On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Doug Henwood referenced his recent post from last
> http://lbo-news.com/2011/10/01/maybe-99-is-a-bit-much-but?/
In which he says:
<quote>
Using data compiled by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas
Piketty from IRS records, we can estimate that the top 1% took in a
quarter of the income gain between 1982 and 2008.
<unquote>
Saez seems to be going much farther now, in a way that's kind of perfect for 99% trope. He now says that the top 1% has captured nearly half the income growth since the 1970s:
In a 2010 paper titled "Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top
Incomes in the United States," Saez provided 2007 to 2008 updates on
the above-mentioned figures....
In a Q & A this week, Saez weighed in on the Occupy Wall Street
demonstrations:
Q: What do you make of the Occupy Wall Street protesters' claims that
they "are the 99 percent." Do you feel they are connecting -
deliberately or not - with the bottom 99 percent that you have studied
and written about?
A: As you mentioned above, one of the most striking developments of the
U.S. economy is how the top 1 percent has pulled away from the bottom
99 percent. Because the top one percent has captured about half of
income growth since the 1970s, income growth for the bottom 99 percent
has been only about half of the macro-economic growth we always hear
about in the press.
How is it possible that in a democracy the bottom 99 percent gets only
half of economic growth? I read the claim of the Occupy Wall Street
protesters that "We are the 99 percent" as a call for action in a
democracy. In a well functioning democracy, the bottom 99 percent
should be able to call for policies that will make the economy work
better for the vast majority they are.
<unquote>
Michael