Inequality in American Income ... Something Wrong Here.

[MA-Caver]

The main Mother Jones article has a list of it's sources which should verify the accuracy/truth/authenticity/facts presented in it's essay.

The Great Recession and the slump that followed have triggered a jobs crisis that's been making headlines since before President Obama was in office, and that will likely be with us for years. But the American economy is also plagued by a less-noted, but just as serious, problem: Simply put, over the last 30 years, the gap between rich and poor has widened into a chasm.
Gradual developments like this don't typically lend themselves to news coverage. But Mother Jones magazine has crunched the data on inequality, and put together a group of stunning new charts. Taken together, they offer a dramatic visual illustration of who's doing well and who's doing badly in modern America.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap
Source article:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

I do know that I am in the bottom percentage of the income earners... unemployed (at the moment) and probably not eligible for anything more than $10.00 an hour I'm not going anywhere any time soon.
Said that odds are 1 in 22 that a person will become a millionaire. Heh, with my luck... I'm number 21.

Question is what can be done to change this lopsided balance of income earning in America? True that some work/careers DO pay more than others because they're worth more and do more and so on... no argument there, but when someone who is just a few rungs up higher on the ladder than I am in a company and is making 7-10 times more than I do per hour... umm...

Yesterday I passed several gas-stations on my way home. Gasoline prices ranging from $3.03 a gallon to as high as $3.14. Made me wonder just how the hell am I going to afford the gas to even go out and LOOK for a job (much less get to/from interviews) at those prices (which will do nothing more than continue to rise in the weeks ahead.

The charts do show a disturbing trend. Are we headed for a plutocracy? When 10% of the population controls 2/3rds of the net worth of the country? Sheesh.

 

[Sukerkin]

That's what you get with relatively unregulated corporative capitalism that skews the playing field to the 'haves' more with each generation.

Over the past ten years in Britain more than half (65% is the figure I recall for this but I am not sure) the additional wealth generated has gone into the pockets of one percent of the population.

Then you have people like me, in a highly skilled, technical profession, but still just one of the peons, who have taken an equivalent of a 30% pay cut over the same period.

I know that I have a honours degree in Economics but you shouldn't need one to figure out that such a situation is not a healthy one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If any proposed solution includes taking money away from me, I'm against it. I'm sorry people make less money than I do. I served my country, educated myself, and I am intelligent, interview well, and work damned hard at what I do. I've also been incredibly lucky at several key points in my life. Like Sukerkin, I've taken some massive pay cuts in the past two years, and I'm grateful to be employed. I make a good living, yet I am struggling financially.

All I want is what I have. And I don't want it taken away from me to be given to someone else. I'm sorry if it's not fair, others can't have my money. It's mine, I worked for it and earned it honestly, I pay my taxes and I don't even cheat on them, and I'm not going to give what I've earned away.

So what's the solution?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Nobody ever got rich working for someone else"

Research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, shows that “being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed.”
His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.
My own experience tells me that the wealthy work insanely hard. I spent Monday and Tuesday with a billionaire who got up at 4:30 a.m., held meetings and business briefings until 9 p.m., ate dinner, then worked on emails until 2 a.m. He woke up at 5 a.m. the next morning, and started all over again. Seven days a week. This entrepreneur hadn’t taken a day off in 10 years (and I checked).
​

Do The Rich Work Harder? Is The Key To Wealth Hard Work?


Had a conversation with someone on this recently. He made the usual complaint "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". He falls into the 'poor' group. He's got a 10th grade education, reads maybe 1 book a year, watches an average of 5-6 hours of TV a day, and worked in unskilled trades all his life. When it was suggested he get some training, or read some books, his response was in the negative. But, it's not his lack of education or initiative, it's "those rich bastards who work us to death and get all the rewards while we get ****" fault as he put it. Always has a negative comment about anyone doing something he can't, complains about people getting 'uppity' or 'thinking their better than he is' if they indulge in any cultural stuff.

Another person started their own business, but rather than do what needs to be done to maintain and build it, has been confusing playing on Facebook with networking, and as a result his business has deteriorated over 50% the last 2 years. I expect doors to close within the year.

