http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans/?page=entire that is all.
But to those who got to their $50k a year job...they have no underlying social contract? Speaking solely for myself, I have no problem paying for the next kid who comes along to have the same ability to work hard and succeed that I did. I do have a problem with paying it sideways to the grown man who doesn't want to take the harder engineering classes, or work the overtime, or study for the bar or medical exams, or go to night school for an advanced degree. Or that Professor Warren's "social contract" doesn't extend to over half of the country's wage earners.
I am interested, however, in the decline of "working-man" salary percentages. What's the mechanism behind that? How did the "rich" gain such a market share of wealth over the last 40 years, and why didn't the "non-rich" get a piece of that?
I knew this would be a garbage article by the second paragraph when he states: What, exactly, has gotten worse for the poor and middle class in this country over the last 50-100 years? Is healthcare worse? Is food supply worse? Access to clean water worse? No, no and no.
The IRS data also disagrees with this person's opinion. Yet, from the IRS, for 2009: spreadsheet The top 1% of gross income earners took home about 13% of the gross income. Dishonest, and terrible article. I'm disappointed in you, westnob.
Here is the source for the article LINK. I don't think the data you linked to includes capital gains which may account for the discrepancy. To your point about lifestyles improving for the poor and middle class, I think the author was referring to the past few decades. Health care has improved but affordability hasn't. Food availability has improved but affordability of healthy food hasn't. Education prices have sky rocketed as well. Hell, even access to water has probably gotten worse (recent lawsuits with large municipalities annexing water sources come to mind). Things like TVs, air conditioning, and computers have gotten cheaper where as the things we need are getting more expensive. Incomes for the middle class have stagnated for over a generation and it's making life harder for average families in America.
That might be the case. If so, then the author was lazy or being dishonest and used "income". 1) The bolded isn't true 2) Even if it were true, the "rich" aren't making other families more poor. The entire argument is just a giant strawman.
I'd consider capital gains as income. C'mon man, show your work. Prove me wrong. I never said they were.
Some more data. http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
I didn't do the math, but National Income is not the same thing as gross income. National Income would be GDP, which I suspect would be much higher than the gross income. Maybe by 1.5x or so.
Started with Reagan's war on unions which pretty much wiped out true worker-representation in America (with a few minor exceptions). Capitalism without worker representation is better known as slavery.
Astounding ignorance of youth, or simple denial? The correct answers are yes, yes and yes. I would say that my answers currently apply to 50 yrs ago, not 100, but we're on our way to being in worse shape than 100 yrs ago. Give it another decade.
About a year ago I posted an article about this. I think it was from the WSJ. They compared Japan and America CEO pay vs average worker pay. In the 1960's, both countries' CEO's made about 10 times what the average worker made. In I think it was 2008 Japan's CEO's made about 12 times what the average worker made. In 2008 America's CEO's made over 40 times what the average worker made.
There simply aren't that many CEOs making $1M or more in salary and bonuses. Steve Jobs made $1 in salary and died with a net worth of $8.7B.
