's how Mr Yellen and all hs friends do it.
But the sad part is, its still not enough for them.
Let's take her advice, and the best way to do it is shitcan the fedres, shun their fractional reserve con game and go back to the barter system if need be. So what if our individual business dealings carry on like old Europe? At least we extirpate the oppressive and enslaving monetary style of t f j, and hopefully for good. We need a liberation from MMT, even if we suffer considerably in the attempt.
I like money
Here, have some of mine!
dupe
PPT on a 'winky' roll, DOW up 500 today....
Get to work Dad !! I know you are 70 and worked all your life , but you do not have a Billion in the account to leave me. And don't die, before you do.
Just how did you convince him to leave it to you?
Like all shit head kids, wait until he has alzheimers and get him to sign.
"The pace of new business creation has gradually declined over the past couple of decades, and the number of new firms declined sharply from 2006 through 2009.40 The latest SCF shows that the percentage of the next 45 that own a business has fallen to a 25-year low, and equity in those businesses, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest point since the mid-1990s."
Why in the hell do you think that is Jabba? It can't possibly be because large corporations capture the regulatory system in order to protect their markets and make starting a business as difficult as possible do you? These people disgust me.
ignorant academic cunt...
Dr Eng--plus 100
I must be missing something here.
I have always been told that Capitalists love competition.
Not as much as they love HB1 Visa’s, but competition is the backbone of capitalism.
I always get confused however between Fiscal Capitalism and Monetary Capitalism.
One is competitive and the other a monopoly: to use a kind word.
Exactly. They've pulled a page from Obama's teleprompter. They rhetorically lament and blame the disasters they casued trying to make it appear they are the cure, not the cause. They are just politicians now, trying to save themselves from the pitchforks.
Doc my wife owns a bakery and it is the top bakery in our state. Owning a small business contrary to what our politicians and yellen are stating is more work them most Americans would want to put up with. Couple that with all the local, state, and federal guidlines and the new living wage bullshit and most will be out of business. I am sure some smart ass person will come here and tell me how I am screwing employees and never opened or owned a small business. To be honest we are not Mcdonalds or a huge corporation that makes huge profits. The last two months my wife has gotten zero for a salary. Why? Because we believe our people that work for us our, our business and times are slow.
Our full time employees make more then the proposed wage but part timers are just that part time. We do pay more then minimum wage but only a buck more. Requiring us to pay everyone the new wage may well be the death of us. We employ alot of part timers to work the front. We are a three college town. Ingedients continnue to rise and we have held our price point for the last 4 years. We are not allowed to accept SNAP as bakeries cannot get a USDA license. Not a week goes by where someone on SNAP does not get ugly with us because we do not accept it. The media makes us out like we are screwing our employees and everyone wants more and guess what we do not make 6 figures a year.
Over time you will see more and more MOM and POP small business go away.
I just want to slap Yellen as she has never run a family owned small business. Work 6 or 7 days a week and take vacations when you can. A commenter above state build it up so you can take vacations I just want to laugh. Go ahead and leave for two weeks and see what happens. If you like all the paperwork and time you put in to do all the new programs to remain in compliance, you would be appalled.
Most folks these days would not put in the time to run a small business.
RE: Dr Engali
pride myself on being a rational, ethical human being. These Fed guys, along with child killers, are about the only people who truly make me think violent and sadistic thoughts. AAnd I think I'd show the child killers more mercy given the opportunity...
Ben Bernanke and his family (son) knows the Federal Reserve full expects a worthless US dollar because their borrowing as much as they can.
Fed's plan is to print insanely until a currency crisis.
"Despite escalating costs for college, the net returns for a degree are high enough that college still offers a considerable economic opportunity to most people."
Thanks Mr Yellen for your endorsement for debt slavery.
I prefer to see the median of these groups. Remember Bill G. and Warren, oh and the "I tried to care about money" Chelsey, are in that 5% group. I think they skew the averages.
In cases like this the use of the word "Cunt" is grossly underrated in my opinion.
Cock-juggling super-cunt?
Even better.
Don't blame 'Old Yeller' - it's just the world she grew up in, the education she received, and the life she has lived.
