The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central GOP - the party of the rich

You asserted that wealth and power are interchangeable, implying that they are the same thing. That's not accurate. While one can be used as a tool to obtain the other, they are still only tools. The only thing that matters in this equation is the intent of the person wielding the tool and the consequences of the outcome.

For instance, money in the hands of an altruistic person could either be used to buy power than can be used to "help" others like our current system, or that same money can be used to establish an organization that directly helps those in need get back on their feet and begin earning for themselves again. So, you have to decide here which is better. Is it better to give a man food and make him dependent on you for future food (that's what we call a slave), or is it better to teach him to help himself and let him be free?

Your graphic includes anyone who makes over 100k. Thats not rich in many areas. Another thing your graph ignores is the fact that MANY, MANY more high earners were created in that time frame.

The 80's, and particularly the 90's had an extremely high degree of class mobility, which is the real key to judging the fairness of a society.

Also, I wonder what your graph would look like if it included the housing crash. It says it includes income derived from Capital Gains, but is it counting hypothetical income - ie: is it including rising home values while they were skyrocketing, or just real income from dividends etc?

Keep in mind also, that cost of living in many areas rose to such a degree - in large part because earnings were. People making 100k in any market arent exactly the people pictured in your cartoon caption, and people living in expensive market making 100k are just making average money.

Comparisons and charts such as that one play a big part in getting people who seriously study the subject matter to turn a deaf ear to those on the Left.

Also related to that graph, which I'm sure does not take into account, are the now more and more woman in the workplace.

Up until a time in history it was social doctrine that woman should stay home and tend the home and children and solely rely on the husband for income. This is not the case today and a 2 income family now has more incoming coming into the house which would increase those figures. Are 2 income families now the top 10% and should we piss on their parade?

This also, in my opinion, has led to the increase in social issues around our countries youth but alas I will stay away from those for now.

Have you read "Y" axis label? It says "share of total income going to top 10%". Top 10% is defined as all families making about $110K per year.

This graph indirectly demonstrates that concentration of wealth, by examining % of all income going to top 10% of earners, started going up right around time Reagan economic reforms were enacted... and is still going up. That was easrly 80s.



This goes contrary to the information presented in this graph.
Increasing number of high earners would lower % of total income taken by top 10%, because it would re-define top 10% by moving cutoff higher. If anything, this graph suggesting that top 10% now earns more than ever in post-WWII era. This is likely (!speculation!) due to the bottom falling out, meaning bottom 90% making less money, not top 10% making more.

What I'm saying is it doesn't state whether that is a 1 or 2 income family and the values of a 1 income family > 100k per year isn't the same as 2 incomes 50k+50k.

I think that has a bearing on the data in that if we were back in the day and only comparing apples to apples then 100k would be a 1 incoming family where the wife/mother does not provide that type of income.

I understand what you are saying, and it is reasonable assertion IF supported by data. As you mentioned it is "I think" until you show us some numbers.

The implicit point is that 100k being the top 10% is a very low number, and if you were to stratify it down to 70k for a family it would be a pretty even curve, and geography would have a lot to do with the earnings.

So, the graph says little because a family making 70k/yr in Canton Ohio lives as well as, if not better than a family making 100k/yr in many parts of California for example. The cost of living is just very different.

Also, good point on the 2-income families Ictinike.

Top 10% isn't defined as 109K, it happens to be that number.

In order to make the assertions you're making you need to be able to tell us what that cut-off number was in 1982, adjusted for inflation. If it was lower then your argument seems to make some sense, but if it was higher then Derid's argument is more correct. Either way the number of assertions you can reasonably make from this one graph are very few and very general.