3 ms·
Yes, and as long as we're pointing out that, let's note that this graph measures (real) wealth, not income (and certainly not transfer-adjusted incomes). Also
by fennecfoxen 12y ago
Yes, and as long as we're pointing out that, let's note that this graph measures (real) wealth, not income (and certainly not transfer-adjusted incomes).
Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession (surprise, surprise) while the headline itself plays up the "bottom 10%" impact. Clickbait for a certain crowd.
- vidarh 12y ago> Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession (surprise, surprise) It also points out that the reason for this is that most people have most of their assets in property. And so most likely saw little to nothing of the large increase in paper-wealth before the recession, or in fact in many cases saw it negatively affect them due to higher mortgages.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoYou have a strange definition of everyone - one that conveniently ignores the massive gains in wealth made by the 1%. The age difference is a nitpick, and almost entirely irrelevant to the obvious political and economic implications.