Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-Between 1940 and 1950, the average income grew by $9,584. The richest 10% gained 20% of that growth, while the bottom 90% gained 80% of the income growth.
-Between 1950 and 1960, the average income grew by $7,164, the richest 10% gained 26% of that growth, the bottom gained 74% of that total growth.
-1960-1970, incomes grew by $10,082 with the top 10% gaining 30% of that increase, while the remaining 90% absorbed 70% of it.
-1970-1980, incomes grew by only $606, the rich absorbed all of that increase, while the lower and middle class Americans saw a drop in their income.
-1980-1990, incomes grew by $3,583, meanwhile, all of that increase went to the wealthy, while incomes fell for the rest of the population.
-1990-2000, incomes increased by $12,641, the rich absorbed 75% of that growth, while the rest of the population only gained 25% of that growth.
-Now, for the 2000s, from 2000-2008, average incomes FELL by $4,510. The lower and middle class families suffered 60% of that loss, while the rich absorbed 40% of that loss.
This is quite shocking, I knew we were in a bad situation, but not this severe. Even from 1930-1940, incomes grew by $461. Home | State of Working America
-Between 1940 and 1950, the average income grew by $9,584. The richest 10% gained 20% of that growth, while the bottom 90% gained 80% of the income growth.
-Between 1950 and 1960, the average income grew by $7,164, the richest 10% gained 26% of that growth, the bottom gained 74% of that total growth.
-1960-1970, incomes grew by $10,082 with the top 10% gaining 30% of that increase, while the remaining 90% absorbed 70% of it.
-1970-1980, incomes grew by only $606, the rich absorbed all of that increase, while the lower and middle class Americans saw a drop in their income.
-1980-1990, incomes grew by $3,583, meanwhile, all of that increase went to the wealthy, while incomes fell for the rest of the population.
-1990-2000, incomes increased by $12,641, the rich absorbed 75% of that growth, while the rest of the population only gained 25% of that growth.
-Now, for the 2000s, from 2000-2008, average incomes FELL by $4,510. The lower and middle class families suffered 60% of that loss, while the rich absorbed 40% of that loss.
This is quite shocking, I knew we were in a bad situation, but not this severe. Even from 1930-1940, incomes grew by $461. Home | State of Working America
Then why do liberals want to raise taxes if incomes are falling?
Then why do liberals want to raise taxes if incomes are falling?
It goes back to varying perceptions of how wealth is created, as well as the social value of that wealth, and the equitability of taxation and wealth distribution.
-Between 1940 and 1950, the average income grew by $9,584. The richest 10% gained 20% of that growth, while the bottom 90% gained 80% of the income growth.
-Between 1950 and 1960, the average income grew by $7,164, the richest 10% gained 26% of that growth, the bottom gained 74% of that total growth.
-1960-1970, incomes grew by $10,082 with the top 10% gaining 30% of that increase, while the remaining 90% absorbed 70% of it.
-1970-1980, incomes grew by only $606, the rich absorbed all of that increase, while the lower and middle class Americans saw a drop in their income.
-1980-1990, incomes grew by $3,583, meanwhile, all of that increase went to the wealthy, while incomes fell for the rest of the population.
-1990-2000, incomes increased by $12,641, the rich absorbed 75% of that growth, while the rest of the population only gained 25% of that growth.
-Now, for the 2000s, from 2000-2008, average incomes FELL by $4,510. The lower and middle class families suffered 60% of that loss, while the rich absorbed 40% of that loss.
This is quite shocking, I knew we were in a bad situation, but not this severe. Even from 1930-1940, incomes grew by $461. Home | State of Working America
The poor are always going to be poor. If a person has no job, and lives off whatever the government can pay them, then the gap between what they have and the top 10% will keep increasing. With so many people unemployed for the past 2 1/2 years, I'm sure the gap will only get bigger.
-Between 1940 and 1950, the average income grew by $9,584. The richest 10% gained 20% of that growth, while the bottom 90% gained 80% of the income growth.
-Between 1950 and 1960, the average income grew by $7,164, the richest 10% gained 26% of that growth, the bottom gained 74% of that total growth.
-1960-1970, incomes grew by $10,082 with the top 10% gaining 30% of that increase, while the remaining 90% absorbed 70% of it.
-1970-1980, incomes grew by only $606, the rich absorbed all of that increase, while the lower and middle class Americans saw a drop in their income.
-1980-1990, incomes grew by $3,583, meanwhile, all of that increase went to the wealthy, while incomes fell for the rest of the population.
-1990-2000, incomes increased by $12,641, the rich absorbed 75% of that growth, while the rest of the population only gained 25% of that growth.
-Now, for the 2000s, from 2000-2008, average incomes FELL by $4,510. The lower and middle class families suffered 60% of that loss, while the rich absorbed 40% of that loss.
This is quite shocking, I knew we were in a bad situation, but not this severe. Even from 1930-1940, incomes grew by $461. Home | State of Working America
THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE UNLESS YOU JUST WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION!
