4 ms·

That is factually inaccurate. You didn't really mean that, did you? US real income by quintile since 1967[1]. Income in real dollars has been stagnant for ever

by rquantz 12y ago

That is factually inaccurate. You didn't really mean that, did you? US real income by quintile since 1967[1]. Income in real dollars has been stagnant for everyone but the wealthy. I can't find household debt by quintile but if I do I'll include it here. It's gone down a bit since the financial crisis (part of the cause of the ongoing depression) but had been growing. [1]http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-income.html?household-incomes-mean-real.gif http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/hous...

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
The graph is visually misleading because putting the top 5% on it (and then including a blank bar even on top of that) makes changes in all the other lines look smaller. The top three quintiles are all upward sloping prior to 2000, and since then the top 5% line is flat too, which is attributable to the recession(s) following the dotcom bust, 9/11 and the housing crisis. And be careful with the debt numbers. The thing you really want there is net worth anyway. Otherwise you get silly outcomes like people buying homes causing "debt" to increase dramatically even though assets increase by an equivalent amount at the same time.
- rquantz 12y ago
  It's not visually misleading at all. The point is that the wealthy have taken a vastly disproportionate share of income growth. The vast majority of the income growth in the top quintile is in the top 5%. The majority of growth in the top 5% is in the top 1%. The majority of the growth in the top 1% is in the top 0.1%. Edit: Also, if we're going to look at changes in net worth, that will also support my argument. Increases in net worth compound over time, which is why fortunes tend to grow. I.E., the entire thesis of Thomas Picketty's book.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > The point is that the wealthy have taken a vastly disproportionate share of income growth. Of course they have. If you make $5 and you just ate, you invest the money. If you make $5 and you have no food, you buy food. Tomorrow the person who invested money still has the investment and is reinvesting the interest but the person who bought food is hungry again. And the top 1% reinvest nearly 100% of their income. But that's capitalism. Unless you're suggesting to confiscate their assets so they can't keep reinvesting the interest, the solution has to be to bring the middle class up rather than bringing the 1% down. Which we certainly aren't doing as effectively as we could if we committed to the idea, but it's not like engineers and middle managers are out starving in the streets. I don't even know if we're arguing about anything. Whether median incomes being up 3% over some period of time is equivalent to them being flat is not a very interesting question. What pretty much everybody wants is for the average American to have more of the good life. Is there a policy proposal on the table to do that? "Kill the rich" sure sounds good but it might not be as effective as it would be satisfying.

by rquantz 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

The graph is visually misleading because putting the top 5% on it (and then including a blank bar even on top of that) makes changes in all the other lines look smaller. The top three quintiles are all upward sloping prior to 2000, and since then the top 5% line is flat too, which is attributable to the recession(s) following the dotcom bust, 9/11 and the housing crisis. And be careful with the debt numbers. The thing you really want there is net worth anyway. Otherwise you get silly outcomes like people buying homes causing "debt" to increase dramatically even though assets increase by an equivalent amount at the same time.

rquantz 12y ago
It's not visually misleading at all. The point is that the wealthy have taken a vastly disproportionate share of income growth. The vast majority of the income growth in the top quintile is in the top 5%. The majority of growth in the top 5% is in the top 1%. The majority of the growth in the top 1% is in the top 0.1%. Edit: Also, if we're going to look at changes in net worth, that will also support my argument. Increases in net worth compound over time, which is why fortunes tend to grow. I.E., the entire thesis of Thomas Picketty's book.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > The point is that the wealthy have taken a vastly disproportionate share of income growth. Of course they have. If you make $5 and you just ate, you invest the money. If you make $5 and you have no food, you buy food. Tomorrow the person who invested money still has the investment and is reinvesting the interest but the person who bought food is hungry again. And the top 1% reinvest nearly 100% of their income. But that's capitalism. Unless you're suggesting to confiscate their assets so they can't keep reinvesting the interest, the solution has to be to bring the middle class up rather than bringing the 1% down. Which we certainly aren't doing as effectively as we could if we committed to the idea, but it's not like engineers and middle managers are out starving in the streets. I don't even know if we're arguing about anything. Whether median incomes being up 3% over some period of time is equivalent to them being flat is not a very interesting question. What pretty much everybody wants is for the average American to have more of the good life. Is there a policy proposal on the table to do that? "Kill the rich" sure sounds good but it might not be as effective as it would be satisfying.