I saw where Obama speaking to billionairea at a billionaires house collecting $32k a plate....talked about the bad rich people if the GOP won...you just can't make this stuff up.
Well as the "buffet & Munder" reptiles said to the American people: " suck it up"
"How the poor can get rich"?...
How many times can Yellen repeat the Let them eat cake moment?... I'm almost certain that if she were the head of the Fed in 1930 they would have strung her up by her heels and set her on fire!!!
Not that any of these sociopaths even care at the unrelenting damage they have done to themselves and everyone else. They no doubt will continue until someone has the impudence to do what the DoJ will never do at this point!
Ebola is just more proof that the natives are getting restless and they need cover so that the visitation to Washington is on permanent "leave"...
Question we need to be asking ourselves. Will we make this mission a success for them? Or will the AMerican people finally crash the Party in D.C.?!!!
Speaking of witches and warlocks... Getting an early start on Halloween...
Here comes the milk chocolate Satan now!!!
Wonder if he's been inoculated for this PR stunt?...
One more miracle and he will be declared a Saint.
how is this different thatn almost every Democrat claiming they want to help the bottom 50% while scoring riches for themselves and their cronies. I can name you 5 people from Obama's cabinet working for millions on Wall Street. Look at any Democrat run city....the fools never learn. Sure there are crooked GOP...but they don't sell that want to help the little guy...while driving him into the ground!
Great advice, Yellen, you idiot. Now tell me exactly how you propose that I go back and be born again (no, not THAT born again, literally born again) to different parents so I can inherit a humungous shitload of money the second time around? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who would like to hear your answer.
Ready for you arsenic shake granny? No worries, it's organic!
leave nothing behind for those maggots, no money, no kids. no nothing. if you do have kids teach them to be tightwads. scorched earth bitchez.
so the rules of the game have been changed yet again?! what happened to what we were all told when we were much younger, growing up? you know........ study hard, go to college, work even harder, nose to the grindstone, save your money in a bank & earn interest, the miracle of compound interest & you, too, will be a millionaire ! i do not listen to bullshit anymore coming from so-called authority & bank employees. it's all a swindle & a scam ~~ in their favor, i might add.
Hmmm
I think I prefer Doug Casey's approach to generating real wealth- It is far easier to understand, as it only takes one sentence to describe (as opposed to an entire pages full of graphs and shit):
"The easisest way to generate wealth is to produce more than you consume, and save the excess in durable forms of tradeable capital."
Oh WAIT- I see why Casey's idea is not popular with polito idealists like Yellen and company- He uses that evil word out of the dictionary for wanna-be Satans: capital.
And, for any of you who are going to immediately down-arrow me for mentioning Doug Casey, and will try to condemn him as a profiteering newsletter publisher who wants to see the world decend into chaos, allow me to front-run your junking...
"Yeah, whatever. Loser."
It is....ASTOUNDING....
how in depth and intricate these motherfuckers will go in explaining their pack of lies and deception.....
simply.....amazing
That's what happens when so many people obtain advanced degrees in bullshit "sciences." The few times I ever listened to Bernanke always amazed me at how detached from reality their theoretical worlds are. It's a safety buffer so large that it makes weather forecasters jealous.
The only remedy for ongoing global financial slump is progressive taxes on wealth and corporate income. It is estimated ~8% of global private wealth is residing in offshore accounts in Switzerland, Caymans, Bahamas, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Jersey, amounting to $7600 billion, mostly untaxed. This excludes corporate profits, 20% of which are flowing offshore, mostly untaxed. FATCA law will help. Data here: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/Zucman2014JEP.pdf (PDF alert).
Hey Master of nutt oer mult, what or who is going to do what with all your tax money?? I work cheap and will use the Hank Paulson bail out method..OK?? ..you are an idiot.
How about, for starters, increasing the NIH budget which was slashed under GWB. Give everyone access to affordable health care, which has started to happen already. The data may not suit your ideology, still beats emotional knee jerk reactions and voting against your own interests.
Funny, avoiding taxation is exactly why it's offshore. Create even more taxes, and guess what happens?
That you would propose this as a remedy is absolutely hilarious.
Perhaps you ought to rethink your user name.
