IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I knew it was bad, but Holy Smokes!
While incomes at all levels declined as a result of the Great Recession, income growth has been lopsided since the recovery began in 2009; the top 1 percent captured an alarming share of economic growth while enjoying relatively high income growth.

Between 2009 and 2013, the top 1 percent captured 85.1 percent of total income growth in the United States. Over this period, the average income of the top 1 percent grew 17.4 percent, about 25 times as much as the average income of the bottom 99 percent, which grew 0.7 percent.

In 24 states the top 1 percent captured at least half of all income growth between 2009 and 2013.

In 15 of those states the top 1 percent captured all income growth between 2009 and 2013. Those states were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

In the other nine states, the top 1 percent captured between 50.0 and 94.4 percent of all income growth. Those states were Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

In 10 states, top 1 percent incomes grew in the double digits, while bottom 99 percent incomes fell. Those states were Wyoming (55.1 percent versus -2.3 percent), Nevada (25.6 percent versus -13.3 percent), Washington (21.6 percent versus -0.8 percent), New York (20.6 percent versus -3.9 percent), Connecticut (17.2 percent versus -1.6 percent), New Jersey (15.2 percent versus -1.4 percent), Florida (15.0 percent versus -4.3 percent), Missouri (14.8 percent versus -1.8 percent), Georgia (12.3 percent versus -2.7 percent), and South Carolina (11.3 percent versus -0.1 percent).

Lopsided income growth is a long-term trend that predates the Great Recession.

Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent took home well over half (53.9 percent) of the total increase in U.S. income. Over this period, the average income of the bottom 99 percent of U.S. families grew by 18.9 percent. The average income of the top 1 percent grew over 10 times as much—by 200.5 percent.

In 19 states the top 1 percent captured at least half of all income growth between 1979 and 2007. In four of those states (Nevada, Wyoming, Michigan, and Alaska), only the top 1 percent experienced rising incomes between 1979 and 2007.

Even in the 10 states in which they captured the smallest share of income growth from 1979 to 2007, the top 1 percent still captured between about a quarter and just over a third of all income growth.

http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-in-the-us/

Yep. Predated the Great Recession, but not Reagan. I tell you what, if whomever gets elected in November (and I'm talking House, Senate, State and Locals as well) doesn't get started fixing this, this is going to take care of itself in a while with gunfire.
New Re: "this is going to take care of itself in a while with gunfire"
Nah! People are too stupid to realize they are being fucked.

Go watch some football, or hockey instead. Wave the flag! We're number one!

And vote for Trump!
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Nobody can be that stupid.
That kind of wealth distribution is completely unsustainable.
New H L Menken (b. 1880) said:
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Something, something, Excluded Middle.
EconomistsView cites Keyes and FDR:

Chris Herbert said...

Keynes on 'The end of laissez faire'; 1926. "Let us clear from the ground the metaphysical or general principles upon which, from time to time, laissez-faire has been founded. It is not true that individuals possess a prescriptive 'natural liberty' in their economic activities. There is no 'compact' conferring perpetual rights on those who Have or on those who Acquire. The world is not so governed from above that private and social interest always coincide. It is not so managed here below that in practice they coincide. It is not a correct deduction from the principles of economics that enlightened self-interest always operates in the public interest. Nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened; more often individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are too ignorant or too weak to attain even these. Experience does not show that individuals, when they make up a social unit, are always less clear-sighted than when they act separately."

And here's the clarity of FDR about outcomes. Fourth Inaugural address January 11, 1944.

[...]

Ooops. forgot to paste the bill of rights quote.

"As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16518


Smashing stuff doesn't usually work out too well for the people who do the smashing and most of the people who live through the smashing.

We can address and reduce economic equality by changing the system - breaking it isn't likely to do so for most people if history is any guide.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
     I knew it was bad, but Holy Smokes! - (mmoffitt) - (4)
         Re: "this is going to take care of itself in a while with gunfire" - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
             Nobody can be that stupid. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                 H L Menken (b. 1880) said: - (a6l6e6x)
                 Something, something, Excluded Middle. - (Another Scott)

If I bought someone a G5 and they did this to it, I'd break their face.
37 ms