Succinct income growth disparity graphic from Krugman

[Sabriel]

It's from his latest post, here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/inequality-trends-in-one-picture/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Pretty depressing, really. I realize that no matter how much or how long the two of us work, we'll never move out of where we are now.

[sam11111]

1. the 1% have $16 trillion. pls memorize that number.

Tks

[pansypoo53219]

2. BOY, the reagan tax cuts were REALY WORTH IT.

and the georgee tax cuts. YAY! tax cuts!

[Marr]

4. Well, they did what they were supposed to do. n/t

[Laluchacontinua]

3. Doesn't that graph show that it IS a zero-sum game? Looks like the bottom's loss went into the

top's pockets almost exactly.

[xchrom]

5. recommend

[econoclast]

6. Whatever happened to the bottom 99% started in the 1970s. See graph below

It seems clear from this presentation by Piketty/Saez ( hat tip to krispos42 ) that there are three discrete turning points. (1.) The income growth of the 99% peaked around 1972/73 After that it declined until around 1982 (2.) when the decline stopped and a very slow increase began.

(3.) The 1% 's dramatic increase also began around 1982. 

The real impact on income increases for the 99% then seems to stem from the decade prior to 1982. Care to propose what caused this clear trend change in 1972/73 Oil shock? End of Bretton Woods? 

We can rail against RR all we want, but the data clearly indicate that something else happened in the decade prior to RR that caused the wheels to come off income growth for the 99%