This Map Reveals Just How Unequal The So-Called Recovery Is

[RiverLover]

This Map Reveals Just How Unequal The So-Called Recovery Is
1/26/15

...In all states, the rebound in income in the three years after the recession pretty much all went to the richest of the rich, the EPI found.

"Over this period, the average income of the bottom 99 percent in the United States actually fell (by 0.4 percent)," the paper states. "In contrast, the average income of the top 1 percent climbed 36.8 percent."

The map below shows where the richest 1 percent captured the greatest percentage of the overall income gained between 2009 and 2012. The darker orange and red shades show where the largest share of income growth went to the 1 percent.



Since the recession ended more than five years ago, wages have been one of the slowest parts of the economy to recover. In his speech last week, Obama applauded the 11 million new private-sector jobs created since 2009 and claimed that "Wages are finally starting to rise again."

But wage growth is still a lot slower than it was before the recession. And it's still too slow to keep up with the growth enjoyed by the 1 percent, who typically don't have to beg employers for raises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/most-unequal-states-in-america-map_n_6532350.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

[Man from Pickens]

1. how bout dat recovery?

If this recovery keeps going, we'll all be completely broke before long.

[marym625]

3. Already am.

Last edited Tue Jan 27, 2015, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Worst financial position I have been in ever. I will never be able to retire and will most likely have to move in with my brother soon. Went from supporting my parents to needing help myself. Sucks.

[chervilant]

9. Same here.

Can't GET a job, because I'm "over-qualified and over-educated." Can you tell I'm sick of hearing those trite excuses for NOT giving me a job?

I am willing to do almost anything, even though--in the past--I've put my integrity and moral standards before any position that veered sharply towards dishonesty (or, as in the case of Countrywide, criminal behaviors). I now fear that I'll be working for Wallyworld or MickeyDs, two of the worst corporations in the US. How's THAT for irony?

[marym625]

22. I'm have too much experience

And not enough education. First time in my life I thought about dumbing down my resume.

[marym625]

2. K&R

Glad you posted this. Glad to see the numbers. Tired of hearing how great everything is when the reality is many of us are not doing as well as we were a few years ago.

Thanks for the post

[GummyBearz]

4. Agreed

... and saying what you just did gets a lot of people all pissed off around here

[RiverLover]

8. That's exactly right. Team Blue vs Team Red

They manipulate us into this ego-based thinking & we can't see what both sides are doing to the majority on both "teams". But as long as the 1% controls the media & the politicians, and we play along (ag each other), nothing is going to change.

[Scuba]

68. ...

[marym625]

20. Bingo! n/t

[jtuck004]

15. So does letting people fall into poverty while pretending otherwise. n/t

[marym625]

19. yep.

Reality bites so why acknowledge it?

[RiverLover]

6. Me too.

Surviving has gotten tougher for SO many people, and it will keep getting tougher if we don't admit things need to change. Not more trade deals that send even more US jobs overseas, leaving us with little leverage to fight for decent wages at home b/c we should just feel "lucky to have a job". Not more deregulation that sets us up for another economic blowout. I read US banks' $$$ is even more substantially concentrated btn 4 US banks than it was in 2000, and Goldman has been using its "own" money to buy up real estate all over the country. They aren't gambling with that, we'll be the ones to bail them out when the oil derivative swaps crash b/c of low oil prices & the real estate market takes another dive.

But, we can all just turn on our TVs & pretend it isn't happening. We have a pair of shoes, aren't we lucky!!

[marym625]

21. and soon

At least for me, turning on the TV won't be a choice, if things don't change.

[nxylas]

7. Less of a red state/blue state divide than I was expecting

Florida having one of the biggest income gaps should probably come as no surprise. If you'd asked me to guess the others, I doubt Missouri would have been one of them, though.

