Winner(s) take all! (Income Inequality)

Here's an interesting article from a couple of days ago, that doesn't seem to have had much attention paid to it (yet):

The Economist: Winners take all!

That article references an interactive tool that the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) made available on their web-site. As the web-site says ..

Use the sliders on the timeline to select a timespan, and see how growth in average income was shared between the richest 10% and the other 90% of Americans. All figures are in 2008 dollars.

So, what The Economist writer did, was select 1977 to 2008. The tool comes back and gives the following chart:


Basically, what comes back is the rise or fall of average incomes (in the US), over that period of time; and how much of that rise or fall was distributed in the upper 10% of income levels -vs- the lower 90% of income levels.

For the range The Economist selected (1977 to 2008) the results amount to:
- Average incomes in the U.S. grew by $11,699.
- All growth went to the richest 10%.
- Income for the bottom 90% declined.

I ran the tool myself, for a the last 10 years of data available (1998 to 2008), the results were:
- Average incomes in the U.S. fell by $459.
- The average income of the richest 10% grew.
- For the bottom 90% average income declined.

I ran the tool myself again, for a the last 20 years of data available (1998 to 2008), the results were:
- Average incomes in the U.S. grew by $6,853.
- All growth went to the richest 10%.
- For the bottom 90% average income declined.

Very interesting stuff indeed. Try the tool out yourself using this link.

Without getting into deep, not reading the article or using the slider thingy, would it be safe to say the people in the top 10% invested the money they already had and realized some capital gains over the time frame and the 90% of declining incomes did not?

It is simple to understand really. As power flows upward: From individuals, to municipalities, to states, to federal government, then to international organizations, the power then moves from the most ordinary and widespread of the populous (working class/poor) up to only those who are able to operate the functions at the highest levels (elite/wealthy).

As the power goes so goes the wealth, that is the easiest way to describe it. Because the power moves up the ladder so too does the wealth, as power and wealth are intertwined.

When wealth is more evenly and naturally distributed this is when we have local government, thus power at the lowest level, the individuals. When wealth is more concentrated and unnaturally distributed this is when we have higher government, thus power at the highest level, the international elite.

[This was a reply I made to another thread. Just as relevant here though.]