Some people are poor because **** happens, and they get a raw deal. Most are poor because they don't have a clue how to get rich, squander their time, effort and resources, and then complain about being poor and a stacked deck.

Bill Gates got rich by hard work, putting in 80+ hour weeks. Steve Jobs worked around the clock to build Apple, often driving his staff to drop in his drive to win. Those early employees who put up with the insanity and stuck around are mostly well off as a result. Hell, Facebook's worth Millions of dollars and it's only 7 yrs old. (Yes, I'm jealous, MT is 10 and not worth Millions. grr.) 14 yr olds made hundreds of thousands of bucks doing Myspace themes when that site was the hot one, and Farmville is a cash cow.

Rich people get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance.
Poor people get poorer by punching a time clock, doing little to improve their lot in life, and letting Sinefeld think for them.

Or, go Dem and steal all the rich folks money this year and give everyone a check of an equal cut. By this time next year, most of those poor folks will be in collections, bankrupt, or in many cases dead from OD, and the rich will have most of it back.

People think that because A has $100,000 that means that there's no money available for them. They're wrong. There's plenty of cash out there, they just need to figure out how to get it. Or as I say, you've got my cash in your pocket...now how do I get it into mine?

BTW, now accepting donations to open a studio, goal $75k.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Rich people get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance.

Unless your a Kardashian or a Hilton

And just look where our current state head got all his money from

Point is, some not all get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance... there are no absolutes

 

[K-man]

We have a similar problem in Australia. The guys at the big end of town are pulling huge salaries in the millions of dollars pa and the workers on about $30K. Houses now average over $500k in our cities and about $200k+ if you go to the country. With prices going up, older people are getting even further behind in they are relying on social security. Our top 10% own 45% of the wealth, the bottom 40% have about 5%. Even self funded retirees are strugggling.

Just don't ask me for the solution. I'm not that bright. :asian:

 

[Sukerkin]

We've sort of had this conversation before and I never manage to get across the notion that the sort of money that Bill and Bob are talking about is not economically significant.

Whilst it is a huge wad of cash in a single persons pocket, a $1B is not the level of wealth I am speaking about.

The complaints about taxation being state sponsored theft do not figure overly large in the scenario, for that is only one part of the wealth erosion that occurs to us down here at the bottom of the pile {which includes people like my millionaire brother-in-law}. It is also a part that tends to get redistributed back to the same strata it came from in the first place, other than the red herring which is the proportion paid by the nominally rich (who do shoulder the lions share of the absolute tax burden).

That is micro-economics, so called because it focusses on the individual.

To give you an idea of the numbers involved at a more macro-economic scale, the UK's GDP for the past ten years was £13324.108 Billion i.e. knocking on for 13.5 Trillion Pounds. Half of that went into the hands/pockets of the population as a whole - the other half went to that blessed one in a hundred.

I know that you are going to say, "So what?" and point out that some other persons good fortune does not mean ill fortune for you. At the micro scale that is true. The rich man in a village might accrue some envy from his fellows but, as long as his wealth has not come from cheating them or exploiting them, who is harmed?

As a mechanism at the macro scale, however, this is very unhealthy. For economic power is a lever and the longer that lever becomes then the greater the effect it has. It is why most of us are worse off than we were thirty years ago in real terms. The sytem is destabilising and it's failure (which may be glacially slow and stealthy) is putting most of us back into serfdom once more. Comfortably in most cases but still a thrall.

Of course, the only practcial thing we can do is sigh, shrug and pretend it's not happening, as there is very little to be done at this stage.

 

[Omar B]

"Nobody ever got rich working for someone else"

Do The Rich Work Harder? Is The Key To Wealth Hard Work?


Had a conversation with someone on this recently. He made the usual complaint "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". He falls into the 'poor' group. He's got a 10th grade education, reads maybe 1 book a year, watches an average of 5-6 hours of TV a day, and worked in unskilled trades all his life. When it was suggested he get some training, or read some books, his response was in the negative. But, it's not his lack of education or initiative, it's "those rich bastards who work us to death and get all the rewards while we get ****" fault as he put it. Always has a negative comment about anyone doing something he can't, complains about people getting 'uppity' or 'thinking their better than he is' if they indulge in any cultural stuff.

