Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Best WEALTH INEQUALITY graph! Interactive!

Posted 8 years ago on July 27, 2012, 1:44 a.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Check this interactive wealth inequality graph. Set the sliders for any two years between 1917 and 2008 and it will automatically show wealth distribution by a pie chart for the top 1%, 5%, 10% and the bottom 90%. Also shows how much incomes grew over the period chosen. It's already adjusted for inflation, so wages from decades ago can be fairly compared.

Share it with your doubting friends and family and "show them the money" is not trickling down, it's rushing up to the top 1%!

For example, between 1968 and 2008, average income grew by $11,642. The richest 10% received 97% of that gain, the bottom 90% received just 3%. Look at the blue line on the bottom. That's the bottom 90%'s share of income, and it hasn't changed much since 1968. The real reason why most of us are not getting ahead!

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

If civilization were to place a cap on mark up profits, than the distribution of wealth would be more evenly distributed. As it stands , without a cap ..the wealthy have been taking as much as they can ..and as you can see , they have crippled the economy by removing such great amounts of wealth from the general population..

A cap on profit mark up will solve Wealth Inequality, and regenerate the economy.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

A cap will never be supported. The free and fair market is still the best. We can raise wages though unions and collective bargaining. Back in the 60's we actually had a sizable share of the income. From the 70"s on, as union membership declined, so did our share.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

What will raising wages help if the Market is free to set there markup profits as high as they can?

it's the high markups on the free market that is stalling the economy .. ie. high profits = low sales.. low sales = low jobs and wages..

A cap on profits would increase sales plus increase job demand.. which would increase wages..

The key to this puzzle is to cap profits .. the results would pracrically turn the economy around ..over night. Jobs would increase , wages would increase, and prices would drop. All this adds up to a better standard of living for the 99%. A cap on profit mark up is the absolute best solution ..

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Buy low sell high is how the wealthy become rich. We sell our labor low. We buy back the same products we manufactured high.

We will never have equality until we start to sell our labor high.

Setting an arbitrary 1% cap on profit would effectively make all labor rates the same. The CEO would make the same as the janitor. It will never work.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

Let's try this one more time..

You have this part right :

'Buy low sell high is how the wealthy become rich.'

The cap on markup would prevent the market from selling back the products we produce, at a high price. The markets will no longer by low and sell high .. they will be capped to sell with a small markup added. This will keep prices low.. and affordable .. and this will increase sales .. and with an increase of sales .. a demand will be created on the workforce to produce more.. this will create jobs and raise wages .. and an increase in wages , combined with a cap on prices , will create an improved standard of living for the 99%

The cap is the cure ..!!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Why would anyone invest in a company that was limited to making a 1% profit?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

You are still not seeing the benefits a cap on mark up would have on the economy and overall standard of living.

A cap would prevent the money from "rushing up" to the rich , as you state in your post.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

A cap can destroy the motivation to produce. Equalizing income might equalize wealth, but decrease overall wealth for all. All limits have drawbacks.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

Free Greedy markets have destroyed the economy and the lives of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Then let's take back our fair share with a tried and true workable solution. Unions helped equalize wealth in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. They can do the same in the 2010's.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

Yes the unions did help create the middle class, but a cap on profits will do even better , much much better..

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

working for profit can destroy motivation

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

How would you setup the economy?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

government research and provision for public health

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Not following.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Healthy motivation - destroyed by motivation for money.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Because they believe in the businesses product? We have to get away from the worship of money.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

How would you setup the economy?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Very carefully. Guiding principle = Health & Prosperity for ALL.

Key features:

A living wage for all.

End the attractiveness of outsourcing - tariff products from outsourced work so that they enter the market at fair price competition to domestic made products.

An earnings cap - a move towards halting inflation by stopping the raising of costs going to the consumer to support massive profits to the owner and executive management.

Division of Investment from Banking - Glass-Stegall. Disolving monopolies that operate by the ownership of shell companies to hide the involvement in actual working monopoly. The enforcement of anti-usury laws.

Universal Health Care - not for profit includes health care, insurance, Pharma.

Replace fossil fuel pollution tech with green tech ( non polluting so no bio fuel either )

That would be a start.

