Income Growth, by Quintile (1947-2000): Two Charts

[All Along The Watchtower]

1947:1973

1973-2000:

EDIT: 2000-2007 and 2007-2009 won't post.

Source: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart-index/

[opebo]

a clear indictment. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

a clear indictment. 

yeah, the US is yet to recover from disco

[Lief 🗽]

a clear indictment. 

Looks like everything is going exactly as planned actually.

[J. J.]

You do realize that the people in the top Quintile in 1973 are different than those in the top quintile in 2000?

[opebo]

You do realize that the people in the top Quintile in 1973 are different than those in the top quintile in 2000?

Yes, they are their heirs, J.J., and anyway your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[opebo]

yeah, the US is yet to recover from disco

You've got it precisely backwards, jmfcst.

a clear indictment. 

Looks like everything is going exactly as planned actually.

Hah, that's right Lief.  But it is still an indictment from the perspective of the victims.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's what's wrong with post-1980 America (but most European societies have experienced the same trend).

[J. J.]

You do realize that the people in the top Quintile in 1973 are different than those in the top quintile in 2000?

Yes, they are their heirs, J.J., and anyway your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Actually, not usually. 

Here is the current list of the richest people in 2011:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

Here is the list in 1992:

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-04/business/fi-42234_1_microsoft-s-bill-gates

You will see people staying on the list in 19 years, but half of them are new.

I have a list of all American billionaires from 1987.  There were 49.  I think nine of them are still in the top 50 in 2011.  That nine includes the heirs.


Going back to everyone with over $100,000,000 in 1968, there is one name on the list.  Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard.   A lot of the reason he stayed on was that he adapted.

[opebo]

[...anyway your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Jacobtm]

You're confusing the top few rich people with the ruling class.

Even though of course some people fall out of wealth and some come into it, that doesn't make the system moral or just.

If there is a dictatorship under which everyone but the top 100 people live miserably, but absolutely anyone can join those top 100 people through hard work and determination, it doesn't justify the system.

We have a system where really everyone has been stagnant since the 1970's, except for perhaps the top 1,2 or 3% of people.

It doesn't matter if those top 2% are selected randomly, if 98% of the people are staying stagnant, something is wrong.

What has happened since the 1970's is that these wealthy few have been skimming progressively more and more off the top.

With the scam of the stock market, which leaves most normal people broke but a few people who collect fees rich, they collectively live off of all the poor schmucks they've tricked into the stock market.

With the scam of commodities futures, they sucessfully bid up the prices of commodities and pocket fees and profits, leaving the bulk of us to pay higher and higher prices for commodities whose prices have been artificially inflated by the same people who're profiting.

With our scam of a medical system, people pay more for medical care than they do in any other wealthy nation, which goes right into the pockets of the people on the top.

The vast majority of the country is continuously being hustled by the few on the top.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

'73-'82 sucked.  I'm sure if you move those years out of the 2nd graph and into the 1st, 1983-2000 would improve substantially

[opebo]

'73-'80 sucked.  I'm sure if you move those years out of the 2nd graph and into the 1st, 1980-2011 would improve substantially

Actually no, those were the least bad years of that period.

[Jacobtm]

'73-'80 sucked.  I'm sure if you move those years out of the 2nd graph and into the 1st, 1980-2000 would improve substantially

It's actually the opposite. Since the 80's, this process has just accelerated. Especially if we go to 2011, instead of 2000, we've seen even more wealth-concentration in the hands of the few.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

'73-'80 sucked.  I'm sure if you move those years out of the 2nd graph and into the 1st, 1980-2000 would improve substantially

It's actually the opposite. Since the 80's, this process has just accelerated. Especially if we go to 2011, instead of 2000, we've seen even more wealth-concentration in the hands of the few.

i didn't realize the chart stopped at 2000, so I revised my post.  I also expanded the exclusion to include the full span of the lost decade of '73-'82.


anyone have the data that made up that chart?  I'd like to see the numbers computed for 1983-2000

[opebo]

i didn't realize the chart stopped at 2000, so I revised my post.  I also expanded the exclusion to include the full span of the lost decade of '73-'82.