Another person started their own business, but rather than do what needs to be done to maintain and build it, has been confusing playing on Facebook with networking, and as a result his business has deteriorated over 50% the last 2 years. I expect doors to close within the year.

Some people are poor because **** happens, and they get a raw deal. Most are poor because they don't have a clue how to get rich, squander their time, effort and resources, and then complain about being poor and a stacked deck.

Bill Gates got rich by hard work, putting in 80+ hour weeks. Steve Jobs worked around the clock to build Apple, often driving his staff to drop in his drive to win. Those early employees who put up with the insanity and stuck around are mostly well off as a result. Hell, Facebook's worth Millions of dollars and it's only 7 yrs old. (Yes, I'm jealous, MT is 10 and not worth Millions. grr.) 14 yr olds made hundreds of thousands of bucks doing Myspace themes when that site was the hot one, and Farmville is a cash cow.

Rich people get rich by innovation, hard work, networking and perseverance.
Poor people get poorer by punching a time clock, doing little to improve their lot in life, and letting Sinefeld think for them.

Or, go Dem and steal all the rich folks money this year and give everyone a check of an equal cut. By this time next year, most of those poor folks will be in collections, bankrupt, or in many cases dead from OD, and the rich will have most of it back.

People think that because A has $100,000 that means that there's no money available for them. They're wrong. There's plenty of cash out there, they just need to figure out how to get it. Or as I say, you've got my cash in your pocket...now how do I get it into mine?

BTW, now accepting donations to open a studio, goal $75k.

Great post man. You've made several points I would have made ... had I gotten here earlier ... but alas I just woke up, because I was working till 7:00 am and I've given myself my first day off since last Wednesday.

Hard work, some sound financial planning and most importantly an end goal are very important. You would be surprised how many people who are poor have no plan, some out of ignorance, some out of laziness.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ultimately the question I always have to ask after listening to the problem is "What do you want me to do about it?" I am not aware of any answer that doesn't involve me giving up more of my income to someone else. I don't see why I should. And no explanation I've heard to date is convincing to me.

 

[K-man]

Great post man. You've made several points I would have made ... had I gotten here earlier ... but alas I just woke up, because I was working till 7:00 am and I've given myself my first day off since last Wednesday.

Hard work, some sound financial planning and most importantly an end goal are very important. You would be surprised how many people who are poor have no plan, some out of ignorance, some out of laziness.

Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers. You will still be in the bottom of the pile.

These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are! Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them. These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.

How much payout would you get if you were fired?

 

[CoryKS]

Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers. You will still be in the bottom of the pile.

These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are! Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them. These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.

How much payout would you get if you were fired?

Well, there you go then. Maybe you should start applying for CEO jobs. Problem solved.

 

[Twin Fist]

work harder

work smarter

hell, just WORK

every race has a loser, there is no way to make sure everyone has equal results without making everyone's results crappy

 

[Empty Hands]

I am not aware of any answer that doesn't involve me giving up more of my income to someone else.

Did you miss my post in response to this question in the "Separate but unequal" thread?

 

[ballen0351]

Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers. You will still be in the bottom of the pile.

These guys at the top are earning 100 - 500 times or more what the workers are! Worse still, when they F*#& up and are pushed out they take millions with them. These are the guys with the huge estates and the big yachts, not the average citizen. These are the guys who often feather their own nests at the expense of others.

How much payout would you get if you were fired?

So you jealous is that it? Because that's what it sounds like.
I work a normal job earn a normal salary. Have a wife and 4 kids. Im def not rich but IM happy I could care less what MR. CEO has or where he lives. In fact I'm happy for MR. CEO because MR. CEO signs the pay checks for ALOT of people. You want a nice house and a Nice boat GO EARN it and stop worrying about what MR. CEO has.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Without a job as a CEO or some other high flying executive, you can work as hard as you like , 25 hours a day and invest 110% of what you earn. You can invest in the best companies or be guided by the best advisers. You will still be in the bottom of the pile.

