God I love absurdly rich people
@1: That's nice. You realize they don't give a rat's ass about you, I hope?
WTF?!?!? There shouldn't be any orange, red or blue on that top chart!!

Looks like the rich still have some work to do !!!!

@3 - I wouldn't want it any other way
@5: That's right. Keep going! Some day you too will crack the top tier of income and wealth, and then you too will get to keep all of your hard-earned money from those cash-grubbing bastards who want a piece of what is rightfully yours!

It's the American Dream - when 100% of the people believe they will someday be the top 1%, and support policies that will protect them when that blessed day arrives. (Who needs a living wage today? Someday I'm gonna be rich!)
Woot! My first news tip to see print! Thank you Dr. Golob.

Now, who wants to bet that the next time they're up for vote, the Bush tax cuts will be made permanent?

The middle class is dead and gone.
8 know I am surprised that the actual isn't worse to be totally honest with you but yeah, the middle class is dead.

My employer, btw, between him and his wife take home a little over a million dollars a year and guess what? They think they're middle class.....NO FUCKING JOKE!!!
I really wish @7 wasn't right.
Um, a million a year is middle-class. I guess you now know where you stand.
I wonder what happens to this graph when you take out the top few billionaires, say Bill and Warren etc...

Also this is sleight of hand in that it measures wealth- not income. The wealthy favor income tax(on me)- not wealth tax- where their money is no longer liquid.

I know that if you make $45k a year, close to the national average, you are in the top 1% of income earners in the world.
@11..well there you go America!! If you're making $45K a year then fucking shut up!!!! You're living the DREAM!!!
God, I really hope I can find a job in Canada, Scandinavia or the EU when I graduate. I place where the middle class is thriving and the rich is happy to help the poor.
People have inconsistent policy preferences. If you ask whether we should cut government spending, they say yes. If you ask about particular government programs and whether they should be cut, they say no. My guess is that income inequality is the same thing. If you ask in the abstract, people want less of it, but if you actually ask about the types of policies that would be required to make that happen, you won't see support for them.
@11, the most recent global view I know of is the 2006 UN Study, in which worldwide, $61,000 puts a person in the top 10%. Bear in mind that, as with the Mother Jones domestic study, these figures predate the wordwide economic slump.…
Wow, it looks like we'll be living in Mogadishu-on-the-Sound anyway now.
There are other graphics in the link that break it down by income instead of wealth, as well as lumping the groups together more.

Any way you slice it, the difference between the wealthy and the middle class in the U.S. is shockingly large, and still growing.
"Scandinavia or the EU when I graduate"

In th eu? Good luck, but I suspect the IMF will busy there soon. Besides having 10%+ unemployment as a near permanent state, unless you're black and willing to use a mop, you'll never get papers.
America! Fuck yeah!
What do you folks consider rich? Is $150k for a couple rich in your minds?
that previously helped one third of of the most vulnerable pregnant women in King County avoid delivering low-birth weight children—took a 50% cut in 2011 thanks to the majority of us voting against any and all taxation.

First, we didn't vote against any and all taxation, we voted against an increase in an already incredibly high and regressive sales tax.

Second, that program illustrates exactly what's wrong with the way Americans handle social programs. What kind of bullshit is that? A program dedicated solely to reducing the delivery of low-birth weight children? It sounds entirely like the pet project of a single county councilmember, which of course was going to get axed the second the economy went south. Those pet projects will be the death of us, not because of budget woes, but because they're an excuse not to institute real social services reform.
@20 Exactly. Even if you were working 2 jobs to try and make ends meet, living with roommates to keep rent costs down, and walking/taking transit to avoid the cost of a car/insurance, you obviously weren't working hard enough or saving enough. Or you were foolish enough to work in the public sector where salaries are lower than the private sector.
The best ways to get rich are inherit it or steal it.

There are no other ways - those are just myths.
@22: Follow the link, the MSS program was about a lot more than birth weight.

The notes on the impact of the cut state: "Affects 30,000 at-risk women and children in King County... 90% clients are low-income... 66% people of color... Rise in infant & maternal death rates; adverse birth outcomes with increased long term health care costs; long-term impact on education, productivity, criminal justice."
@26 according to lawsuits at the time ... yes.

Seriously, don't they teach you American history in America?

Ford stole from other inventors. Jobs even used HP stuff.

Theft is power. Ignorance is Republicanism.

A program dedicated solely to reducing the delivery of low-birth weight children? It sounds entirely like the pet project of a single county councilmember, which of course was going to get axed the second the economy went south.

Fail. Epic fail actually.

Low birthweight is a phenomenal predictor of infant mortality. Infant mortality vastly disproportionately affects low-income households. It also disproportionately affects people of color independent of income.

Reducing low infant birthweight has been a public health (and Medicaid) priority for many many years. Public Health Seattle & King County received large amounts of matching Medicaid dollars for this program. As a sign of how bad things are, they are leaving federal dollars on the table by basically eliminating these services (let alone the impact on health outcomes).

This is a great example of being penny-wise, pound-foolish, which is where we're headed.
I think the real problem is that so many CEOs think that they deserve as much money as everyone else in their company earns, combined.

Being a CEO is an important job, but it doesn't mean you are irreplaceable.

Of course, all this is secondary to the crazy salaries of people who make money moving money.

And of course the fact that no one wants to admit they are in the lower class.
I do find it interesting that 7 of the top 10 wealthiest Congressional members are Democrats. I know Kerry married into his wealth, and Rockefeller inherited his, but am not familiar with the back stories of the others.
@ 31

For the Dems: Jane Harman married into wealth; Jared Polis made his money as an internet entrepenuer; Mark Warner made his money brokering mobile phone franchise licenes after gaining knwoledge in the industry from being on Chris Dodd's staff; Herb Kohl inherited his family's grocery store chain; Dianne Feinstein married into wealth.
@12 15 17 yeah, the other graphs were helpful in understanding the point. My knee jerk reaction to the wealthy is that they hide their incomes and sit on wealth- if it were taxed more aggressively I wonder if it would become more equitable.
Not to throw water on your fire (because I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make), but you are equating income with wealth. Those are two very different things. I would guess that the country's wealth is much more skewed than the country's income, comparatively. Wealth incluces inherited money and investment appreciation and it can accrue or decrease over time, but is fairly stable. Income inequality is the money one makes from employment, owning a business, etc. Ovbviously there is a relation between the two, but conflating the two just confuses the point that (I think that) you are trying to make. I would think that the chart would show a different distribution for income, and it seems that is a greater concern to the average person (presumably why so many oppose the estate tax even though it will never affect them--of course in light of the inability of the Federal Government to raise rates on the top income earners, or even fix the ridiculous hedge fund manager loophole, I could be wildly mistaken on that).

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.