[chervilant]

10. Two things interesting about your post:

1. "Less of a red state/blue state divide than I was expecting..." -- The uber wealthy are using our political parties to keep the Hoi Polloi divided and divisive. Most of our "democratic" pols are complicit in the corporate usurpation of our political process, so I wasn't expecting to see a 'divide' along those lines.

2. "I doubt Missouri would have been one of them..." -- I was thinking that, too. With the Walton family predominantly ensconced in NW Arkansas, I would have expected our state to be that darker orange. Strange, huh?

[allan01]

11. recovery . what recovery. the only ppl who have recovered is the rich

not recession but mild to moderate DEPRESSION folks .

[EndElectoral]

12. Ultimately this is where the real dissatisfication with Obama lies.

Watching those in the group who initiated the crisis reaping the benefits of any recovery so much faster. Democrats have always had a real anger about injustice, and this seems beyond unjust, almost perverse.

[marym625]

23. It is perverse

And the people who cheer on the market going up, when that means zilch to the majority, as a measure for the wonderful job done at bringing the economy back, is beyond me

[Enthusiast]

13. Kicked

and recommended a whole bunch!

[L0oniX]

14. Don't worry. Vote for Hillary. She will fix this.

[jtuck004]

16. Aww, heck, just vote for someone self-id'd as a Democrat. Problems solved. n/t

[Autumn]

17. Wow. That makes it so clear. Bookmarked, recommended.

[hfojvt]

18. I wish that ridiculous articles/studies like this

didn't get so much traction here.

[stevenleser]

24. Agreed. One of the central things missing in this study is a comparison to previous recoveries

if you did that, you would find pretty much the same trend. If one thinks about why that is, it becomes obvious.

This is being used by those who always like to claim the Democrats aren't left enough.

[RiverLover]

25. From EPI's nonpartisan study, you'll see inequality is back at levels not seen since the late 1920s

But the enormous growth in the top 1% earnings, compared to the rest of us, has been a trend beginning in 1979.

http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-1917-to-2012/

Both parties are to blame.

[stevenleser]

26. OP posits that this recovery is somehow different from others. That is what I am addressing.

It isn't.

[RiverLover]

27. I don't see that "posit" in the OP. nt

[stevenleser]

30. If that's not what you are positing, than the OP is completely meaningless. That's your choice...

meaningless or wrong.

If you are saying "well, the recovery is benefiting the more wealthy first, but thats how recoveries work" than your OP is meaningless. Its not asserting there is anything new.

If you are saying "well, the recovery is benefiting the more wealthy first and that shows you how badly Obama architected the recovery", then you are wrong. Because all recoveries tend to work this way.

[RiverLover]

34. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Blinders always help.

This is a trend that has been going on since 1979.

Both parties are to blame & if we the people just keep ignoring it & pointing fingers at the other team, and say "its not our team's fault" while the 1% keeps buying our politicians & thus our policies that benefit them & hurt us, while the media continues to perpetuate this division, we the people have no one to blame but ourselves.

Each & every one of us should be fighting like never before to get $$$ out of politics.

Nothing will change while we just keep voting for our team. The past 36 years are proof.

[stevenleser]

37. Having all the data and knowing I am right and didn't write a nonsensical OP helps me sleep. nt

[RiverLover]

38. ...

[Jackpine Radical]

58. The problem with this alleged recovery is not

that the underclasses aren't recovering fast enough.

Unemployment may be somewhat lower, but many of those counted as employed are now in marginal jobs at or near minimum wage, with no benefits and no safety net, where previously they were in real, full-time work with benefits and better pay.

The problem is that the underclasses aren't recovering at all. They are continuing to sink. For them, there is no perceptible recovery, and no reasonable prospect of one, as far as they can see.

We are now six years into this supposed recovery, and those on the bottom are over their heads in despair and headed deeper.

[TheKentuckian]

43. There is no recovery for me, I still haven't recovered from the 1st Bush recession.

When is this "recovery" going to come regular people? At what point is it not ever coming? Will we again have another "recession" before it happens at which point those then "pre recession" become a "new normal" to measure "recovery" from?

