The Newark Star-Ledger ran a graph on their editorial page yesterday that deserves comment. The graph, in shades of black and gray, may not reproduce well online. Accordingly, this post will be largely descriptive rather than analytical.
Visually, it is striking to compare income distribution over time.
The dark color represents gains in income for the top 1 percent of households. The lighter color represents income gains for the bottom 90 percent of households.
From 1923-1929 the top 1 percent added 70 percent to their income, the bottom 90 percent added 15 percent.
From 1960-1969 income gains reflects a significant shift, as income rose more than 60 percent for the bottom and barely 10 percent for the top. Now we know why the rich didn't like the 60's (but taking it out on The Beatles was not cool).
During the Jimmy Carter years (and we all remember those fondly) both groups experienced significant growth. Maybe the sweater guy wasn't as bad as his enemies portrayed him. The bottom gained more than 45 percent and the top more than 35 percent.
From 1982-1989 we see a dramatic shift, as the top increases from 35 to 40 and the bottom decreases from 45 to 25, a significant drop in income gain.
The Clinton years, 1992-2000, saw the trend toward unequal gains continue, though not dramatically.
From 2002--2007, the income gains for the top 1 percent rockets up to 65 percent, nearly the same increase as in 1923-1929; while the bottom 90 percent plunges to an even lower figure than in 1923-1929, at barely more than 10 percent.
And we all know what happened in 1929.
As in 1929, the top 1 percent are well positioned to survive another economic downturn. The bottom 90 percent, however, which includes most of the people I know, love and care about, are in a precarious position.
But you already knew that.
No comments:
Post a Comment