The Class War Launched by America's Wealthiest Is Getting More Savage

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/149531/the_class_war_launched_by_america%27s_wealthiest_is_getting_more_savage/

Countries with wide income inequality are unstable: they have large underclasses, high rates of crime and little opportunity.

It’s the corporations and the very wealthiest against all the rest of us. We’re losing.

In 1962 the wealthiest 1 percent of American households had 125 times the wealth of the median household. Now it’s 190 times as much. Is that a case of a rising tide lifting all boats, just a few of them a little bit higher? No.

From 1950 to 1965, median family income rose from $24,000 a year to $38,000 a year. That’s close to 4 percent a year, close to 60 percent over 15 years. That’s a rising tide.

In 1964 there was a big tax cut. That’s when things started to slow down for average people. By the mid-'70s the rise of the middle class stalled. From 1975 to 2010 median family income rose $42,936 to $49,777. That’s not quite 16 percent over 25 years, less than six-tenths of 1 percent per year.

Briefly, when taxes went up under Clinton, median income rose, peaked at $52,587 in 1999, and then, after Bush cut taxes, declined. Keep in mind that this is median family income. In the '50s and '60s, family income was usually earned by a single person. Today, family income normally comes from at least two people.

MORE at the link --

[Sherman A1]

1. Thanks for Posting

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

3. thanks for the link! n/t

[DrDan]

4. that is a depressing article - I don't see how we avoid the transition to

the Mexico model. We have a government, to include a WH, whose apparent goal is to make it happen - busting unions, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.

[hfojvt]

5. all that reliance on median income makes me nervous

for example, cheering about a rise in median family income from $24,000 to $38,000 from 1950 to 1965. First, hopefully they are taking inflation into account. Second, there is no reason for a growing median to mean universal prosperity.

Here's household income from 2005 - distribution A
8.6% under $10,000
13.02% under $20,000 (and greater than $10,000)
12.59% under $30,000
11.15% under $40,000
4.64% under the median of $44,389
4.57% under $50,000
8.18% under $60,000
7.11% under $70,000
5.68% under $80,000
8.23% under $100,000
14.23% over $100,000
1.7% over $250,000

then suppose the median grows to $50,000. There is nothing to say that the future distribution might not look like this

Distribution B
21.62% under $10,000
23.74% under $20,000
4% under $30,000
.5% under $40,000
.14% under the median of $50,000
12.75% under $60,000
12.79% under $70,000
13.91% under $80,000
10% under $100,000
5.23% over $100,000
.7% over $250,000

There simply is no way that you can determine that something like that did not happen just by comparing two medians. Further, a median can go through the roof and that does not really mean anything to the people who are stuck below $20,000 for household income. A rising median simply does not mean that all boats are being lifted. Nor does a stagnant median mean that nothing is improving. From the same Distribution A you could goto a stagnant median with a distribution like this

Distribution C
.6% under $10,000
11.02% under $20,000 (and greater than $10,000)
20.59% under $30,000
13.15% under $40,000
4.64% under the median of $44,389
12.57% under $50,000
7.18% under $60,000
5.11% under $70,000
8.68% under $80,000
10.23% under $100,000
5.23% over $100,000
.7% over $250,000

Some downward mobility for the upper middle class there, but distribution C is much more equal than what is current. I could just have easily bumped the people over the median up by $10,000 while leaving the median the same.

[me b zola]

6. K&R

[xchrom]

7. Recommend

[maryf]

8. thanks

the system has got to go, and in the interim, TAX the rich... K&R