The chart you showed did not break down the top 1%, so why do you keep citing that figure? Also, the logical conclusion of this statement, since you claim that the top 1% gets everything, is that the next 4% would get nothing, as would the next 19% (5% and 20%iles). But your own graph contradicts this claim. Based on the chart, the top 5% saw about a $155k gain. Since the next 15% would, according to you, get nothing, we would expect about a $39k increase (155/4). But looking at the graph, it’s more like an $80k-$90k change. Your numbers just don’t add up, bub. Perhaps you want to cite some other evidence that supports your claim?
Obviously I know that. But the people who perpetrated the scam, are also the people who made up the stats.
Real wages have gone absolutely nowhere since the 70s, but the cost of surviving in the modern world has gone up (not just talking about inflation). It requires analytical skills and looking at the total picture.
@pa. if you want to break it down, it is the top 0.01% who are getting far more than their fair share. wait no, the top 0.001%. wait, no the top 0.0001%.
obviously the higher you go, the less equal the distribution. the bottom line is that the top ~60% are doing better in terms of income and the bottom 40% are doing better as a result of increased government transfers and have a better looking future with wage inflation picking up at the low end of the spectrum. this is especially true when you consider the things that inky is talking about.
we’re talking about better or worse. not fair or not fair. of course it’s not fair, but it’s much more fair than in the days pre-1920 and certainly more fair than in the industrial revolution and before. if you’re looking for a fair world, you will not find it here, but we’re progressing.
Well, something is progressing, and it’s income inequality.
The 60% have basically gone nowhere in terms of inflation adjusted income, AND when you add in all the additional hits they take from new things they must buy (required child seats, late fees on everything, drugs pushed on them by doctors to treat sickness caused by the food supply, and other industry scams) income has decreased. It’s not just about the rising cost of milk, which is accounted for, it’s about all the scams to force money out of their wallet.
Things are definitely not progressing, in a positive sort of way.
By the way, have you considered the effect that women in the workforce have had? Since the 1970s they substantially contributed to the availability of labor. Do you think that had a downward pressure on wages? Do you think that women should stay at home in the kitchen?
you sound like an old beat down hyper socialist. i have provided hard data as to why things have gotten better for most AND i’ve, well inkybinky has, provided soft data as to why things have gotten even better. your position is purely conjecture. in fact, the income inequality we’re seeing is actually a return to the norm of human history. it was only between the period of 1940-1985 that income inequality was marginally lower. so 1940-1985 was actually the historical anomaly. wealth accumulation at the top is the natural ends of capitalism. i don’t personally think we should allow that but redistribution is always fighting a strong current of wealth accumulation and higher incomes for the rich.
Women were forced into the workforce by holding men’s wages were held down, while prices increased, no choice but for them to goto work. That was spun via feminism “you have the right to work”. That increased the count of slaves, so wages could be held down further, and they could be squeezed further with increased costs for child care, eating out, etc (because the woman could no longer maintain the home).
Face it, everyone got raped. Don’t make excuses for the rapist you suckers.
I just analyze objectively. I don’t have political “views” or desired outcomes. Income inequality happened, so I conclude it happened, simple as that.
