Some other charts to explore this stuff. But man, economic statistics are hard - a lot of the fine print can really affect the results (household vs individual income, labor force participation, etc): Filter by years to see growth: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1995&end... Job growth by job type: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-the... Income by demographic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinki... Percentile income distribution: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/01/the-99-got-a-raise... clavalle
Sep 6 2016
"In addition to wages, the census includes dividends, rental income and cash benefits (like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and unemployment benefits). But it excludes noncash benefits like food stamps (which benefit the poor) and capital gains (which tend to benefit the rich)." This is really a strange way to look at it. It is comparing the 'rich' middle class to the rest of the middle class and ignoring the extremes. Whenever a great profit is being made, basic theory says that the market should work to push things back to normal. When that doesn't happen it is an indicator that something is off-kilter. So, what is off-kilter here? What occupations are at the tip of the elephant's trunk? Why aren't the people riding the elephant's back pushing into that part of the market? Is it an education problem? A capital allocation problem? Regulatory capture? This is the question that needs answering. jackcosgrove