Quote:
|
Yabbut what does the word "cumulative" mean in that context?
|
BigV, this chart is a
STUNNING
example of misuse of statistics.
A similar graph would be created in almost ANY bell curve, measuring ANY statistic!
This graph is showing us that the top 1% make more money than the lower 99%. (Duh)
The graph is NOT saying is that the top 1% are getting way way richer than everybody else... and it is NOT saying that the top 1% has any greater inequality in 2007 than it did in 1979!
"Cumulative" means that the data point in 1980 is the after-tax income of 1980 PLUS the after-tax income of 1979. And so the 1981 number is 1981+1980+1979. And so forth.
"But wait a minute," I hear you typing, "Isn't it still remarkably unfair that the top 1% accumulate so much more after-tax money than even their buddies in the 99-95% range?"
No -- because the 1% in 1979 are not the SAME 1% in 2007!
The graph wants you to accept the narrative that it's the same guys in 1979, who now are fabulously wealthy as they accumulated truckloads of stuff by 2007.
But what if we graphed the top 1% of home-run hitters in baseball? In 1979, that would be Dave Kingman, Mike Schmidt, Gorman Thomas, Fred Lynn and Jerry Rice. In 2011, that would be Jose Bautista, Curtis Granderson, Matt Kemp, Mark Teixeira and Prince Fielder.
The graph of that top 1% would look very similar to this graph. Each year, the top 1% of home-run hitters would accumulate more home runs than the bottom 99%. Some years, as in the steroid years, they would accumulate it faster. Some years, as in the current years, they would accumulate it slower. But it's not the same guys accumulating! It's just the constant top 1%.
To put it another way? In 1979, Bill Gates ran a tiny software house that offered a version of the BASIC programming language to fellow geeks. He was busy begging them not to pirate it.
In 1979, Bill Gates was measured in the bottom line of that graph.