I have some friends who are financially comfortable, and managed it on their own without becoming CEO's. One is a writer who writes science fiction books on the side while working as a traveling IT professional. One is a photographer who took a hobby and turned it into a thriving business that she's had to re-start three times as her military husband has been relocated - she's become a success each time. One is a retired Command Sgt Major in the Army whom I served with in the Marine Corps 30 years ago; he got out the same time I did, went into the Army, and saved his money assiduously. Raised two great kids, has a wonderful wife, and retired with a spotless record; no college degree, no special abilities, just hard work and savings. I have another friend who never made the money I did, although we always worked in similar jobs. But he and his wife watch every penny, paid off their house, paid off their cars, have no debt, and a really nice retirement income when they're ready, which they could do any time. My mother-in-law went from a bank teller to an executive vice president at a health insurance company, no college degree, just her ability and determination.

None of them are 'rich', but none of them are hurting; they can do pretty much as they please financially. I don't know if there was more luck or more hard work or talent or more intellect involved; I suspect it had to do with various admixtures of those things.

But it can be done. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I've seen too many of my close personal friends do it. I haven't managed it yet, but I don't see that as anyone's fault. I've got it pretty good anyway, I'm not complaining.

And for what it's worth, I got out of the Marine Corps with no college degree and no particular skill set. Took out a student loan (still paying it off) and got my degree in computer science. Haven't gone more than three weeks without work in 30 years. Been fired twice. Quit a half-dozen times. I now make about 75% of what I did at my peak in the 1990's. So what? No one but myself to blame or praise. What I made, I made more-or-less on my own. What I failed to make is my responsibility and no one else's.

 

[MA-Caver]

work harder

work smarter

hell, just WORK

every race has a loser, there is no way to make sure everyone has equal results without making everyone's results crappy

*nods* agreed... while I had my (last) job I busted my *** for 23 months earning every dollar that passed into my hand. Did everything that was asked of me to do and then some. Put in a lot of hours, put up with a lot of B.S. from customers (and sometimes senior employees) and went home and got up and did it all over again. Still wasn't able to save up more than at least a grand or so every 7-8 months and used that on making sure family got together for the holidays.
Trouble with misaligned spending I saw/see is this... it's not always how much a person makes but how much life costs that makes the huge difference. Right now I complained that I won't have enough $$ to afford to even LOOK for a job... 55-60 days ago I didn't worry... I made enough to cover my expenses and sometimes had a little over to save.
Ideally I should've had enough to cover my expenses and sometimes had a lot over to save. Believe me I lived very cheaply considering. But unexpectedly losing my job (due to some B.S. I'd rather not get into at the moment), has killed my progress to increase my earnings. Basically starting over from scratch again.
Prior to my last job minimum wage was a paltry sum, then it got raised up... some. Unfortunately still it wasn't enough. Had I not been living where I am presently I sincerely doubt that I could've been living as well as I had been. Rent, food, gas, utilities, all those combined sans pleasurable pursuits add up to above a weekly minimum wage earning.
I don't want to take $$ out of anyone's pocket just to put into mine (without earning it via hard work) anymore than I want anyone taking $$ out of mine to put into somebody else's either Bill. While I was working I earned every dollar and I know what hard work brings, but I know what it sometimes cannot bring.
It's often the type of work that makes the difference between making enough to enjoy various comforts and barely scraping by. But it's also having the ability to save what is earned that also makes millionaires. Most millionaires got that way by not only working harder than everyone else but also by saving... they were able to save because they were working harder than everyone else and didn't have or didn't MAKE time to spend what they have.
Unskilled laborers like myself are basically stuck until we find skills to make our time more valuable to prospective employers. That's alright but Lordy don't keep the cost of living so much that no matter how much we earn in the meantime that more time is spent working than learning a new skill.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

January 14, 2008, 2:41 PM ET The Decline of Inherited Money


By Robert Frank

My Krugman post brought a lot of emails asking about my assertion that “the vast majority of today’s rich didn’t inherit their money, but made it themselves.”
For the sake of brevity, I didn’t cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)
...
Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

[SIZE=+2]The Millionaire Next Door [/SIZE]
The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy
By Thomas J. Stanley, Ph. D. and William D. Danko, Ph. D.

