I'm working on it. I've read the Saez paper and it's pretty interesting. More soon.Fine by me. You can start with this: the periods of time when income inequality increased the most was also the times when economic growth was at it's best.
You might read this again. What it says is that mean income of the top 1% is more volatile than the mean of all households, which is true. That doesn't say anything about the relationship of the two measures which would be a measure of inequality.
There's a good CBO report on this issued May 16, 2012 called "Trends In The Distribution Of Household Income, 1979-2007" CBO | Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007
I don't seem to be able to copy the cool looking graph, but you can get that from the link to the report.
_CBO" said:CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
The upshot is that over the last 28 years real income has grown faster for the top 1% than everyone else, which is why I conclude that income inequality is increasing.
You do realize that the turnover at the top is quite significant? It's not the same people who enjoyed the growth in wealth over the last 28 years. Nor it is the same people on the bottom all those years living on the edge or below the poverty line. The people who risked the most in those years are the ones who benefited the most; those who risked nothing or did nothing to increase their worth ended up with the least. In both cases, as it should be.
Excellent point! One that libs constantly flub. The bottom 20% is only a statistic. It does not represent real people, who are far more fluid.