Warning About Money Questions
|
Mahalo Answers is a great place to start your research into Money questions, but it's not the final answer. Mahalo Answers is not a substitute for informed professional advice. If you desire or require professional advice, please consult a qualified provider who is licensed in your state or country. You should always seek independent professional advice before acting on any opinion, advice, or information available on Mahalo Answers. |
answered question
answers (2)
Absolutely! I found article after article supporting my theory.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BUVI10258K.DTL
http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2007/08/um_study_shows_rich_getting_ri.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/pf/taxes/wealth/index.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_and_the_rich_keep_getting_richer_trump_s.html
"A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”
At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html
http://labunda.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/piggybank.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BUVI10258K.DTL
http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2007/08/um_study_shows_rich_getting_ri.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/pf/taxes/wealth/index.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_and_the_rich_keep_getting_richer_trump_s.html
"A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”
At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html
| Asker's rating: |
It depends on which time frame you are looking at things from. From the perspective of the last 50 years, the rich are getting richer. From the perspective of the last 100 years, we're approaching a similar distribution of wealth that we had in the 1920's. From the last recorded year, the rich are relatively getting poorer, believe it or not, but that's because 2006 was a peak, and 2007 had somewhat more equal income earned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Here is a chart of the Gini index from WWII on of various countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.gif
The gini index is a means of measuring the level of income inequality between the richest and poorest people. It is *not* a measure of wealth, but income... The wikipedia link includes a means to calculate the index.
Basically, a gini coefficient of 1 would mean that all *income* in a country would belong to one person, and a coefficient of 0 means that everyone gets the same amount of income.
Due to the recent banking crisis, and massive stock market dive, the rich most certainly got a lot poorer this year than the rest of us did, but it won't affect the gini coefficent as much, because that isn't earned income, but gained income.
Now, I couldn't find a chart that shows the distribution of wealth when factoring in for earned AND gained income - gained income is essentially investment income. Poorer people have proportionally less money to invest, so rich people gain a significant proportion of their income (as opposed to earning it). It would show a greater gap in wealth, and it would show an accelerated pace of this from the 80s on, with a more noticeable dip for the 1990 and 2001/2 recessions, the latter having a comparatively larger dip compared to the depth of the recession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Here is a chart of the Gini index from WWII on of various countries:
The gini index is a means of measuring the level of income inequality between the richest and poorest people. It is *not* a measure of wealth, but income... The wikipedia link includes a means to calculate the index.
Basically, a gini coefficient of 1 would mean that all *income* in a country would belong to one person, and a coefficient of 0 means that everyone gets the same amount of income.
Due to the recent banking crisis, and massive stock market dive, the rich most certainly got a lot poorer this year than the rest of us did, but it won't affect the gini coefficent as much, because that isn't earned income, but gained income.
Now, I couldn't find a chart that shows the distribution of wealth when factoring in for earned AND gained income - gained income is essentially investment income. Poorer people have proportionally less money to invest, so rich people gain a significant proportion of their income (as opposed to earning it). It would show a greater gap in wealth, and it would show an accelerated pace of this from the 80s on, with a more noticeable dip for the 1990 and 2001/2 recessions, the latter having a comparatively larger dip compared to the depth of the recession.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
