What do you see there?
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1380168554360631298(I don’t agree that financial inequality is inherently problematic, but the graph is striking)
Talk about cherry picking... of course the top .01% is going to make the comparison look bad. It's been like that since the beginning of time.
Nope. Changed dramatically in 1980. See updated post. The 0.01% income growth was lower than lower income growth until 1980.
How much of that is related to the creation of the middle class in the 30 years post-WWII?
After the middle class was established, the growth rates normalized. (Just a thought, not based on data.)
Which policies specifically are you referring to? What makes a 6:1 discrepancy in growth rates normal? Normal is when there isn't a discrepancy, and the poor people's income improves at the same rate as rich people.
it's good to be a Lubavitcher
Me, a stupid person: how much of this graph is explained by the rate of market growth over the same time, which, you know, the more wealthy you are the more you have to invest in it?
Zero. The rate of US market growth over time is identical in 1946-1980 and 1980-2020. The beneficiaries are drastically different.
In the second period mentioned, the war of poverty had reduced the number of fathers in the home. That has to have an impact on the average income of the lower income people being kept down.
The war of poverty?
war ON povertybut the typo does strain my meaning
+1. We're comparing the compounding wealth of the top 25-30k earners in the country vs the bottom half of the country. I'm not sure what the point is. There will always be kings and serfs, nobles and peasants, haves and have-nots.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1379288433013690369Yes, he does, and it's as bizarre as it sounds. (I was surprised enoughjust to find out that Ta-Nehisi Coates was writing Marvel comics.)
https://twitter.com/Yochidonn/status/1380321067294674944