We are already at five years now, what is the longest period of time between "recessions", seven years or so?

Not gonna happen, adjusted dollars wages haven't "recovered" in decades since like the late 70's. This time it doesn't appear we will be so lucky and many if not most won't recover in real dollars before the next downturn instead of just a chunk of us.

Lots of "middle class" types are never going to get back. Some will be poor from here out and others will be clearly and inarguably working class, unable to lie to themselves about their class anymore, neither group will forget.

There is no benefit of whistling past the graveyard here. Recovery is a fantasy, not even a serious goal other than as it is going right now.

[stevenleser]

45. People said the same about every single previous recovery. dating back to the 1930s.

[ND-Dem]

28. "If one things about why that is, it becomes obvious." = pls explain

[stevenleser]

31. I'll let you think about it some more to see if you can get it. Hint, all recoveries work this way.

[ND-Dem]

32. i couldn't which is why i asked

[stevenleser]

39. Walk yourself through it. You will get there. nt

[RiverLover]

40. So it sounds like you're a "trickle down" theory kind of guy, if you think the rich must recover

first, then the little people will follow.

We've been waiting for the trickle down a long time. And then the gap became wider with the recession, then even bigger with the recovery.

Do you think we'll finally get our trickle down any time soon?

[stevenleser]

41. Nope, I'm not.nt

[ND-Dem]

42. I have brain damage. Why not just answer the question

[stevenleser]

44. Why should I put forth the effort to explain it if you won't put forth the effort to understand it?

[ND-Dem]

47. I have post-meningitis brain damage. I'm not kidding.

You made the claim, why not answer thequestion

[stevenleser]

48. OK, lets use the example of an FDR type effort at a recovery...

Let's say the government hires 1,000,000 people in triple letter programs at basic middle class wages to do things like infrastructure repair, and spends another billion dollars in stimulus money aimed at the middle class.

Where do those people spend their new middle class wages?

[ND-Dem]

52. Is the answer they spend them at giant corporations so therefore inequality rises?

[stevenleser]

53. No. They spend them on food at the grocery store, on clothes at the clothing store, and

they pay their rent, mortgage and then buy some extras.

Who owns all of those places?

This is really not hard. Even in an FDR type recovery effort, the 1% benefits the most at first.

[ND-Dem]

54. so that's why inequality is rising

[stevenleser]

55. Correct, during a recovery, that's why inequality is increasing more than it normally might...

...particularly in the beginning stages. You can't get around it unless you have complete government ownership of the means of production.

[ND-Dem]

56. got a link for your claim?

cause it seems to me you're effectively saying that no matter what government does, inequality rises. cause people have to buy stuff from the business/corporate sector to live.

[stevenleser]

57. You need one? Are you actually disputing that? nt

[ND-Dem]

59. Seems to me your claim is equivalent to saying inequality always rises, not just in recovery.

Because ordinary people always give most of their money to corporations and business.

I'd just like to see some data that this is especially pronounced in recoveries.

[stevenleser]

61. No, that's not what I am saying. My posit is specifically regarding the beginning of recoveries.

Why are you imputing things to me that I never said? First you say that you don't know enough to figure out the dynamics of something happening in the beginnings of an economy, then you say I said things that I never said.

[ND-Dem]

63. I didn't say you said it. I said what you did say is equivalent to that.

"Seems to me your claim is equivalent to saying inequality always rises, not just in recovery."

and now, sorry, I have to go to my $800/mo job for the handicapped. the happy ending of my illness, itself a result of doing slave labor for a giant corporation with no sick leave or benefits

[stevenleser]

64. No, it isn't. First you tell me you can't figure stuff out, then you tell me what my words mean as

if you know better than I what I'm saying. wtf?

