Comments on: Is there really a “1%”?

By: frustum

frustum — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:01:20 +0000

The right likes to cry about attempts to “redistribute wealth.” As the graph shows, the wealth has been distributing directly to the people who complain of being victimized by it.

By: Dunc

Dunc — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:01:28 +0000

Again, I do not see how these graphs indicate in any way that the 1% getting richer injures the rest of us.

Politicians advance the interests of those who can most effectively influence them. Money buys influence. The cost of influencing politicians is one of the items which is not included in inflation estimates. Now do you see the problem? Then, of course, there's the large and growing body of evidence that highly unequal societies fair worse than more equal societies on a large range of metrics...

By: Azkyroth

Azkyroth — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:59:00 +0000

Incidentally, there seems to be a fundamental mode of stupidity where someone automatically assumes that if they don’t immediately understand something, it must be nonsense. Can we call this “narcissistic” or is it too common?

By: Azkyroth

Azkyroth — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:56:42 +0000

A “skeptic” is not someone who encounters something new, does not recognize it, and then grows suddenly incredulous about it, and then accuses everyone else of being a bad skeptic because they understand it and you don’t.

I’m going to be quoting this for a while…

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 01:21:57 +0000

Eric, it seems that you have looked at one graph and draw a handful of superficial and incorrect conclusion.

This is not a thoughtless enterprise. I just spent the day at a sort of conference at which several groups of people defined and discussed numerous aspects of the economics, banking, production, wealth distribution and redistribution related to the current economic crisis. I’m not going to do you homework for you … I’m not going to summarize that event or anything else. But I will point out is this: A “skeptic” is not someone who encounters something new, does not recognize it, and then grows suddenly incredulous about it, and then accuses everyone else of being a bad skeptic because they understand it and you don’t.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 00:29:24 +0000

Why do I care if someone else makes more money than I? If I look at the line that is “me” and it has been rising then does it matter if someone else’s line has been rising more? If “my” line was always negatively correlated to the rising line then it might matter (although correlation is not causation) and I do not see such a correlation in the first place. It surprises me that even we skeptics are receptive to this obvious demagoguery. Again, I do not see how these graphs indicate in any way that the 1% getting richer injures the rest of us. The only possible explanation I can see for being bothered by this data is “sour grapes”.

By: Shawn Smith

Shawn Smith — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:46:32 +0000

Azkyroth,

It appears to be the 1979 equivalent of $100 of after tax income.

By: Trebuchet

Trebuchet — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:44:58 +0000

…uh, what’s the scale on the right?

Current income vs 1979 baseline, expressed as a percentage. Apparently. "Where does your income fall on this chart?" is pretty well meaningless.

By: Azkyroth

Azkyroth — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:27:09 +0000

…uh, what’s the scale on the right?

By: sumdum

sumdum — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:25:28 +0000

The difference is more than obscene. It’s sickening.