Problem with all these economists and their charts is that they don't know what they are talking about.
They calculated that there was a growth and then look how it was shared, but there were no actual growth or it was much lower than they "calculated"
And top 10% is arbitrary threshold which does not reflects reality, it's more like bottom 99% versus top 1%.
Real economic growth should be defined as growth in the bottom majority, it should not include top with their fictitious bubble caused speculative income from stock market.
And do we know how they determine who goes where (top 10 or bottom 90)?
If some stock market monkey made 100mil one it will go to top10, but what if next year he had 20mil in losses, where will it go? I don't have much trust in the ability of these eggheads to keep that monkey in top10, I think they will put him in bottom 90 and include his losses into the negative growth of the bottom.