What if growth had been equal?

[ProSense]

What if growth had been equal?

<...>

I talked earlier about "the Conehead economy," the idea that if the economy were a person, its growth over the past few decades would've turned it from a normal-looking individual into a conehead. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson get at this idea slightly differently. They've got a table showing how incomes would look if growth had been equally shared from 1979 to 2006 -- much as it was in the decades before 1979. My first thought was to turn their table into a graph. Tables are always better than graphs, right? Well, here's what happened:



You can't even see what's going on with the middle class. For the record, there are real changes in that graph: If growth had been equally shared, the middle quintile would be making $64,395 today. Instead, they're making $52,100. That's a 23 percent raise those folks didn't get -- and that I'm sure they would've noticed.

But you can't even see it on this graph, which is stretching to accommodate the change in the top 1 percent. As it is, that group made, on average, $1,200,300 in 2006. If growth had been equally shared in the three decades before that, however, their incomes would've been cut by more than half, down to $506,002.

That's real, serious money we're talking about. The top 1 percent now accounts for 23.5 percent of the national income if you include capital gains. In 1979, they only had 9.8 percent of the nation's earnings. During that same period, tax rates on the richest Americans have actually dropped. So as the economy went one way -- toward more money going to the rich -- the tax system went the other.

more

Of course, they'd argue that it's impossible to live on $506,002, and if not for amassing wealth at the top in a grossly disproportionate way, this country would be the third world.

[unpossibles]

1. good info. check out this graph

I think more people need to see these:
http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/

The take home for me was that while the Republicans ONLY helped the rich (the other segments grew slowly, although after inflation I am not sure I believe that significantly) but that the Democrats grew from the bottom up and the rich STILL profited the same. This should not surprise anyone, and seems to be more sustainable growth than the mythological "trickle down" because at least half or more of America lives paycheck to paycheck, which means our money, in addition to keeping us in our houses and feeding us and clothing us, goes back into the economy and works its way back to capital.

[Overseas]

2. K&R. //nt