REVscene Automotive Forum - View Single Post

Gridlock · 10-10-2011, 07:56 AM

This is a very left-wing website...so I take it with a grain of salt, but:

If Top 1% Hadn't Ripped Off Trillions, You'd Likely Be Making Thousands of Dollars More Right Now | Economy | AlterNet

Between 1949 and 1979, those at the top never took in more than 12.8 percent of the total. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, they grabbed 10 percent of our economic output, and the rest of us shared 90 percent. And that's when things started to shift, relatively rapidly. In Reagan's final year in office, the top 1 percent of American households grabbed 15.5 percent of the nation's income.

The last stat they provide is:

By the time George W. Bush was elected, they were taking in 21.5 percent. And in 2007, the year before the crash, they were pulling in 23.5 percent of our pre-tax income, leaving the other 99 percent to share just 76.5 percent of the fruits of our output.

The estimate is that if things had not changed in the 80s, wages would be $12,500 more.

I wanted to add:

If this is true(and thats a big if for me-they did not link to the data they used) then this legitimizes the movement for me.

The rules of the game have changed. People should be pissed about it. If you look and say that we used to share in 90% of the nations wealth, and now we share in 76% of it-and falling! then this is not about we are flat broke, and downtrodden at all. It is about playing a game unfairly balanced towards the houses take.

PLUS-what could a group of consumers with a more equal take in the rewards accomplish with the extra income.

OMG...I think they may have made me a believer.

10-10-2011, 07:56 AM	#136
Gridlock Banned By Establishment Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New West Posts: 3,997 Thanked 2,982 Times in 1,135 Posts Failed 284 Times in 109 Posts	This is a very left-wing website...so I take it with a grain of salt, but: If Top 1% Hadn't Ripped Off Trillions, You'd Likely Be Making Thousands of Dollars More Right Now \| Economy \| AlterNet Between 1949 and 1979, those at the top never took in more than 12.8 percent of the total. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, they grabbed 10 percent of our economic output, and the rest of us shared 90 percent. And that's when things started to shift, relatively rapidly. In Reagan's final year in office, the top 1 percent of American households grabbed 15.5 percent of the nation's income. The last stat they provide is: By the time George W. Bush was elected, they were taking in 21.5 percent. And in 2007, the year before the crash, they were pulling in 23.5 percent of our pre-tax income, leaving the other 99 percent to share just 76.5 percent of the fruits of our output. The estimate is that if things had not changed in the 80s, wages would be $12,500 more. I wanted to add: If this is true(and thats a big if for me-they did not link to the data they used) then this legitimizes the movement for me. The rules of the game have changed. People should be pissed about it. If you look and say that we used to share in 90% of the nations wealth, and now we share in 76% of it-and falling! then this is not about we are flat broke, and downtrodden at all. It is about playing a game unfairly balanced towards the houses take. PLUS-what could a group of consumers with a more equal take in the rewards accomplish with the extra income. OMG...I think they may have made me a believer. Last edited by Gridlock; 10-10-2011 at 08:11 AM.