3 ms·

But this analysis doesn't explain the change in the share of income the %1 has accumulated to itself in the last 30 years. In other words if this analysis were

But this analysis doesn't explain the change in the share of income the %1 has accumulated to itself in the last 30 years. In other words if this analysis were complete, we would expect to see straight line growth.

cadlin 13y ago
There is a book called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" currently being discussed in the economics world that examines this phenomenon (wealth, however, not income). The tl;dr is that World War I, The Great Depression, and World War II distorted wealth accumulation, and the world is back on track to straight line wealth capture. A more detailed analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-democracy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-demo...
LanceH 13y ago
Nor does it track what happened to the 1% from 30 years ago and whether they are even the same 1% today. Until this fact is acknowledged, they have no business even bringing up numbers. Another possible point of confusion: Maybe the top 1% aren't merely wealthier, maybe the top .1% is more numerous. Wouldn't that be good news?
- roc 13y ago
  > "maybe the top .1% is more numerous." You may want to rethink that.
JamisonM 13y ago
Why? As excess capital accumulates it compounds earning potential by creating more excess capital with new earnings. Given a favourable environment one would expect something greater than straight line growth, right?