Well if the third try isn't the Charm......... See getting your numbers from and unbiased source wasn't so hard now was it?
Ok buy better than the graph.... There is the Report that goes with it. You know the one that explains the Graph.
Yes, it does proclaim that the top 1% have increase their share by 275%.
That is true. Now what I said about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Statistics are governed by the sample. So here is the uncomfortable part........ the top 1% as described by the Congressional Business Office not only includes the CEOs and hedge fund manager (those damn Capitalists!). Say hello to entertainment. It includes musician, actors, professional atheletes....... You know George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, P Diddy, Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, etc. Ad Nauseum.
From Page 3 of
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc...WebSummary.pdf
Without that growth at the top
of the distribution, income inequality still would have
increased, but not by nearly as much. The precise reasons
for the rapid growth in income at the top are not well
understood, though researchers have offered several
potential rationales, including technical innovations that
have changed the labor market for superstars (such as
actors, athletes, and musicians), changes in the governance
and structure of executive compensation, increases
in firms’ size and complexity, and the increasing scale of
financial-sector activities.
So not just Banks are to be blamed for the disparity in Income but, the lust to be entertained. Hollywood. Appears to be on parity with the incomes of Wall Street.
Where is the hue and cry to tear down movie theaters, boycott sporting events where thugs are paid millions to be watched playing a game?
There is enough blame to go around.
Bookmarks