The Richest 1 Percent Have Captured 121 Percent Of Income Gains During The Recovery

[Fumesucker]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/12/1579211/1-percent-121-gains/

Last year, economist Emmanuel Saez estimated that the richest 1 percent of the U.S. captured a whopping 93 percent of the income gains in 2010, as the U.S. was emerging from the Great Recession. Saez is now back with updated numbers from 2011, and they make the picture look even grimmer:

From 2009 to 2011, average real income per family grew modestly by 1.7% (Table 1) but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.2% while bottom 99% incomes shrunk by 0.4%. Hence, the top 1% captured 121% of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011.

How is it possible for the 1 percent to capture more than all of the nation’s income gains? The number is due to the fact that those at the bottom saw their incomes drop. As Timothy Noah explained in the New Republic, “the one percent didn’t just gobble up all of the recovery during 2010 and 2011; it put the 99 percent back into recession.”

Saez added that “In 2012, top 1% income will likely surge, due to booming stock-prices, as well as re-timing of income to avoid the higher 2013 top tax rates…This suggests that the Great Recession has only depressed top income shares temporarily and will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place since the 1970s.”

[deutsey]

1. What's even more depressing than this news

is that very few know or even care about this, preferring instead to remain mesmerized by all the images dancing in their flatscreen Lucifer's Dreambox.

[Bonobo]

2. Without a President committed to the middle class it could have been way worse! nt

[Fumesucker]

5. <blink>

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Like I been telling people who complain about the rise in the cost of living--

"Think how much worse it would be if there were inflation!"

[Cal Carpenter]

3. Who cares?

Rubio looked silly taking a drink of water last night!! Focus on the important things, people!!


(I really don't think I need this, but these days it's best to take caution so... )

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Boy did I get my ass kicked around for expressing similar thoughts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022364179

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Well you can't offend the Third Wayers around here........

without reaping the whirlwind Jack. Fuck 'em if they can't take the truth. I'm tired of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the sensible centrists.

[kenny blankenship]

41. The "Recovery" made 99% of America poorer

why wouldn't they want to weigh in on that? Seems like that would be the jumping off point for a round of fresh new proposals unlike the corruption and coverup that has so far passed for economic policy. Seems like the 3rd wayers would be all over it. Unless of course they don't see the progressive immiseration of the 99% as any problem - or at least as a political problem that demands redress. Meanwhile 1% are getting richer than ever before. Maybe they'd like to crow about that instead, and how high the stock market is?

[socialist_n_TN]

42. There is a simple reason they aren't "all over it"........

and it's been discussed in other threads. They are EXTREMELY reluctant to tell you where they stand on ISSUES. And when you DO manage to pin them down, it comes down to warmed over Reaganomics with a touch of libertarianism on social issues. In these days of heightened class war, they're useless.

[AlbertCat]

4. I'm sorry.... but

121%?

They "captured" MORE than all of it? More than 100%?

That makes no sense.

[Fumesucker]

6. I did put this quote in the OP

How is it possible for the 1 percent to capture more than all of the nation’s income gains? The number is due to the fact that those at the bottom saw their incomes drop. As Timothy Noah explained in the New Republic, “the one percent didn’t just gobble up all of the recovery during 2010 and 2011; it put the 99 percent back into recession.”

[TheMadMonk]

13. Someone who can't be bothered to read past headlines...

...makes little sense to me.

Foxbytes are for Freeptards.

[AlbertCat]

16. Someone who can't be bothered to read past headlines...

Well....when the headline makes no sense and sounds like hyperbole..... and then it goes on like a math word problem.... who wants to read any further? You've got to make it interesting for the reader, y'know.

[Fumesucker]

17. "Math is hard" -Barbie

[AlbertCat]

18. "Math is hard" -Barbie

Not really. more than 100% is more than all of it. See?

[Fumesucker]

20. Yes, the 1% got it all of the gains and then some

If you have $100 to your name and the bill to fix your car comes to $121 then the bill is 121% of all you have, it would take all your money and then some to get your car back from the mechanic.

[AlbertCat]

22. If you have $100 to your name and the bill to fix your car comes to $121

Then you lose 100%.... and OWE the rest because you only HAVE $100. Where does the $21 magically appear?

Math IS hard for some, isn't it?

[Fumesucker]

30. Percentages over 100 are used a lot in math heavy subjects like engineering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency

Volumetric efficiency in internal combustion engine design refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders. More specifically, volumetric efficiency is a ratio (or percentage) of what quantity of fuel and air actually enters the cylinder during induction to the actual capacity of the cylinder under static conditions. Therefore, those engines that can create higher induction manifold pressures - above ambient - will have efficiencies greater than 100%

[AlbertCat]

31. This is not engineering

Well....it's the engineering of the demise of the middle class.

I understand what is being said... but it sounds like hyperbole. I mean, 100% is bad enough.

[HiPointDem]

47. they got all the gains, plus some of what *you* already had. your loss they also gained. +

all the gains in the economy as a whole.

Before the recession, AlbertCat had $10, the whole economy had $1000.

The whole economy gained $200, to make $1200 now in the economy as a whole.

Elites got all of that $200, + $2.1 of the dollars that used to belong to *you*. Get it?

[redqueen]

21. "then it goes on like a math word problem.... who wants to read any further?"

Curious people?

This is a seriously fucking depressing thread.

[AlbertCat]

23. This is a seriously fucking depressing thread.

It IS! Because people don't seem to understand percentages or what 100% means!

