Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Do things feel different today than in other decades?

(1/3) > >>

superboyac:
I know we've had a couple of these threads already, and they aren't the most feel-good topics in the world, but I feel compelled to start another one.  I think about this all the time, I can't help it.  I would like this thread to remain civil and just stick to dry analysis and not let our opinions and feelings get too much in the way (even thought they will).  I'm also taking advantage of my new notetaker, RightNote, as far as doing research.  So here goes:

From 1950-1990, the wealth of the top 1% was the lowest of the century.  Now it is back to the highest it's ever been, and it is growing.  So if things feel different than it did when we were growing up, this is why.  Things really are different.  I was a child in the 80s and it felt like we were richer than we are now.  Not as much stress, easier to afford things, easier to get quality things.  It was easier to go to good universities.  It was easier to be charitable.  But now, such few people have sucked up an enormous amount of wealth, that those left behind have fewer opportunities and as a result we have to scrimp and scrap for anything that has monetary value.

What's a little scarier is that the trough you see below was preceded by World War II.  Our peak right now is back to the level it was at right before WWII.

eleman:
Gini coefficient trend in the US supports your observation.

I also wonder what is going on with the income distribution on a global scale. Any data about that?

superboyac:
Gini coefficient trend in the US supports your observation.

I also wonder what is going on with the income distribution on a global scale. Any data about that?
-eleman (January 11, 2012, 05:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yeah, that's a good question.  I've just started this "research", so I'm new to all of this.  But if anyone knows, please chime in.

superboyac:
Here's some more based on the graph below:

From what I can tell, the total net worth of the USA is $55 trillion.  The total net worth of these top 400 people is about $1600 billion.  So they have about 1% of the entire pie.  That's not so bad, I suppose, but they only represent 0.0001% if the US population.


The difference between the population in general and the rich population is obviously huge, on the scale of orders of magnitude.  But that's to be expected.  It's not socialism or communism, after all.  That's not necessarily bad.  It could just mean there's plenty to go around.  What I would eventually like to explore is if there is indeed plenty to go around...why is it so hard to get to?  And what is the significance of that?  But I don't know how true any of that is right now.

rgdot:
People allow themselves to be part of the system that is "open" to going in debt and therefore lose wealth when a greater part of your pie has to go to paying interest. Actually the rich often pay with money they don't really have too, it is borrowed and carries interest, but they can afford it. How did they accumulate wealth? The system and the policies are set up to encourage wealth in fewer hands (AT&T buys the other guy, etc.) and this is only (relatively) rarely disallowed by anti-monopoly regulations.
I think if you superimpose those income disparity graphs over a 'number of government regulations' graph you will see the relationship between the two.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page