Fuck you and your taxes increases. I ain't paying, deal with it. I just repatriated overseas money from a 25 year old account in a small foreign country without a passport requirement. No records, no taxes, ever.
The truth is the rich are the best at avoiding taxes. I'm technically a 1% er, but don't really feel like one. It's not that hard to avoid taxes, once you understand the game. You W-2 fucks are screwed working for the man with every facet of your lives being an open book to the government.
The stories I could tell...
I guess becoming a 1% is the hard part?
The only people who really benefit are kleptocrats that shit on you and me because they have $50+ mln in personal wealth. Only they can afford the best experts to help them completely hide their assets and basically steal from society by avoiding significant amounts of tax that would otherwise go to benefit everyone else, say healthcare, R&D, your children's education. And they thoroughly hate small game like you that is 1% by defintion but not truly 1%. Even some insightful billionaires are starting to understand this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming...
Why didn't Yellen tell me about the inheritance thing sooner. I could have whipped my parents ass to earn more money before they died.
Is anyone else starting to see these pestering pop-up ads on this site? Very annoying.
Yeah. I'm about ready to call Prudential's marketing dept. and tell them where to go.
studies have shown that sheeple want to get even before "equal".
I've come to the conclusion that old yellen is almost definitely one of the worst humans walking the earth.
The way I figure it, the Fed is an old-as-fuck institution that has been dominated by men since its inception. For a woman, particularly one as hideous looking as her, to rise to the top of the pile means she must be one power-hungry, devious, cutthroat slag who used everyunderhand trick in the book to get to where she is.
It's not like having a sound grasp of economic theory is the key to being Fed chair is it? And there's no way she shagged her way there, I mean, look at the fucking hound.
So congrats Janet, you are some cunt.
Respectfully disagree, look closely and you can see the strings holding up Howdy Doodette.. When she smiles, the Bilderbergers leaders' lips move. Just as Obola, the Snowdyke was placed there, all the while awaiting her tranny operation.
Wealth of individuals is beyond her job description, other than her own wealth.
I fucking told you asshat doubters that the Fed will keep printing- forever. It's the wrong way out, but they have no choice. Collapse now or implode later are the only options. They'll keep pumping to the end. We have the fuckstick Greenspan to thank.
Anyone who thinks or writes an essay under the premise that the Fed will stop printing or "unwind" their mess is full of shit. It likes saying the USA will balance the budget and pay off the national debt. It ain't gonna happen. The debt is too big and the interest is unservicable. Do the math, it's just not possible to pay it off. Thus, prime away Federal Reserve until the pump doesn't work.
You hit the nail on the head, just what I've been saying for years. They talk about "exits" and tapering, just an attempt at credibility.
So the best way to get rich in 'Merica is to inherit it? Ok, i get it.
Builiding one's own wealth from a low level? How about questioning whether you need to pay for that $100+ a month phone and the near uselessness of 'staying connected.' Then maybe recognize the advantage of buying US made products that builds demand for hiring American workers.
Wow...the list could go on and on.
When are we, collectively, going to be Delivered, from these Regime Hypocrites ? It won't be soon enough.
We need an Ebola carrier to cough and spit on every door knob in the Mariner Eccles building.
Why don't they just outlaw poverty?
One question remains: why is this woman there, in that position, telling us that what America's pioneers and Founders stood for, worked for and built in this country could be easily duplicated if they had only had rich parents, better luck, a family business upon arrival, and a Harvard education?
Surely we’ve come to the bottom when the bankers who own and leverage the American economy and its total political establishment for their benefit have put forth a tottering old woman, barely literate, and allowed her to speak.
Unknowingly, she now explains why the bankers are richer than the rest of us, they had the “luck” to steal the American treasures printing themselves free money without being caught.
As Yellen explains, “opportunity itself is enhanced by access to economic resources,” i.e., ownership and control of America's stored labor, the currency.
Did she mention worshipping Lucifer? I hear that works fairly well.
LOL...Trying to bandage a shot foot she stepped into.
She should try that 0% and she how many businesses she starts (without the tribs help).
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the European tradition.
I wouldn't count on inheritance too much. Barack Ebola and the rest of the democratic faggots will kill that option before too long.
Payback is going to be a BITCH!
I'm going to start a business.