Buddy, the point is that what you call the 'lost decade' was far better for the common folk than anything since.  For the vast majority of people what you think of as a 'good economy' is disastrous.  Reagan flushed the populace down the golden toilet bowl buddy, and you might as well face it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Buddy, the point is that what you call the 'lost decade' was far better for the common folk than anything since.  For the vast majority of people what you think of as a 'good economy' is disastrous.  Reagan flushed the populace down the golden toilet bowl buddy, and you might as well face it.

now, I know you were living under daddy's rich umbrella during '73-'82 (3 recessions, gas lines, double digit inflation), but the vast majority of Americans believe 83'-'00 was MUCH MUCH better.

[opebo]

now, I know you were living under daddy's rich umbrella during '73-'82 (3 recessions, gas lines, double digit inflation), but the vast majority of Americans believe 83'-'00 was MUCH MUCH better.

Sure, but they're wrong.  (as for me I was a tiny tot at that time).

[angus]

1947:1973
1973-2000:

Periods are about the same, 26 and 27 years.  First I notice how the growth has slowed overall.  In the top chart the worst was still 89%.  In the second, the best was only 62%.  Next, I notice that it was fairly even in the first period, but skewed toward the top in the second.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but there's a definite correlation:  Growth for all pairs with big growth, averaging 100% in 27 years.  Growth at only the top pairs with small growth, average 30% in 26 years.  

Intriguing.  It may be that if you grow incomes in all strata, then consumer spending increases, which favors everyone since it spurs job creation at all levels.  Or it may be that the policies of the first period were more conducive to growth (i.e., that the Keynesians were right.)  Or it may be that technological changes occurring in the multi-decade period ending in 1970 were so much greater than those after that year that income has stagnated at al levels by comparison, mostly at the lower end since those are the least prepared to capitalize on any that come about.  Or it may be something else entirely.  You'd need more data to try to sort this out.

anyone have the data that made up that chart?  I'd like to see the numbers computed for 1983-2000

Not exactly what you're looking for, but the same website does provide this:

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/files//family_income_growth_low_middle_and_high2.png

Notice that the income grows markedly for the top 5% throughout the 1980s, and grows a little for the middle and the lowest quintile.  Then, throughout the 90s income grows for all.  The overall trend from 1983 to 2001 is income growth for all.  Unfortunately, this graph doesn't show 1947-1973.

The source is an economic policy think tank which focuses on the interests of low- and middle-income workers, and they likely present data in such a way that makes their case best.  Is policy needed to address the problem?  Only voters can answer that question, but you have to admit that there's a striking correlation between income inequality and overall stagnation.

[J. J.]

[...anyway your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You think income mobility is irrelevant?

WOW!  Just WOW!

[Gustaf]

Productivity hasn't gone up much for lower income earners.

[opebo]

[...anyway your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You think income mobility is irrelevant?

WOW!  Just WOW!

I'm sure you know I don't believe it exists, but even if it did I don't see any reason it makes inequality acceptable.  Just because one upper-middle class privileged gets rich and another super rich declines into merely average-rich doesn't change the fact that the 90+% at the bottom cannot ever get rich or even escape the hand-to-mouth of paid-employment.

[Redalgo]

Succinctly put, I have four major concerns here:

1. Privilege and exploitation - not just merit - decide who gets allocated what in the United States.

2. True equality of opportunity is a myth and notions of what makes one deserving are constructs.

3. More Americans than not will probably end up in the same socioeconomic class as their parents.

4. Many of the rich are now "self-made" but only actually work to attain a fraction of their fortunes.

Neither income inequality or members of the upper classes are bad, in my opinion, it is just that I see no justice in having most of the spoils of economic growth going to people who already have very comfortable standards of material living. Perhaps someone more savvy in economics can tell me why it is important for upper-income earners to possess and control considerable amounts of capital, but it seems to me a lot of those resources would have more social utility if put into the hands of those who are currently living much more modesty out of necessity.

[LastVoter]

Usually reading jmfcst's post is cute, but here is just making up facts and spewing outright lies to keep his narrative. I am quite disappointed by your performance in this thread, I hope this doesn't become a regular thing. At least the other right winger/Paulite Angus wrote a tl; dr to obfuscate his hate of the poors, which was actually pretty entertaining to read.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Productivity hasn't gone up much for lower income earners.

I realize what you're trying to say, but it does kinda sound like you're blaming the poor for not "keeping up" with the rich.