[redqueen]

24. You misunderstand the problem.

It is so unexceptional that there are percentages over 100. Really, it is.

And more than that, it has been explained to you, more than once.

It is this kind of lack of critical thinking skills, or even the faintest intellectual curiosity on the part of far, far too many people, which makes it so easy for the parasites at the top to they away with this shit.

[AlbertCat]

32. It is this kind of lack of critical thinking skills, or even the faintest intellectual curiosity

Really! Insulting me isn't making it better. This is hyperbole.

And I read Dawkins and Krauss all the time. I'm reading Pinker now!...so you can take your "lack of critical thinking skills" guess about me and shove it in your pie hole.

I understand what it all means, thank you very much. It's a stupid and counter-productive and sloppy way of presenting it. The 99%'s lost gains....and the 1% got 100%, which includes more than expected.... the lost gains for the 99%. The 99%'s "gains" must go down before the 1% can get 100% them. That's all I'm saying.

Why not just start out by saying the 99% lost ground and it all (100%) went to the 1%. All this convoluted math is what keeps people from "getting it".

Jesus!

Everyone who disagrees with the WAY you state things does not "lack critical thinking skills". What arrogance!

[TheMastersNemesis]

26. You Could Reach That Number By Confiscating The Wealth Lost By The Losers

The number is very possible because the rich bankers benefitted by all the foreclosures they seized and resold. Also wages in the bottom and mid sector of the income stream went down only to go to the top. The most underreported part of the recovery is that most people went back to work making 40% or 50% less than their old job.

Besides that huge numbers of job in the $25,000 to $60,000 range were eliminated altogether.

So the number is really significant in that the top 1% really got a lot of the salvage from the crash.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. Your reply and arguments are a perfect example of how this happened. n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. Why did we think it would be differet this time around?

They are always taken care of first, then they take care of themselves.

[Cal Carpenter]

11. Without major economic re-organization

this will always be the case.

There have been a few exceptions, when gov't policy reins this in to some extent, but such times are temporary and will inevitably be chipped away unless we reach a fundamental change, and we realize that economic democracy is an essential precursor to real political democracy.

[DaveJ]

8. Government can't force businesses to create opportunity.

Obama can try to point us in the right direction, but if Republicans gain control again everything we seek to accomplish will be lost. We can't let it happen again.


Business has yet to see their employees as partners in success and innovation. Most businesses still see people as drains on their bottom line.

Especially when the owners make more money collecting interest than actually doing anything.

[socialist_n_TN]

36. Agree. So GOVERNMENT should create opportunity.......

for the masses.

[libtodeath]

9. So infuriating!

[xchrom]

10. du rec. nt

[raouldukelives]

12. Priorities, we haz them.

Expanding the empire of the corporations = You can be called successful by your peers who successfully underwent the same libertarian training program.

Refusing to be an enabler of the most self-enriching assault against human rights and the environment in our ever shorter history = Not pragmatic. Your lack of "patriotism" and poor choices will be frowned upon by your peers.

[G_j]

14. How is it possible for the 1 percent to capture more than all of the nation’s income gains?

"How is it possible for the 1 percent to capture more than all of the nation’s income gains? The number is due to the fact that those at the bottom saw their incomes drop. As Timothy Noah explained in the New Republic, “the one percent didn’t just gobble up all of the recovery during 2010 and 2011; it put the 99 percent back into recession.” "

[laundry_queen]

15. This is exactly why

those at the top and in government put into place measures that ensure an exaggerated boom/bust cycle. Because they make money on the upswing and even more on the crash.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. Gotta return the narrative to the 1% versus the 99%. It appears that is the only way these problems

shall actually be addressed.

[kenny blankenship]

25. "Economic recovery in the US actually made 99% of Americans poorer,

- top 1% captured 121% of gains"

This was the headline for the article as formulated by Cory Doctorow at boingboing.net

http://boingboing.net/2013/02/13/economic-recovery-in-the-us-ac.html

It doesn't really fit on a headline, but it does a much better job at capturing the significance of Saez & Piketty's anaysis than all the other versions I've seen elsewhere. The kernel of significance is that the post-2008 "recovery" actually made you poorer, if you're like 99 out of a 100 people. All the other versions of the headline lead with "1% captured 121% of the gains", which is a figure of speech really and leaves people scratching their heads.

Glad someone finally posted this.

[TDale313]

29. So depressing.

Wealth inequality is going to destroy this country. You can't have this level of disparity and have things stay stable.

[woo me with science]

33. K&R

[lonestarnot]

37. But of fucking course.

[upi402]

38. Saw that, got pissed

kick, rec
Until the blind loyalists do as well!
(Go Elizabeth Warren!)

[woo me with science]

39. kick

[woo me with science]

40. kick

[woo me with science]

43. kick

[woo me with science]

44. Kick

[bluestate10]

45. All of something adds up to 100%. I don't dispute economic inequity, it most be eliminated.

But people of our side can't be throwing out numbers that don't make sense. 121% of something exists only in the deepest fantasy recesses of some people's minds.

[Fumesucker]

46. I suppose if you are innumerate that doesn't make sense

Percentages greater than 100 are used in many fields that deal with numbers, I gave an example and a link upthread, volumetric efficiency in an internal combustion engine can exceed 100%, in fact it does in every turbocharged engine.

In this case you could say that the gains of the 1% in our economy have been turbocharged.

[reformist2]

48. The 1% got 121% of the total gains, because the rest of us 99% lost 21% of those gains.

It's a tricky concept, but it does make sense.