Shocking: Income Inequity Since 1970, In Graph Form
from Bill Moyers & Co.:
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-triggers-of-economic-inequality/
The Triggers of Economic Inequality
By Troy Oxford and Lauren Feeney
In recent years, the rich have seen their wealth grow dramatically while the poor and middle class have basically flatlined. It’s no accident, argue Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in their book Winner-Take-All Politics. The infographic below, which draws from Hacker and Pierson’s book, explains how our politicians — on both sides of the isle — fell under the spell of corporate dollars and re-engineered our economic system to favor the wealthy. The dark green line shows the income trajectory for the top 1 percent since 1970, while the light green line shows the bottom 90 percent. Click the orange triangles to learn about critical turning points that helped create the skewed system we have today.
....(snip)....
Shocking: Income Inequity Since 1970, In Graph Form
We know income inequality has grown exponentially in the last 40 years, but when you see it in graphic form, it's that much more astonishing. Using the new book Winner-Take-All Politics as a basis, Bill Moyers' site line-graphed the way income in America has changed, depicting a flatlining—even slightly declining—income for the bottom 90%, and an explosively inclining income for the top 1%. Further, a ticker notes each year that politicians engineered this mess for the upper echelon through legislation and executive decisions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the steepest inclines for the rich came under the presidencies of Reagan, Clinton, and George Bush II.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/763245/shocking%3A_income_inequity_since_1970%2C_in_graph_form/
= new reply since forum marked as read
This stuff that is well known to everyone who has looked at patterns or American income and wealth distribution from 1980 to the present.
First, on re-reading I see that the poster I replied to was saying that income inequality grew most under Clinton. Fair enough. I was ojecting to Clinton being "the worst" because income inequality is not, in itself, the best measure of how people on the bottom are doing. (But if the raw difference is what is "the worst" then the poster was right.)
Income inequality can increase in good times because a stronger economy favors the rich disproportionately. More economic activity, more opportunities for profit. But that does not mean that working people do better in a bad economy, or that they do equally well in all good economies.
Of course the rich got richer under Clinton. The stock market exploded upward. Rich people have stocks.
But ordinary people captured more of that good economy than under republicans.
The chart in the OP is scaled to maximize the flatness of the bottom line because it is intended to show the huge gains made by the wealthy. All charts are designed to show one or two things clearly.
Here's a good chart of how much of GDP was captured by the median family. It tells the same tragic story as the chart in the OP, with the rich grabbing a huge portion of all economic growth since 1980. But you can see that without the gains (however paltry) of the 1990s the median family share of GDP would be lower than it started out.
Put most simply, any worker would take the 1990s over the 2000s.
"Who tells the president to 'Speed it Up'?"
The Bankster-Run Corptocracy, that's who. Now and forever.
K & R.
