The most important chart about the American economy you'll see this year

[ksen]

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva

But don't worry guys, there's nothing wrong. Poor Americans have refrigerators and they live on more than the global $2.00/day average.

 

[jonatha]

What does this mean?

From 1949-1953, 80% of the total income gain for the period went to the bottom 90% and 20% to the top 10%, etc.?

And from 2009-2012, the bottom 90% as a group lost 20% of their income?

 

[dismal]

What does this mean?

From 1949-1953, 80% of the total income gain for the period went to the bottom 90% and 20% to the top 10%, etc.?

And from 2009-2012, the bottom 90% as a group lost 20% of their income?

It means Obama is awesome!!

Actually I would imagine they are taking the total real income growth for the period and calculating to whom it went.

So, for example if the real income growth was $300 billion and the top 10% saw their income grow by $150 billion they would have had 50% of the growth.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva

But don't worry guys, there's nothing wrong. Poor Americans have refrigerators and they live on more than the global $2.00/day average.

The miracle of the free market guided by the invisible hand, the way that God meant the economy to be run.

 

[untermensche]

This is the way any system based on a dictatorial model works. The dictators eventually take everything for themselves.

The figures from 1949 to 1979 represent capitalism regaining it's footing after the massive disruption of WWII.

 

[barbos]

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.