[ND-Dem]

66. you said, during a recovery ordinary people get some money and turn around and spend it

on necessities (spend it on corporate-owned goods) and so the owners make more than the ordinary people, and that's why things are more unequal in recovery.

well, ordinary people *always* spend most of their money on goods and services owned by the rich. what's different about recoveries?

[TheKentuckian]

50. Because you have nothing but want to argue anyway, that's why.

[stevenleser]

51. Sure I do, and it's obvious. See my 48. If you can't figure this out, you have no business

in any kind of economic discussion.

[TheKentuckian]

46. There isn't one

[stevenleser]

49. Of course there is, and it's obvious. See my #48 nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. The Democrats are not left enough. n/t

Recoveries always benefit the wealthiest the most? Well, alright then.

[stevenleser]

36. That's not what I said. nt

[ND-Dem]

71. it's not?

24. Agreed. One of the central things missing in this study is a comparison to previous recoveries

if you did that, you would find pretty much the same trend. If one thinks about why that is, it becomes obvious.

This is being used by those who always like to claim the Democrats aren't left enough.

[ND-Dem]

29. ridiculous why? pls explain.

[hfojvt]

60. there are fifty ways to leave your lover

consider the title

"all the gains of the recovery went to the top 1%"

Which would seem to imply that nobody in the bottom 99% is doing better now than they were in the depths of the Bush recession.

Clear nonsense.

Consider employment. In, say August 2007 there were 137,968,000 people with jobs. This peakeed in January 2008 at 138,365,00. By January of 2009 it had fallen to 133,976,000 and it continued to fall through most of 2009, although much more slowly after the stimulus was passed and started to kick in. The low was February of 2010 at 129,655,000. Now employment in December 2014 stands (provisionally) at 140,347,000.

Almost 11 million people have found jobs in the recovery.

Looking at some other stats. Average weekly hours, although I think that is somewhat meaningless. (For one thing because it continued to rise during the Bush recession, for another because my own earnings are far, far below this supposed average). However, earnings averages $734.90 in January of 2008 and the current average is $850.12

Now look at some supposed "bad" news. The labor force participation rate. It was 67.1% from 1997 to 2001 and it has fallen, even through the recovery. Why, it was only 62.8% in December 2013 and now it has fallen to only 62.7%. Oh, the horror, the horror, some people are choosing to drop out of the labor force. Could it be that they are riding off to retirement? Well, we cannot have that!!! Somebody put those geezers to work. Offer them good paying jobs, so they won't be tempted to enjoy free time or something.

Clearly, lots of people have gained in the bottom 99%. Of course, when you net out their gains with the horrifying loss of income faced by the lucky duckies who get to retire, then it is a net loss.

Then let's think about some of those poor people who are part of the 99%. In South Dakota, for example, the top 4% make between $168,000 and $468,000. (and I picked SD because in Connecticut, the top 4% make between $294,000 and $1.13 million) So just think of a poor 5%er making $280,000 in SD. Am i supposed to rend my garments if this fellow member of the working class has seen his/her income fall to a miserable $230,000 because of the recession?

The whole thing is a selection bias anyway, because those who lose are going to fall from the 1%, and QED, almost all people who have lost money will automatically be in the bottom 99%.

[ND-Dem]

62. That's not the title, just for starters. This is the title:

"This Map Reveals Just How Unequal The So-Called Recovery Is"

And just because some of those unemployed during the bust got jobs doesn't mean they're doing any better:

...In all states, the rebound in income in the three years after the recession pretty much all went to the richest of the rich, the EPI found.

"Over this period, the average income of the bottom 99 percent in the United States actually fell (by 0.4 percent)," the paper states. "In contrast, the average income of the top 1 percent climbed 36.8 percent."

Labor force participation rate for those over 55 is actually higher than it's been since the 60s.



I've got to go to my handicapped minimum wage job, or I'd continue.

