It is common around election time to hear politicians talk about how they are standing up for ”America,” as if we all had similar interests and were well served by the same policies. Sounds nice. The problem is that it is just not true.
Want evidence? Look at the distribution of gains from our current economic recovery. According to a New York Times summary of a recent study of inequality:
In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.
Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.
Moreover, ”the top 1 percent has done progressively better in each economic recovery of the past two decades. In the Clinton era expansion, 45 percent of the total income gains went to the top 1 percent; in the Bush recovery, the figure was 65 percent; now it is 93 percent.”
It is hard to celebrate economic expansion when we have an economy structured in such a way that the income generated by our collective efforts ends up in the pockets of a very few.
Comments 11
WE ARE NOT ALL IN IT TOGETHER « Welcome to the Doctor's Office — April 4, 2012
[...] (from SocImages) [...]
Andrew S — April 4, 2012
I spent my $80 on gas. Actually, I spent way more than my $80 on gas.
It's ok though, cause the oil companies need the money so they can pay it to the rich, otherwise they won't make their 6 and 7 figure "Bonus" quotas.
Anonymous — April 4, 2012
This is very interesting. Thank you. I would like to see a comparison with other states though (e.g. Germany).
Anonymous — April 5, 2012
Could that be because the people who gained the most became the new 1%? Or is the 1% this year composed of the same families as it used to be?
I also like how the 99% is now homogenous.
eduardo — April 5, 2012
Seriously messed up, but this is what we get for being complacent.
Lindsay Z — April 7, 2012
This helps me understand how people (news, radio, etc.) can repeatedly talk about *recovering* from the recession, which always confuses the hell out of me. Other than hearing those people *say* the recession is over, I haven't seen anything to that effect at all. But now I know why: all the money went to those same people who talk about the recession being over.
Grr.
Anonymous — April 10, 2012
Who are the 1%?
Roxane — April 10, 2012
This is interesting... I suppose... It just isn't worth much when we don't know how much of the overall financial losses belonged to the 1%.
56% of the 2010 income went to the 1%. I totally believe that. But if if 50-60% of the recession costs also went to them, isn't it fair they get 56% back? And before people assume things: no, I am not part of the 1% (I wish I was...)