I'm going to buy 20 pirate ships.
I'm going to work very hard.
I'll be posting jobs with Monster.
You'll need to be able to use a sword.
And say ARRRRRRRRR!
Better get those ships from chicom (invisible to radar). As far as jobs I think everyones already working for americom and swords are out, I think ebola infected banker guts in a cannon's the way to go, but better ask the government what really works best. They'll probably say start a government made of narcissistic straw men and a shadow government of psychopaths to run them but who hasn't seen that old game.
It is not shocking that the graph starts after Reagan left office and the socialist/progressive policies of Bush, Clinton, Bush and especially Obama, have exacerbated the wealth gap. Common core is destroying elementary education and is rendering our children unfit to engage in the market system... as it is intended to do. Perhaps that is why we need so many immigrants? College has become an indoctrination center for progressive beliefs. Ala Gouldner's Rise of the New Class. That is why those getting out of college today are often unfit to engage in the market as well... another reason businesses want immigrants? Starting a business is the most effective way to get wealth, but unfortunately, the Obama administration has been fighting an all out war against small business. Couple that with the fact, immigrants don't have to pay income taxes on businesses they start in certain sectors for up to 9 years, and it becomes very difficult for a citizen, who is regulated and taxed to the hilt, to compete with someone who has no income tax burden. Rich parents are not a certain path to wealth either. Has she never heard the old adage, "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations?" Moreover once we are born, and even before, wealthy parents are like winning the lottery, (which she forgot to mention). The answer is laissez faire, which is unacceptable to the new class elite.
Yours is an extremely perceptive post, making several critical points. In one area it has become obvious that the welfare mob is the support that leaders use for Common Core in the schools and the suppression of businesses started by whites.
Here is an incredible analysis from a University of California economics professor, Robert W. Fairlie on the imbalances - which he supports of new business startups and the relationship of their ethnicity.
The key here is the preferential treatment granted by the U.S. government that not only displaces white positions for jobs and white businesses but the white population through nearly 50 years of Third World immigration policy via the 1965 Immigration Act which continues on and on and on.
Here’re are the bullets from a report by The Partnership for a New American Economy’s on “how immigrants are driving small business creation in the United States”:
Immigrants are increasingly likely to start a business, while the rate of new-business generation among the native-born is declining: The rate at which immigrants start new businesses grew by more than 50 percent between 1996 and 2011. During the same period, the business-formation rate for the native-born declined by 10 percent.
Immigrants are more than twice as likely to start a business as the native-born. In 2011, the immigrant business-formation rate was 550 new businesses per month for every100,000 immigrants, while the native-born rate was only 270 new businesses per month for every 100,000 native-born.
Immigrants started 28 percent of all new U.S. businesses in 2011, despite accounting for just 12.9 percent of the U.S. population. Just a decade and a half earlier, in 1996, only 15 percent of new U.S. businesses were founded by immigrants.
Immigrant businesses are smaller than those started by the native-born, but their collective impact on the U.S. economy is huge and growing. Over the last decade the income generated by native-owned businesses increased just 14 percent and failed to keep pace with inflation. Income from immigrant-owned businesses, meanwhile, increased by more than 60 percent. Immigrant-owned firms now generate more than $775 billion in revenue, $125 billion in payroll, and $100 billion in income, employing one out of every 10 workers along the way.
Immigrants start more than 25 percent of all businesses in seven of eight sectors of the economy that the U.S. government expects to grow the fastest over the next decade. From 2007 to 2011, immigrants founded an outsized share of new businesses in health care and social assistance (28.7 percent), professional and business services (25.4 percent), construction (31.8 percent), retail trade (29.1 percent), leisure and hospitality (23.9 percent),educational services (28.7 percent), “other services” (28.2 percent), and transportation and utilities (29.4 percent).
http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/openforbusiness.pdf
See also:
How Asian immigrants get preferential treatment when starting a business | Council of Conservative Citizens
http://topconservativenews.com/2012/04/how-asian-immigrants-get-preferential-treatment-when-starting-a-business/
Thanks for the compliment... and the backup.
moar socialist speak
thanks for fucking the future yellen - rot in hell
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I'm 45 and haven't received any inheritances. Is she suggesting that murdering my parents is an economic opportunity available to me and one that I should have previously pursued?