Plenty to do before one would need to start looking for things to do.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Does a living wage for all include people of all nations or is it restricted to the U.S. only?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

It would be part of my foreign policy to get everyone to see and understand the principle of health and prosperity for all. Much better way to approach achieving equal market places.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Tariffs are protectionism. The very thing the constitution prohibits between the states. But you would favor it between nations?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I see absolutely no reason why an apple or a House should be worth different values in different places. Say - why should a house be worth 150,000 in Minnesota and the same House in Colorado 300,000 and in California 500,000 or more? Why should a plumber get 75.00 an hour in Minnesota and only minimum wage in Colorado? Until values are leveled we need to level the market - this we are allowed to do when dealing with foreign country's - and it should be done to support domestic products = fair competition in the world market place. I do not see why this should not also be a practice state to state as well. An apple is an apple a house is a house a person is a person.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

"The only difference in cost should be in the cost of transportation. Import your construction materials (?) add in the cost of transport but no more than actual cost. Transportation costs should be standard as well."

A bureaucratic nightmare to regulate and police. I'd rather have the present inequality than the guaranteed poverty that is the result of over regulation. Remember how effective Nixon's price controls were?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I remember when they popped the cap for gasoline it went from .25 to 1.25 pretty damn fast. The thing is these regulations must be equal and across the board.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

So protectionism between states? The lack of protectionism is what allowed the U.S. to prosper.

Now you want to mandate prices on houses and labor? Might as well centrally plan the entire economy while you're at it. We know how well that works.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

The only difference in cost should be in the cost of transportation. Import your construction materials (?) add in the cost of transport but no more than actual cost. Transportation costs should be standard as well.

You want fairness?

You want equality?

Then you need universal standards of measure.

Standards of measure gave us interchangeable parts.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

Here is a site that shows where you stand, in terms of personal wealth, in a global way.

http://www.leastof.org/worldwealthcalculator

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Thanks for the link. Puts wealth in a different perspective.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

Look between 1993 and 2001, the Clinton years you will see that the bottom 90% got 37% of the gain. That’s the best they have done since 1970, parties do matter, as does policy.

This is a great post and site.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Look at 1969 and 1973. The Nixon years. The bottom 90% shared 77% of the increase. According to your standards, the Republicans prevailed.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

Nixon raised taxes and pushed for national healthcare, I'll support a Republican like that today, who would that be?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

That can happen when your selective if you take the entire republican period from 1969 to 1977 when Cater was sworn in you see overall income was stagnant and nobody gained, good job pointing out how Republicans are bad for everyone.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1969&end=1977

but hey I understand you supporting the GOP I'm sure they pay well to do it and everybody's got to eat, I know you want people to think policy doesn't matter, but it does

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

What the chart clearly shows is that income growth for the bottom 90% has remained fairly stagnant for the last 40 years. Both parties had gains and declines. Nixon had the highest growth, Clinton had the second highest growth. The general trend is stagnant wages for the bottom 90% and much higher wages for the top 1% no matter which party is in power.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

There are higher growth rates than Nixon or Clinton, are you even paying attention?

I know your point is republicans are as good as anybody else I get it I just don't agree.

I know your whole thing depends on blurring the lines, making it look like people don't have a real choice, and to the extent that they believe you I guess they don't.

[-] 0 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

DO U HAPPEN TO KNOW , roughly, what % of americans own absolutly nothing other than , say a car and a couple thousand bucks

I heard the figure once, i think its at lest 60%

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The net worth for the median household in 2010 was about $77,000. So half of the households had a net worth less than this figure.

http://www.merge-left.org/2012/07/24/the-bottom-50-wealth-held-1-1-of-americas-total-net-worth-in-2010/

$5466 for the lowest 20% of households in 2002.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7VCdlb0ogAQ/SQCW6TtDXFI/AAAAAAAAAwQ/pDcp9zHp6j0/s1600-h/net+worth.bmp

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

hey thnks, If i read those statistics right, if we divided all the wealth evenly, every household would own half a million

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Yep.

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

A great rallying cry!! 'HALF A MILLION for every family', that would get the attention of quit a few people

on all sides !