Skip to main content

View Diary: Bottom 60% of Americans lost wealth between 1983 and 2009 (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't understand that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, DaleA

    It's a measure of disparity of wealth.   It's not better, to use your examples, that there's movement betweeen the categories.  It's not better that x people go from being dirt poor and super rich, and x plus y go from being super rich to dirt poor.

    Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

    by Inland on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 07:21:04 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  i think the chart leaves a false impression (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      agent

      that almost no one is doing better over time when in fact  most of us are. Every year new adults enter the measurement at the bottom so of course the bottom fifth never shows any improvement.

      •  The bottom is always at the bottom. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaleA

        But the "most" is getting smaller, as is the "better".  

        It's not like we've had a huge jump of people entering the workforce just to count them as no wealth.  

        Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

        by Inland on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:35:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can't know that from this (0+ / 0-)

          analysis.

          The way to see how people are doing over time in the country is to take an age cohort and then track them over time.

          The usual number of people entering the workforce i expect. They move into the bottom fifth and those people mostly move up the ladder. Thus the average for the group seems static while most people are moving upwards.

          •  But the the numbers aren't static. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DaleA

            Your attempt to suggest that it's demographics is wrong.   There's nothing happening demographically that explains it.  

            Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

            by Inland on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:52:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes there is (0+ / 0-)

              new workers entering the workforce every year with no net worth.

              Over time i don't expect new workers to be wealthier than yesterdays new workers were.

              •  Right. Every year. (0+ / 0-)

                That's why it makes sense to NOT follow an age cohort, but to take the snapshot every year.  Every year new workers start with zip.  We can assume it's about the same every year.  So the growth of disparity is not due to incoming workers.

                Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

                by Inland on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:31:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It Means Virtually All the Power to Influence (0+ / 0-)

                policy is in the top few thousand people now.

                The graphs are VERY accurate at explaining the shift in power.

                We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

                by Gooserock on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 05:05:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not sure it's even thousands of people. (0+ / 0-)

                  It feels like less than 100 most of the time - and I'm not sure that's changed much in the last hundred years or so.

                  I'd be happy with one branch of government.

                  by here4tehbeer on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 05:14:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site