For the last decade American corporations have recorded RECORD PROFITS. What have they done? The executives have rewarded themselves with bonuses, stock options and sky high salaries. In the meantime they have taken their profits invested them in places like China, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Brazil, India and other emergining markets. Along with those investements they have farmed out as much labor as possible at cheaper cost.
Corporate America is selling out the American people RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES. Yet some people WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY IN THE FORM OF LOWER TAXES!
It goes back to varying perceptions of how wealth is created, as well as the social value of that wealth, and the equitability of taxation and wealth distribution.
The data about what happened after 2000 to incomes is flawed by this fact: 1999-2000 saw the hottest labor market in our lifetimes. The unsustainable boom at the end of the 1990's saw fast food places put up banners in their windows offering $9-$10/hour. Employers just could not find the bodies to fill available jobs. Workers could slide by coming in late, leaving early, loafing--employers had to put up with a lot. The hot topic for economists was "the labor shortage."
Virtually any comparison that begins with the year 2000 will look bad, because 1999-2000 was so fabulous for workers.
I wonder what the 1995-2005 numbers would show? And how will that compare to 2005-2015?
The data about what happened after 2000 to incomes is flawed by this fact: 1999-2000 saw the hottest labor market in our lifetimes. The unsustainable boom at the end of the 1990's saw fast food places put up banners in their windows offering $9-$10/hour. Employers just could not find the bodies to fill available jobs. Workers could slide by coming in late, leaving early, loafing--employers had to put up with a lot. The hot topic for economists was "the labor shortage."
Virtually any comparison that begins with the year 2000 will look bad, because 1999-2000 was so fabulous for workers.
I wonder what the 1995-2005 numbers would show? And how will that compare to 2005-2015?
If you don't want to use 1999 and 2000 for any comparison, how about 1996, 1997 or 1998? Besides, wasn't the economy "booming" in the 2000s with historic low unemployment rates all the tax cuts and all in place?
If you don't want to use 1999 and 2000 for any comparison, how about 1996, 1997 or 1998? Besides, wasn't the economy "booming" in the 2000s with historic low unemployment rates all the tax cuts and all in place?
But even in those years, most of the growth went to the wealthy, not the lower or middle class people. So basically, lower and middle class families have been in a recession since the oil crisis in the 1970s and probably in a Depression in some areas of the country.
-Between 1940 and 1950, the average income grew by $9,584. The richest 10% gained 20% of that growth, while the bottom 90% gained 80% of the income growth. -- Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), Harry S Truman (D)
-Between 1950 and 1960, the average income grew by $7,164, the richest 10% gained 26% of that growth, the bottom gained 74% of that total growth. -- Presidents Harry S Truman (D) through 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
-1960-1970, incomes grew by $10,082 with the top 10% gaining 30% of that increase, while the remaining 90% absorbed 70% of it. -- Presidents John F. Kennedy (D), Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
-1970-1980, incomes grew by only $606, the rich absorbed all of that increase, while the lower and middle class Americans saw a drop in their income. -- Presidents Richard Nixon (R), Gerald Ford (R), Jimmy Carter (D)
-1980-1990, incomes grew by $3,583, meanwhile, all of that increase went to the wealthy, while incomes fell for the rest of the population. -- Presidents Ronald Reagan (R), George H. W. Bush (R)
-1990-2000, incomes increased by $12,641, the rich absorbed 75% of that growth, while the rest of the population only gained 25% of that growth. -- President William J. Clinton (D)
-Now, for the 2000s, from 2000-2008, average incomes FELL by $4,510. The lower and middle class families suffered 60% of that loss, while the rich absorbed 40% of that loss. -- President George W. Bush (R)
This is quite shocking, I knew we were in a bad situation, but not this severe. Even from 1930-1940, incomes grew by $461. Home | State of Working America-- Presidents Herbert Hoover (R) Through February 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
The data about what happened after 2000 to incomes is flawed by this fact: 1999-2000 saw the hottest labor market in our lifetimes. The unsustainable boom at the end of the 1990's saw fast food places put up banners in their windows offering $9-$10/hour. Employers just could not find the bodies to fill available jobs. Workers could slide by coming in late, leaving early, loafing--employers had to put up with a lot. The hot topic for economists was "the labor shortage."
Virtually any comparison that begins with the year 2000 will look bad, because 1999-2000 was so fabulous for workers.
I wonder what the 1995-2005 numbers would show? And how will that compare to 2005-2015?
Income growth over the last few decades has been enormously unbalanced, and this must be taken into account as the nation considers shifts in tax policy and develops a fiscal plan that strengthens the recovery and targets a sustainable deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and the start of the current recession in 2007, the pre-tax incomes of the upper 1% grew 214%, while the incomes of the middle-fifth and lowest-fifth grew, respectively, 25% and 4%. As the Chart shows, this extremely unbalanced growth implies that 38.7% of all of the income growth accrued to the upper 1% over the 1979-2007 period: a greater share than the 36.3% share received by the entire bottom 90% of the population.
Those in the top 10% of the income scale received 63.7% of all the income growth generated over the 1979-2007 period. In contrast, the bottom 20% of all earners saw such a small share of income growth – just 0.4% – that it barely shows up on the included pie chart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
