I asked for a list of Directors who lost big in the 2008 crash and got NO REPLY.
The fact is that Directors have huge storage "houses" of wealth; they can outlast those below them and are worth more today than they would have been worth had there been no crash.
.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Good article. Suspect you have seen it. But nearly zero cons have.
What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?
Not a rational representation of what happened. In fact, it is not factually true.
You should read the article. It says nothing about gitting "some" of it back.
I asked for a list of Directors who lost big in the 2008 crash and got NO REPLY.
The fact is that Directors have huge storage "houses" of wealth; they can outlast those below them and are worth more today than they would have been worth had there been no crash.
.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Good article. Suspect you have seen it. But nearly zero cons have.
What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?
So, here is the "and":
1. Huge recession.
2. Losses to all income classes were great.
3. During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
4. Only 7% of recovery income growth went to the other 99%.
5. The income gap became much greater.
So, do you still have to say "and" because it is too complex for you to understand?
Is that outcome ok with you?
Do you see no problem with a larger income gap?
I read the article. I even read the "paper" it referenced. Both were stupid.
But you are a tool. Of course you would say that. But the article is well referenced and a properly done study. So, you want to tell us all what you believe was stupid about it?
During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
So what? Why only look at 2010? How about an update to cover 2010-2015?
Because that wouldn't give the same result.
Because the article was done in 2012, me boy. Always hard to forecast the future.
Incomes are slow to recover. The market tanked and recovered faster.
Mean rich people own a lot of stock.
So, one would expect that the rest of the income groups recovered later? Got it. We will look at your article and see what it shows!!
because it is too complex for you to understand?
Because it's a typical, simplistic, liberal take on a snapshot in time.
So it is too complex for you. Others more well respected on the subject feel the article is quite well done. And, since the Great Republican Recession of 2008, seven years have passed. And still, me boy, the lower 99% have not recovered. And, last I knew, 7 years is not a snapshot in time.
Do you see no problem with a larger income gap?
You want to reduce the income gap?
Seal the border and boot 12 million illegals.
As soon as you tell us how to pay for it and build it, but it will do no good. Just shows that you are either ignorant or simply a con tool. My money is on the later.
Did you think that the Mexican gov was going to pay for it?
Can you show a case where such a wall has ever worked, me boy?
As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 (after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007.
Incomes at the Top Rebounded in First Full Year of Recovery, New Analysis of Tax Data Shows | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
OMG! Rich people lost a lot of money before 2010!!!
Stupid statement. We all know that. Did you think that sentence was profound?
Lose big.....win big.
Stupid statement again! Because, as rational people have noticed, the other 99% lost big, but did not win big.
Lets see what the article you link says:
"the Piketty-Saez data, t
wo-thirds of the nation’s total income gains (adjusted for inflation and population growth[4]) in the economic expansion from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households; the top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928. From 2002 to 2007, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the top 1 percent of households
grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.
[5] "
So, you forgot to mention that the top 1% already owned the largest share of income since before the great depression. How did you miss that?
Growth at the Top Driven by Growth at the Very Top
The share of total before-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households has been rising since the late
1970s, and in the past decade it has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s. This is mostly because of the rising share of before-tax income going to the top households within the top 1 percent.
To illustrate the lopsided growth at the top of the income scale, the chart below separates income groups within the top 1 percent of the distribution. The top 1 percent in 2010 had incomes above $350,000 and saw average income growth of nearly 12 percent from 2009 to 2010. As the chart shows, growth for households in the “bottom half” of the top 1 percent was significantly lower than growth for the multimillionaires at the very top of the income distribution.
As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 (after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007. While this share of the total income loss is substantial, it is less than this group’s share of the loss in the dot.com collapse at the start of the decade. Moreover,
the top 1 percent had a higher average income and a larger share of total income in 2009 than in 2002. [/QUOTE]
Because the article was done in 2012, me boy. Always hard to forecast the future.
You're right, authors never go back and update their work. Derp!
Of course in this case, if he did it here, people would see he was a whiny, low info lib.
And, since the Great Republican Recession of 2008, seven years have passed. And still, me boy, the lower 99% have not recovered.
Barack hasn't fixed things yet? LOL!
As soon as you tell us how to pay for it and build it, but it will do no good.
How to pay for it? Shit, the money we'll save on education, criminal justice and unpaid medical expenses will pay for it in a year or two.
Can you show a case where such a wall has ever worked
Can't do worse than Obama's current open-door policy.
Now if we start deporting the illegal aliens already here, fewer will try to sneak past a wall.
