Progressives worst nightmare: Wealth increasing WORLDWIDE

[UberNeuman]

Some of you are so wrong - it's simply logic by the OP... Faux News logic....

 

[nobodyknows]

So, individuals increasing their wealth = corporate greed now?

From my years of experience.... yes. For every individual who makes it on his own there are thousands of corporate brown nosers who are willing to let the big croporations do what they will as long as they percieve that it will also benifit them. A "if it's good for the corporation then it must be good for me" mentality.

 

[ElFenix]

ElFenix, IMO you're dodging the issue. Rather than get sidetracked onto your points, the fact remains that for the last 30 years, 80% of the economy's growth has gone to the top 1% and about 100% to the top 20% - it has been far, far from any 'rising tide lifting all boats' as normal in our history and has been a historic redistribution of wealth to the top.

That's a problem, period, IMO.

a return to the trend is nowhere near a historic redistribution. that's the heart of the issue. you continually use it to support your position but it's such an outlier as to be statistically worthless and a lie. the 1976 and 1979 number is 2/3 of the late 40s, 50s, 60s, and early 70s numbers.

from 1965 to 2007 the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% changed from 34.4% to 34.6%. historic redistribution not found.

i'm not going to argue that household debt isn't a problem.

 

[shira]

Point taken. But where do you draw the line between concentration of wealth and excessive? Whats the formula? Just so I know

There certainly are countries with a wider disparity between rich and poor than the US
Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries

If you looked at your own citation, you'd see (Figure 1) that among all the countries analyzed, only Mexico has had a greater increase in income inequality over the past 25 years than the United States.

Or is your claim that because the United States isn't dead last, there's no problem?

 

[Craig234]

a return to the trend is nowhere near a historic redistribution. that's the heart of the issue. you continually use it to support your position but it's such an outlier as to be statistically worthless and a lie. the 1976 and 1979 number is 2/3 of the late 40s, 50s, 60s, and early 70s numbers.

from 1965 to 2007 the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% changed from 34.4% to 34.6%. historic redistribution not found.

i'm not going to argue that household debt isn't a problem.

Your use of the word 'lie' is offensive and wrong. You ignored pretty much everything I said.

As you should know, that offensiveness is the end of discussion, including of your straw man.

 

[Craig234]

If you looked at your own citation, you'd see (Figure 1) that among all the countries analyzed, only Mexico has had a greater increase in income inequality over the past 25 years than the United States.

Or is your claim that because the United States isn't dead last, there's no problem?

Mexico, a country with such inequality it has the world's richest man and so many poor that 10% of their population estimated has come to the US illegally for low income work.

 

[rchiu]

Yeah that's nice, those high networth individuals, what 1% of the population? have their bank account flush with cash again.

The rest of the 99% still have to deal with 9+% unemployment, increasing personal debt and eventually pay for the trillions of deficit the US government is burning on their behalf.

 

[soundforbjt]

a return to the trend is nowhere near a historic redistribution. that's the heart of the issue. you continually use it to support your position but it's such an outlier as to be statistically worthless and a lie. the 1976 and 1979 number is 2/3 of the late 40s, 50s, 60s, and early 70s numbers.

from 1965 to 2007 the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% changed from 34.4% to 34.6%. historic redistribution not found.

i'm not going to argue that household debt isn't a problem.

But the top 20% own 80% of the wealth, that's where the historic redistribution is.

 

[ElFenix]

Your use of the word 'lie' is offensive and wrong. You ignored pretty much everything I said.

As you should know, that offensiveness is the end of discussion, including of your straw man.

you use bad statistics and then throw a hissy fit when it's pointed out to you? if you want to argue that the distribution of income isn't a very good one then do that, don't use historical outliers to argue your point. 2 standard deviations! it's as bad as elizabeth warren claiming the middle class isn't buying bigger houses because the room number is the same, despite the sq. footage being 33% or 50% larger.

But the top 20% own 80% of the wealth, that's where the historic redistribution is.

that's definitely where the real action has been the last 20 years. i'd like so see some some data that goes back to ~ww2 for it? the figures in the link i provided only go back to the 1980s for that.

further i'd really like to see data for cadres moving into and out of those brackets vs. historically.

a lot of that is going to be expert managers, the guys that went to harvard and yale and then married girls that went to harvard and yale. i think the term is the 'new elites.'