Fermer X Les cookies sont necessaires au bon fonctionnement de 24hGold.com. En poursuivant votre navigation sur notre site, vous acceptez leur utilisation.
Pour en savoir plus sur les cookies...
Cours Or & Argent
Dans la même rubrique

No Increase in Wealth Inequality for Top 1% Since 1960

IMG Auteur
Publié le 03 avril 2014
359 mots - Temps de lecture : 0 - 1 minutes
( 6 votes, 3,2/5 ) , 2 commentaires
Imprimer l'article
  Article Commentaires Commenter Notation Tous les Articles  
0
envoyer
2
commenter
Notre Newsletter...
Rubrique : Or et Argent

For all the ranting about the top 1% by the Economic Policy Institute and others, a US Berkeley study by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman on The Distribution of US Wealth, Capital Income and Returns since 1913 shows no increase in wealth inequality for top 1% since 1960%.

All of the increase in wealth inequality is not in the top 10% or top 1%, but rather the top .1 or top .01%. Here are some charts to consider.



click on any chart for sharper image

Wealth Has Been Always Concentrated



Top 10%



Top 1% Led by Surge of Top 0.1%



Little Recovery for the Merely Rich (Top 1% Minus Top 0.1%)


The Real 1%

In regards to the above study, The Atlantic reports How You, I, and Everyone Got the Top 1 Percent All Wrong

For years, I've been making the same embarrassing mistake about U.S. economic inequality. Sorry.

I've written, over and over, that the most important divide in our wealth disparity was between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. For example, when I compared the evolution in investment income since the late 1970s, I often imagined a graph like this from the Economic Policy Institute, showing the 1 percent flying away from the rest of the country.



It turns out that wealth inequality isn't about the 1 percent v. the 99 percent at all. It's about the 0.1 percent v. the 99.9 percent (or, really, the 0.01 percent vs. the 99.99 percent, if you like). Long-story-short is that this group, comprised mostly of bankers and CEOs, is riding the stock market to pick up extraordinary investment income. And it's this investment income, rather than ordinary earned income, that's creating this extraordinary wealth gap.

The 0.1 percent isn't the same group of people every year. There's considerable churn at the tippy-top. For example, consider the "Fortunate 400," the IRS's annual list of the 400 richest tax returns in the country. Between 1992 and 2008, 3,672 different taxpayers appeared on the Fortunate 400 list. Just one percent of the Fortunate 400—four households—appeared on the list all 17 years.

Now there's your real 1 percent.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
<< Article précedent
Evaluer : Note moyenne :3,2 (6 votes)
>> Article suivant
Publication de commentaires terminée
  Tous Favoris Mieux Notés  
So are you for real Mish? Without even a quantitative analysis it is obvious that 'average' Americans are beginning to join the ranks of the working poor.

With respect to your information for want of another word:

1. Your graph "Cumulative change in real household capital income" appears to tell a different story to the one you are peddling.
2. The above graph indicates that the top 1% have made a gain of around 309% since 1979.
3. The same graph indicates that the bottom 20% of earners have gone backwards by 59%.
4. So the difference is around 360%. This is not significant? Yeah right!!

The whole point is that the rich have done well, and I congratulate them on this. What I do not congratulate this group on is that they refuse to pay a FAIR amount of tax, that they refuse to pay average workers a living wage with all the outs which the rich have become accustomed to spewing out, and they live in the belief that it is all theirs, that their fellow Americans are bums and do not want to work and that health care is not their responsibility (just like taxes are somebody else's responsibility as well. Its enough to make one want to throw up.

When I look at basic wage earners getting $7.25 an hour, being on call all hours of the day and night and not earning enough money to pay their way I know that something is WRONG in the system. What is wrong is that the rich live in the belief that 'it is all theirs' and that somebody else (please tell me who) should be looking out for the lazy beggars who clean their houses and do their work for them. Give me strength: a nation should not be owned by the 1%. If it is then the government is also owned by the same group as this is the only way such a system of inequity and unfairness can exist. Government "for the people, by the people"??? Not a chance. This is propaganda and the current system reeks of the circumstances which led to the French revolution. Let them eat cake!!

Whilst I am not poor I find the disparity between fellow citizens and the attitude of the manipulating 1% a disgrace. These folk may enjoy the fruits of their labor but they will get their just desert in the next world.
Evaluer :   1  0Note :   1
EmailPermalink
Trader,

So I ask you: How best to address this disparate situation? Shall we say that those at the top 0.1%, or 1%, or even 10% should be willing to give up their income to help others out? Shall we have the government address this situation and impose fines or additional taxes? How about having the government simply take the wealth from those top % persons (whether top 10%, 1%, or what have you), would that suffice?

In truth, in a Capitalist society (and in truth in EVERY society) there are those who have wealth and/or privilege, and there are those without it. In a Capitalist society it is those who invest, take risks, and persevere who most often are those who create wealth for themselves and their families. There are winners and losers, and no matter what Marx or Engels have to say on the subject, there is no way to have everyone share equally--and in fact, every attempt at this has resulted in failure, and most often in the last century also resulted in the murder of MILLIONS, EVERY TIME it was tried.

The fact is, I am not an "unbridled" Capitalist, I believe that whenever one is only concerned about making money that decisions are made to maximize that investment that may have an adverse reaction to others--whether to the environment, to children in labor markets, etc. I believe that it is in everyone's best interest to have the government set the limits to ALL business, and then step out of the way to let them compete on a level playing field. It is true that left to its own a Capitalist system may end up with a few that have more than the rest, but the only alternative to that I have seen is to have a very limited few try and control everything--Communism, or Socialism are perfect examples. The "disparity" you speak of exists even in those societies, as those in control will ALWAYS do things in their own best interests, regardless of all thoughts of altruism or goodwill to others. It doesn't work, won't work, and is a FAILED philosophy, human nature being what it is.

The best way to raise one's standard of living is not to bring others down, it is to lift them up with opportunity. Capitalism has been responsible for the greatest standard of living the world has ever known.
Dernier commentaire publié pour cet article
Trader, So I ask you: How best to address this disparate situation? Shall we say that those at the top 0.1%, or 1%, or even 10% should be willing to give up their income to help others out? Shall we have the government address this situation and imp  Lire la suite
ramasart - 07/04/2014 à 16:39 GMT
Top articles
Flux d'Actualités
TOUS
OR
ARGENT
PGM & DIAMANTS
PÉTROLE & GAZ
AUTRES MÉTAUX
Profitez de la hausse des actions aurifères
  • Inscrivez-vous à notre market briefing minier
    hebdomadaire
  • Recevez nos rapports sur les sociétés qui nous semblent
    présenter les meilleurs potentiels
  • Abonnement GRATUIT, aucune sollicitation
  • Offre limitée, inscrivez-vous maintenant !
Accédez directement au site.