That lemon lipped face has been twisted to hell and back from a lifetime of lies she's told. Arrest her for treason.
It's not a bad speech ... other than long, tell me she stood up and read that to a crowd that wasn't actually concentrating on eating dinner.
She actually presented the numbers, and she expressed some concern.
It's probably a better speech than Alan Greenspan ever gave, more connected with reality. I know, that's a very low hurdle, but there it is.
so this is what they mean by ivory tower. totally clueless about how the real world works.
first, the data only goes back to 1989. the last time the income/wealth gap was so large it was corrected by the depression. from that time unions made sure increased productivity(less workers) meant more profit sharing in the form of higher wages for labor. higher wages is what fueled the establishment of the middle class. mind you, the middle class is 20th century creation. wages have been stagnant since 1980. reagan won. crushing unions crushed the growth of wages. the inevitable result is what is going on today. the middle class is dying because the opportunities for jobs that could pay a mortgage has diminished. the antiunion sentiment is so strong labor thinks voting against their opportunities in the form of right to work laws is good for them, stuck on stupid.
yellen conveniently, or is academically blinded by the role a well paid middle class plays in a healthy economy. she never mentioned the stagnation of wages and the effect upon wealth building for the bottom 95%(1 in 20 families are millionaires? really?).
let me tell you what has happened. i had a little messenger business in the 80s. we grossed about 500grand+- annually and the business supported 6 families including a nice chunk of change for me. i got out of that business when the irs started going after companies that hired "contract" workers and .gov passed regulations that made the whole hiring people to make a living a real pain in the ass.
today, i work for myself as a trader. every trade i make is counted towards the gdp. so, as an example, i make 50mil worth of trades in a year to make .3-.5% of that for me, one family, and there is no productive economic activity involved. i basically steal other people's money by skimming pennies as my reward for providing some liquidity to the money creation machine that is the market.
my point is, it used to be easy to find money. the streets were paved with gold if you had some savvy and big balls. savvy and big balls is no longer the guarantee it used to be so you go find a job. in my case, why the fuck would i want to start a business when all i have to do is read a little and click a few buttons on a keyboard.
the risk/reward model is fucked up in the usa. the least risk has the biggest payout. if you work for .gov your pension is a multi millionaire's return on investment. if you risk money to start a business .gov runs your business because of all the regulations that must be complied with or avoided.
Good post, and I gave you a plus, but it was not Reagan who crushed the unions. It was the switch from the leadership's middle class values to a socialist agenda - feminism, welfare, offshoring, and all the rest - that drove white middle class members from the unions.
Unions originally helped establish decent wages and job protection in America, increasing tremendously the opportunities and living standards for the average American worker. But with the total sellout of the union leadership to the Democrat Party, the unions became more and more socialist and even communist, causing many members to become disillusioned for not being represented. They rebelled by leaving the unions as their dues were used more and more to politically destroy their culture.
As a result, private sector union membership began to fall like a lead balloon during the Reagan Administration.
Corporations and the government used this as an opportunity to open the borders to Mexican immigrants and displace white workers, primarily to mesh America’s European culture into a world Socialist state while keeping people at work with static salaries, at the same time offshoring America’s manufacturing base to Third World countries.
The more Mexicans that came into the unions, the more support the union leader had for the union left-wing causes, primarily for welfare for immigrants coming in to displace America’s middle class and its values, plus the full menu of Democrat Party priorities: wealth transfer, gay marriage, environmental politics, high taxation and corporate welfare, globalization and support for union legislation.
The American labor movement then became dominated by the public service unions with their emphasis on immigration, feminism, welfare, centralized education and, in general, an Orwellian socialist agenda. This domination brought along the weakened and subservient trade and craft unions in support of the now radical Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party of Hubert Humphrey was no longer.
As a result, America’s labor unions became and are the enemy of white and black American workers, their accepted European culture, and their American Dream. But reality is raising her head. Americans have a definite work ethic: hard work, independence and to be paid for what they are worth. In the final analysis, they will demand representation.
Remember, like Biden's kids, the richer your parents, the more coke you can do!
Now let's get crackin'!