Indeed. Can you guess why? On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > From what you say, also interesting is that democrats--those folks > who hate the rich--have made the rich richer. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/25/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-24, 12:03:15 > Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index > > Interesting Roger, > > According to these charts the richest people have always increased their > wealth under democratic presidents whereas they have always decreased > wealth under republican presidents except for the first half of Reagan, > which seemed to be a continuation of their increased wealth under Carter. > But the usual republican wealth decrease kicked in during Reagan's 2nd term > and continued under Bush. > Same thing happened under Bush II. The increase was followed by an equal > 2nd term decrease. > > Conservatism, at least the republican brand, does not work for the very > wealthy. > Richard > > > Richard > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Hi meekerdb >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States >> >> >> This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from >> 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the >> right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the >> annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is >> logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth >> appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, >> all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight >> lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same >> slope. >> Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with >> different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different >> rates. >> For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over >> $100 per day): >> If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared >> as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would >> have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010. This plot was >> created by combining data from the US Census >> Bureau[48]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-48> >> and the US Internal Revenue >> Service.[49]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-49>There >> are systematic >> differences between these two sources, but the differences are small >> relative to the scale of this >> plot.[50]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-50> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]> >> 12/24/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> *Time:* 2012-12-22, 15:35:27 >> *Subject:* Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index >> >> On 12/22/2012 3:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi Hal Ruhl >> >> Sure, wealth inequality has gotten linearly greater, >> but the economy has grown much faster (exponentially), >> so we are all getting richer, fairness or not. >> >> >> >> That only means *some* of us are getting richer, specifically those that >> are rich. The median income, corrected for inflation is essentially flat. >> And "exponential" doesn't mean "faster" no matter what the media think. >> It's simple mathematics that the gini isn't going to "grow exponentially" >> because it's a fraction and it's bounded by 1.0 above (complete inequality >> in which everything belongs to one person). >> >> Brent >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