[hfojvt]

65. way to jump on something irrelevant for starters

"And just because some of those unemployed during the bust got jobs doesn't mean they're doing any better:"

Uh, yeah, actually it does, since the whole thing was about gains DURING the recovery. NOT comparing before the recession to after the recession. Somebody who got a job in the recovery has certainly gained during the recovery.

And a higher participation rate for those over 55 isn't really relevant. In 2002 21.1% of the population was over 55, by 2012 that had grown to 25.7%. The fact that 4.6% of the population was moving from a group where the participation rate is 82% into a group where the participation rate is only 42% would seem to have some negative impact on the overall participation rate. In 2002, 11.9% of the population was over age 65 by 2012 that had risen to 13.5%. A few hundred thousand people going from working full time to the blessed state of retirement could also bring down the average income too.

Lower participation rates don't bother me all that much. Generally, other than a very small percentage that go underground, most people only drop out of the labor forcre, because they think they can afford to.

11 million new jobs, isn't an imaginary recovery.

[ND-Dem]

67. you're the one who jumped on the title, and commented on it like you were refuting some claim

it made. If it was irrelevant, why did you mention it?

Net job creation isn't 11 million; there aren't 11 million NEW jobs. Depending on who you listen to, there have been about 4-5 million NEW jobs created during the 6 years of the Obama administration. The rest of Obama's 'job creation' just brought the country back to baseline. That means actual new job creation lags population growth -- by a significant distance.

http://www.epi.org/blog/at-an-average-of-246000-jobs-a-month-in-2014-it-will-be-the-summer-of-2017-before-we-return-to-pre-recession-labor-market-health/

Not to mention that the job creation of the 'recovery' has been concentrated in low-wage jobs.

Today, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold, while there are 1.85 million more jobs in lower-wage industries.

http://www.nelp.org/page/content/lowwagerecovery2014/

Regardless of all the meaningless hot air you're expending, people over-55 are staying in the labor market longer than since the 90s at least; while younger people are *less* likely to have employment.

[hfojvt]

69. I would think a Nodakian

would appreciate some "hot air"

And I seem to have provided actual stats and some reasoning which would lower the total participation rate.

No matter how much that red bar is higher than the yellow bar, the red bar for those over 55 and those over 65 - a percentage of the population that is growing, is STILL lower than the red bar for those under 55.

Why did I mention the title?

Well, because the OP said this, right at the top

"the rebound in income in the three years after the recession pretty much all went to the richest of the rich,"

and I said this

"consider the title

"all the gains of the recovery went to the top 1%""

So there I am, hitting reply and giving a mostly polite answer to your question. Once I hit reply, I can still see your post, but I cannot see the OP any more. I remembered that line from the OP, and thought it was part of the title. So I refudiated that part of the OP, which was pretty much the key argument, and happened to make the irrelevant mistake of thinking it was the title, rather than the second line of the OP.

My error was trivial, and irrelevant to the argument, although a person could, if they were a pissant, use it to try to score a point.

You seem to think that you cannot make your points without including a whole bunch of hostility, playing some sort of gotcha game. "Ah ha, you made a trivial error", and say things like "The things you write, your statistics, your opinion are nothing but "meaningless hot air"."

And there are 11 million jobs since the job nadir of the Bush recession. Regardless of how many jobs you, or some paid economist, think there should be, or how much those jobs should pay. The fact is that somebody who had no job in February of 2010 and now has a job, has gained from where they were in February of 2010.

That's pretty clear, and it's pretty obvious. Except for people who want to do a whole bunch of statistical mixing and sorting and graphing so they can cry about the legendary 1% and how we are all doomed.

[ND-Dem]

70. the 1% are very real, not legendary. you seem to have a vested interest.

[treestar]

33. Ill take it, though

Being self employed, I always seem to directly feel it when there is a recession/recovery.

I think most people don't really care so long as they are doing OK themselves, and that's always been the case.

[marym625]

72. You, RiverLover,

Should repost this. It deserves more attention than it received.