Discussion in 'Economy' started by Annie, Nov 14, 2007.
Seems it may not be the real deal:
The disparity in incomes does not interest me as much as the fluidity between classes. I forget the saying but it's something about rags to riches to rags in three generations(?). However whatever growing divide we've seen in recent years is probably caused by asset inflation. If you owned multiple properties from 2001-2005 or so, then the fed's money inflation was a great benefit to you. If you were an ordinary family just looking to buy a house, it wasn't so hot.
That's an interesting article but it flies in the face of almost every other study, also conducted by non-political economists. Here are a few.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has acknowledged widening inequality.
I was no whiz at stats, so feel free to correct me. The top is growing and the bottom is shrinking. That is good, no?
What is happening is that incomes are growing faster at the top end than at the bottom end. Even after inflation, the poorest have seen a rise in income after inflation. However, that still means inequality is rising.
Why the Treasury data says different, I don't know, but I am highly suspicious of the idea that the richest 1% are falling, which is what the graph from your OP says. That sure doesn't jive with every other indicator around.
That it 'flies in the face of' other studies, regardless of your citing them. Does it make it wrong?
Separate names with a comma.