No, you are making that assumption with no basis whatsoever. I like most people integrate my personal experience with other sources of knowledge to form a more complete and accurate opinion. I have given other examples in this thread.
Then quit saying stupid crap like, "It wouldn't be simply because of the decade they were born in. It would be because of their poor decision making and lack of hard work".
There are people who make good decisions and work harder than you ever will and struggle their entire lives. There are dumbasses who make poor decisions and hardly work who live in luxury. You want to demonize somebody...talk about THEM.
Those are exceptions and should be dealt with as such. The overwhelming majority fit my view rather than yours.
Most of the poor are ALWAYS poor. That is the problem with hoodiecrats. They are poor when the economy is good and bad. They are poor with every president. They are poor when their is a shortage of workers.
Well, my view is that it's dumb to think that one view fits all. You say you allow for exceptions but you only do that when you're called on your view. You didn't allow for exceptions in the response I quoted. I can post more if you like. And, as was pointed out, there are many exceptions to your view in either direction. How hard have the Kardashians worked? What good decisions have they made that allow for their "success"? You quit claiming that anyone who works hard and makes good choices will be successful, I'll stop calling you out. Simple...really.
recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is summarized in the table below, based on income data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics that followed the same households from 2001 to 2007. The empirical results answer the question: For households that started in a given earnings quintile (20 percent group) in 2001, what percentage of those households moved to a different income quintile over the next six years?
Below are some of the main findings about the income mobility of American households over a short, six-year period from 2001 to 2007 based on the Minneapolis Fed study:
1. Looking across the first row of data in the table from left to right, we can see that for those U.S. households that were in the lowest earnings quintile (bottom 20 percent) in 2001, only 56 percent of those household remained in that same income quintile six years later in 2007, and almost half—44 percent—had moved up to one of the four higher income quintiles by 2007. Five percent of the lowest-income households in 2001 had moved up to one of the top two quintiles by 2007.
2. Looking across the fifth row of data from right to left reveals that of those households in the highest earnings quintile (top 20 percent) in 2001, only 66 percent remained there six years later and 34 percent had moved down to one of the four lower income quintile by 2007. Five percent of those highest-income households had moved all the way to the bottom income quintile in only six years.
3. For those households in the middle-income quintile in 2001, 42 percent remained in the same quintile in 20007, about one-third (32 percent) moved to a higher-income quintile, and slightly more than one-fourth (27 percent) moved to a lower-income quintile.
4. The bottom row in the chart shows that for households in the second, middle, and fourth income quintiles in 2001, more than half of each group moved to a different earnings quintile by 2007 (61 percent, 58 percent, and 55 percent, respectively).
Bottom Line: In the discussions on income inequality and wage stagnation, we frequently hear about the “top 1%” or the “top 10%” or the “bottom 99%” and the public has started to believe that those groups operate like closed private clubs that contain the exact same people or households every year. But the empirical evidence displayed above tells a much different story of dynamic change in the labor market—people and households move up and down the earnings quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s low-income households will rise to become tomorrow’s high-income households, and some will even eventually be in the “top 10% or “top 1%.” And many of today’s “top 1%” or top income quintile members are tomorrow’s middle or lower class households, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the dynamic U.S labor market – an important point in any discussion about “exploding income inequality.”
https://www.aei.org/publication/tra...-over-time-shows-significant-income-mobility/
Below are some of the main findings about the income mobility of American households over a short, six-year period from 2001 to 2007 based on the Minneapolis Fed study:
1. Looking across the first row of data in the table from left to right, we can see that for those U.S. households that were in the lowest earnings quintile (bottom 20 percent) in 2001, only 56 percent of those household remained in that same income quintile six years later in 2007, and almost half—44 percent—had moved up to one of the four higher income quintiles by 2007. Five percent of the lowest-income households in 2001 had moved up to one of the top two quintiles by 2007.
2. Looking across the fifth row of data from right to left reveals that of those households in the highest earnings quintile (top 20 percent) in 2001, only 66 percent remained there six years later and 34 percent had moved down to one of the four lower income quintile by 2007. Five percent of those highest-income households had moved all the way to the bottom income quintile in only six years.
3. For those households in the middle-income quintile in 2001, 42 percent remained in the same quintile in 20007, about one-third (32 percent) moved to a higher-income quintile, and slightly more than one-fourth (27 percent) moved to a lower-income quintile.
4. The bottom row in the chart shows that for households in the second, middle, and fourth income quintiles in 2001, more than half of each group moved to a different earnings quintile by 2007 (61 percent, 58 percent, and 55 percent, respectively).
Bottom Line: In the discussions on income inequality and wage stagnation, we frequently hear about the “top 1%” or the “top 10%” or the “bottom 99%” and the public has started to believe that those groups operate like closed private clubs that contain the exact same people or households every year. But the empirical evidence displayed above tells a much different story of dynamic change in the labor market—people and households move up and down the earnings quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s low-income households will rise to become tomorrow’s high-income households, and some will even eventually be in the “top 10% or “top 1%.” And many of today’s “top 1%” or top income quintile members are tomorrow’s middle or lower class households, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the dynamic U.S labor market – an important point in any discussion about “exploding income inequality.”
https://www.aei.org/publication/tra...-over-time-shows-significant-income-mobility/
With few exceptions I am right, and I acknowledged exceptions myself from the begining.
Here we go again.
You see, here in la la land no one is responsible for their success or failures. It was all just the luck of the draw and we are just along for the ride.
This is where some of your problem is. No grey area. It's either everyone or no one. EVERYONE on govt assistance is lazy and fat. No one who works hard should ever need assistance. There are outliers everywhere.
You have that backwards homeslice. I said there were exceptions. Others here are trying to pretend the exceptions are the rule.
