|
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
BigV, this chart is a  STUNNING example of misuse of statistics.
A similar graph would be created in almost ANY bell curve, measuring ANY statistic!
This graph is showing us that the top 1% make more money than the lower 99%. (Duh)
The graph is NOT saying is that the top 1% are getting way way richer than everybody else... and it is NOT saying that the top 1% has any greater inequality in 2007 than it did in 1979!
"Cumulative" means that the data point in 1980 is the after-tax income of 1980 PLUS the after-tax income of 1979. And so the 1981 number is 1981+1980+1979. And so forth.
"But wait a minute," I hear you typing, "Isn't it still remarkably unfair that the top 1% accumulate so much more after-tax money than even their buddies in the 99-95% range?"
No -- because the 1% in 1979 are not the SAME 1% in 2007!
The graph wants you to accept the narrative that it's the same guys in 1979, who now are fabulously wealthy as they accumulated truckloads of stuff by 2007.
But what if we graphed the top 1% of home-run hitters in baseball? In 1979, that would be Dave Kingman, Mike Schmidt, Gorman Thomas, Fred Lynn and Jerry Rice. In 2011, that would be Jose Bautista, Curtis Granderson, Matt Kemp, Mark Teixeira and Prince Fielder.
The graph of that top 1% would look very similar to this graph. Each year, the top 1% of home-run hitters would accumulate more home runs than the bottom 99%. Some years, as in the steroid years, they would accumulate it faster. Some years, as in the current years, they would accumulate it slower. But it's not the same guys accumulating! It's just the constant top 1%.
To put it another way? In 1979, Bill Gates ran a tiny software house that offered a version of the BASIC programming language to fellow geeks. He was busy begging them not to pirate it. In 1979, Bill Gates was measured in the bottom line of that graph. |
That's one theory... or you could be reading it wrong. You are overthinking it.
I'm gonna go with number two. Let's look at the same values in numeric form, shall we? You can do the multiplier math yourself; tell me what you think, ok?
Code:
Key: Year=Yr;
Lowest Quintile=LQ
Second Quintile=SQ
Middle Quintile=MQ
Fourth Quintile=FQ
Highest Quintile =HQ
All Quintiles=AQ
Top 10%=T10
Top 5%=T5
Top 1%=T1
Average After Tax Income (2007 dollars)=Avg$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yr LQ SQ MQ FQ HQ AQ T10 T5 T1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979 15,300 31,000 44,100 57,700 101,700 49,300 128,700 169,600 346,600
1980 14,800 29,800 42,600 55,800 98,700 47,700 125,400 164,000 339,200
1981 14,300 29,200 41,800 55,600 98,500 47,400 125,300 164,300 351,100
1982 13,900 28,800 41,500 56,000 101,900 48,300 131,600 176,000 388,600
1983 13,300 27,800 41,000 56,000 106,000 48,800 138,700 186,500 424,800
1984 13,500 29,100 42,500 58,100 112,800 50,600 149,300 203,100 464,500
1985 13,700 29,100 43,200 58,700 116,200 51,900 155,300 213,300 507,400
1986 13,800 29,900 44,300 60,800 131,500 55,700 180,700 259,500 674,100
1987 13,600 29,000 44,200 61,100 120,600 53,300 160,100 218,200 503,200
1988 13,900 29,500 44,600 61,500 130,000 55,500 177,100 250,400 647,700
1989 14,500 30,200 45,200 62,300 130,000 56,200 176,300 246,300 609,700
1990 14,800 30,700 45,000 61,400 126,400 55,600 170,200 236,800 586,000
1991 14,800 30,400 44,500 60,900 121,600 54,200 161,700 220,500 520,100
1992 14,600 30,400 44,800 61,700 126,600 55,600 170,400 237,500 583,700
1993 14,900 30,600 45,100 62,200 124,600 55,400 165,200 225,100 529,400
1994 15,100 31,000 45,500 63,100 126,100 56,000 167,800 229,500 535,100
1995 15,900 32,400 46,700 64,000 131,200 57,900 175,300 244,600 586,400
1996 15,700 32,300 47,300 65,200 137,400 59,600 186,700 261,300 648,100
1997 16,100 32,800 48,000 66,300 145,700 61,900 201,600 289,700 755,700
1998 16,900 34,600 49,600 69,000 155,400 65,200 218,100 319,600 868,200
1999 17,300 35,300 50,600 70,700 163,800 67,700 230,900 338,900 943,800
2000 16,500 34,900 50,400 71,300 170,300 68,700 242,600 360,600 1,038,700
2001 16,500 35,700 51,900 71,600 156,800 66,200 216,800 311,100 824,500
2002 16,100 34,900 51,000 70,600 150,400 63,900 204,600 286,700 730,500
2003 15,900 34,900 51,300 72,000 157,700 65,600 216,400 307,600 792,900
2004 16,000 35,600 52,900 74,200 170,300 69,000 238,400 346,400 946,900
2005 16,400 36,000 53,300 74,800 183,200 71,900 262,100 393,200 1,135,900
2006 16,900 36,300 53,500 75,900 189,900 74,000 273,500 412,900 1,230,900
2007 17,700 38,000 55,300 77,700 198,300 76,400 289,300 440,500 1,319,700
The chart is a graphic representation of these numbers, (omitting some subsets, like top 10%, top5%, etc.). But you can easily do the arithmetic and see that for those people in the lowest quintile (NOT A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL like Bill Gates or some poor single mother) the after tax income for that group has grown by a factor of 17,700/15,300 or about 1.25. You can easily see that the after tax income for the group of people in the top 1% (not individuals, but the folks that were in that group, for that year) has grown by a factor of 1,319,700/346,600 or about 3.75. Just like the graph shows.
The increase in afflluence, the "are you better off today than you were four years ago" Reagan=reasoning, the Life is good and keeps getting better, faster, has happened to the group of people in the top 1% at a rate that is so much faster and farther than the, dare I say it, the 99%, that it is STUNNING .
STUNNING . unconscionable, counterproductive, unhealthy, and unsupportable. We are the 99% and we're down here in the mud, income wise, as these numbers clearly show. You, and others, fail to comprehend or heed them at your peril.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
|