...

PORTRAIT OF A MILLIONAIRE
Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)
* I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.
* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.
* Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull/normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
* About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.
* Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.
* We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.
* On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.
* Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.
* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
* We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.
* Most of our wives are planners and meticulous budgeters. In fact, only 18 percent of us disagreed with the statement "Charity begins at home." Most of us will tell you that our wives are a lot more conservative with money than we are.
* We have a "go-to-hell fund." In other words, we have accumulated enough wealth to live without working for ten or more years. Thus, those of us with a net worth of $1.6 million could live comfortably for more than twelve years. Actually, we could live longer than that, since we save at least 15 percent of our earned income.
* We have more than six and one-half times the level of wealth of our nonmillionaire neighbors, but, in our neighborhood, these nonmillionaires outnumber us better than three to one. Could it be that they have chosen to trade wealth for acquiring high-status material possessions?
* As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s.
* Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools.
* As a group, we believe that education is extremely important for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. We spend heavily for the educations of our offspring.
* About two-thirds of us work between forty-five and fifty-five hours per week.
* We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.
* We hold nearly 20 percent of our household's wealth in transaction securities such as publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. But we rarely sell our equity investments. We hold even more in our pension plans. On average, 21 percent of our household's wealth is in our private businesses.
* As a group, we feel that our daughters are financially handicapped in comparison to our sons. Men seem to make much more money even within the same occupational categories. That is why most of us would not hesitate to share some of our wealth with our daughters. Our sons, and men in general, have the deck of economic cards stacked in their favor. They should not need subsidies from their parents.
* What would be the ideal occupations for our sons and daughters? There are about 3.5 millionaire households like ours. Our numbers are growing much faster than the general population. Our kids should consider providing affluent people with some valuable service. Overall, our most trusted financial advisors are our accountants. Our attorneys are also very important. So we recommend accounting and law to our children. Tax advisors and estate-planning experts will be in big demand over the next fifteen years.
* I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."

I highlighted the bit above, because frankly I feel that's one of my big downfalls. I know that one of my friends has consistently earned less than me all our lives; and we work in the same field, do the same work, have the same basic outlook, etc, etc. The difference is that he lives well below his means, and I have not done so for a big part of my life. Oh yeah, I have to take the hit for that. The ant and the grasshopper, baby. I'm the grasshoper.

 

[ballen0351]

To give you an idea of the numbers involved at a more macro-economic scale, the UK's GDP for the past ten years was £13324.108 Billion i.e. knocking on for 13.5 Trillion Pounds. Half of that went into the hands/pockets of the population as a whole - the other half went to that blessed one in a hundred.

And what tax rate did that top 1 in a 100 pay? I cant speak for the UK but in the US the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of all taxes and the top 10% of wager earners pay 64.89% of all taxes and the top 5% of wealthiest Americans pay 53.25% of all taxes.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did you miss my post in response to this question in the "Separate but unequal" thread?

Yes, but there are so many reasons why I think that's not realistic, I just decided to let it go. No offense, but it's just off the radar for me in terms of any kind of actual solution.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Often heard - "I worked hard. I saved my money. I didn't become rich. Therefore, it is not possible to become rich in our society."

I think there's a lot of things involved beyond just 'working hard' and 'saving'. All of those things matter, but they still might not be enough. All kinds of things matter, even luck of the draw, who you know, what you know, and when you know it. Timing, industry, the economy, the weather, you name it.

It's not fun. But it's also not a rigged game. It's a game that has winners and losers, and the winners aren't generally given any special advantage unfairly, nor are the losers unfairly kept down. If the outcome isn't fair, life isn't fair. And there is no way, in my opinion, that everyone can become wealthy. The economic structure of a free enterprise system ensures that the majority cannot be wealthy. I don't know what to say about that. It is what it is.