Comments on: Inequality Chart Contest

By: Oil Shock

Oil Shock — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:52:30 +0000

Poorer households are more likely to receive government handouts and hence more broken families.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:52:18 +0000

Even setting aside such factors as changes in household size (overall and within groups) and technological innovation, even the richest 1% in 1946 did not have the standard of living that the bottom 90% have today.

By: Coyote

Coyote — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:50:44 +0000

[in Haiku form] Hidden C-corp wealth — Since '58 moves to S — Household returns grow

By: Oil Shock

Oil Shock — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:49:31 +0000

Large % of people don't file income tax return, which is the source of this data.

By: muirgeo

muirgeo — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:44:49 +0000

Rich people have feelings too and since they have most of the money we should try not to hurt them.

By: Dr. T

Dr. T — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:15 +0000

Percent changes in total income are irrelevant, so a revised chart should show percent changes in spendable income (gross income plus government support minus all local, state, and federal taxes).

By: muirgeo

muirgeo — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:42:33 +0000

Income shifting (from corporate tax returns to individual returns) has exaggerated the growth of top incomes, while excluding a third of personal income (including Social Security and other transfer payments) has exaggerated the top groups income share.

By: John V

John V — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:37:03 +0000

household composition changed over time as well.

By: BoscoH

BoscoH — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:36:35 +0000

Presumably, income of the top 1% is spent, invested, or saved, thus creating more "national income" to be distributed among those in the bottom 90%.

By: John V

John V — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:35:58 +0000

Historically speaking, weren't there also wage controls in place during the war that prevented real wage gains from being realized until they were lifted? (not sure about this one)

By: Tom Kelly

Tom Kelly — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:33:41 +0000

The national comparison is "per capita" while the group data is "per household"- not a good idea to have mixed metrics.

By: Oil Shock

Oil Shock — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:32:29 +0000

Number of people per household and number of earning members per household have changed drastically over the years and those changes might not be uniform across different income brackets.

By: John V

John V — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:31:49 +0000

On a consumption note, the chart ignores growth in marginal income by saying nothing about the costs of goods purchased by the poor over the periods.

By: Tom Kelly

Tom Kelly — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:31:35 +0000

The first time series on this chart appears not to make sense as the national average is higher than either group, so the missing 9% must have done real well then.

By: BoscoH

BoscoH — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:30:48 +0000

There are more winner take all tournaments (emerging from free association in the marketplace) with audiences large enough to support big prizes today than in the period from 1946 to 1976.

By: Ross

Ross — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:29:37 +0000

Income data from the IRS does not take into account benefits such as health care which has been steadily making up a larger percentage of total compensation.

By: Oil Shock

Oil Shock — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:28:22 +0000

Chart says nothing about the middle 89% of the population.

By: John V

John V — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:28:10 +0000

Besides obscuring income movement of people over time in that period, the sampling size of the comparison is groups is also too bottom heavy in that we are looking at 1% of the population vs. the other 90% and such comparisons do show gains of transient income groups within that 90%.

By: Tom Kelly

Tom Kelly — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:27:33 +0000

This chart creates the false impression that you are in one group or the other when there is a significant (99-90= 9%) of households missing from the chart.

By: Martin Brock

Martin Brock — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:26:55 +0000

Three million individuals receiving a million dollars apiece would also spend three trillion dollars, and thirty million individuals receiving a hundred thousand apiece would spend as much, so can 535 politicians spend this volume of money more usefully than millions of individuals?