""Isn't this economy FANTASTIC?""

[sammy the sage]

I'm still jealous of course (good Capitalists are always jealous), as the top .01% (14,000 people) - who earn an average of $23.8M, were able to add another $4.2M to their annual incomes in 2010. That's 52,500 TIMES the average $80 increase earned by the bottom 99% (thank goodness we're not one of THEM!).

That's right, somehow, the riff-raff in the bottom 99% managed to grab 7% of the Nation's total increase in income - clearly Congress needs to make immediate changes to prevent this travesty from happening again!

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-13-27/105637-me-80-you

""That's Commie talk! If we allow the bottom 99% to make a fair share of the money, they would make 5% more and you know they would only SPEND it on stuff they need TO LIVE. Then our companies would have to provide more goods and services to the bottom 99% and jobs would be created and we, at the top, would have to WAIT for the money to trickle UP from the bottom as only companies that do a good job servicing the bottom 99% would increase in value.

Even worse, we may have to WORK (a four-letter word) to provide goods and services for the people who have money in order to EARN (another four-letter word) our Incomes. That's no fun for us at all!""

[horses4courses]

You really must guard against that Commie BS at all costs...... :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

Here's another article on income distibution in the U.S.:
___________________________________

From the Washington Post website tonight:

Occupy Wall Street is not known for the precision of its economic analysis, but new research on income distribution in the United States shows that the group’s sloganeering provides a stunningly accurate picture of the economy. In 2010, according to a study published this month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf), 93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, while everyone else divvied up the 7 percent that was left over. Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent.

It was not ever thus. In the recovery that followed the downturn of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent of the nation’s income growth. In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago, Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent. This time around, it’s reached 93 percent — a level so high it shakes the foundations of the entire American project.

While never putting a premium on economic equality, America has always prided itself on being the preeminent land of economic opportunity. If all of this nation’s wealth is captured by a narrow stratum of the very rich, however, that claim is relegated to history’s dustbin. Research by Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/CFF85818FBB34CF695503470B623EB31.ashx), as part of the Economic Mobility Project, has shown that intergenerational mobility in the United States has fallen far below the levels in Germany, Finland, Denmark and other more social democratic nations of Northern Europe. Now, Saez’s analysis of income data provides further evidence that mocks America’s self-image as a land where hard work yields rewards.

How has the top 1 percent been able to decouple itself from the nation beneath it? To begin, much of its income comes from investments in funds and firms that are raking in profits from overseas ventures in economies like China’s, which weathered the downturn better than ours. Much of those firms’ profits also derive from their reduced labor costs — the result of layoffs and paycuts. Finally, as Saez points out, there has been “an explosion of top wages and salaries” since 1970. In that year, 5.1 percent of all wages and salaries paid in the United States went to the wealthiest 1 percent. In 2007, the share going to the wealthiest 1 percent had more than doubled, to 12.4 percent.

Entire article at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/concentrated-wealth-is-a-long-term-threat-to-america/2012/03/27/gIQAMJt1eS_story.html

[JustRalph]

you never heard

it takes money to make money?

[lamboguy]

all you need is $2.00 and tomorrow's newspaper today

[Robert Goren]

all you need is $2.00 and tomorrow's newspaper todayactually you need $10. $8 for the form and 2 bucks for the first bet and you are on your way to your first million.

[badcompany]

You know, most of the people in that 1% catagory are senior citizens. Why do Liberals hate the elderly so much?:lol:

[Greyfox]

Here's another article on income distibution in the U.S.:
___________________________________

From the Washington Post website tonight:

In 2010, according to a study published this month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf), 93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, while everyone else divvied up the 7 percent that was left over. Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent.



That statistic relates to "income growth" only.
Occupiers would have you believe that it is how income is distributed.

[Lefty]

Class Envy is ever so tiresome and boring. I could care less what other people make. I just try and do the best I can.

[badcompany]

Class Envy is ever so tiresome and boring. I could care less what other people make. I just try and do the best I can.

Liberals are forever trying to minimize the successes of Capitalism and rationalize the failures of their socialist, big government ideology. The "inequality" argument is an old favorite among the left. If we just take enough from the rich and give it to the poor everything will be Jim Dandy. Of course, what happens in the real world is that Capital is taken from the most productive people and given to inefficient politicians and bureaucrats. In the long run, everyone gets poorer.

That said, class envy makes a nice political argument: "If you're not in the top 1%, we're (Dems) are your guys/gals."

[Mike at A+]

Libs love to note the "income disparity". I think more emphasis needs to be placed on the disparities in talent, education, ambition and work ethic. People don't fail or succeed because "the system" is unfair.