NYT's Overheated OWS Rhetoric: 'Wealthiest of the Wealthy Control More of the Country's Treasure'
Sam Roberts, who also hosts the New York Times’s weekly political podcast “The Caucus,” had a left-wing take on a study on income disparity in Wednesday’s edition suggesting it justified the left-wing Occupy Wall Street Protest: “As the Data Show, There’s a Reason the Protesters Chose New York.” Included was a graphic on “The New Gilded Age,” with an income disparity chart sourced from the left-leaning Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.
Reporter Robert Pear also bought into class warfare in Wednesday’s paper: “It’s Official: The Rich Get Richer,” keyed to a Congressional Budget Office report showing “The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades.” Alongside was a photo of a protester sympathizing with the Occupy Wall Street sit-in by holding an “I Am 99%” sign, with a photo caption concluding hopefully: “A new report may spur the protests.”
Sam Roberts’s report was particularly ideological.
When the federal income tax was first imposed in 1913, the richest 0.1 percent of households reaped 8.6 percent of the nation’s income. In 2007, as the recession began, the share going to that sliver of megarich Americans was 12.3 percent.
And an even more exclusive club -- the top 0.01 percent of households -- is collecting a greater share of total income than ever before recorded.
Those numbers suggest that the Occupy Wall Street protesters can make a compelling case when they complain that the economic scales are unfairly tilted toward the wealthy. The megarich hold more of the nation’s wealth and collect more of the overall income today than at any time since right before the Great Depression.
Certainly, the protesters picked the right city in which to start their campaign. Among the 1 percent of American households with the highest income, a significant portion, 13 percent, live in the New York metropolitan area, with 4.4 percent living in Manhattan, according to an analysis by Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College. In three Manhattan neighborhoods, the Upper East and Upper West Sides and Greenwich Village, more than 11 percent of the households make enough to qualify for the top 1 percent.
....
The wealthiest of the wealthy control more of the country’s treasure than at any other time for which data are available. In 1913, the share of national income going to the top 0.01 percent of households was 2.8 percent, Professor Hacker said. In 2007, that same percentage of households earned 6 percent of national income.
“In 1917, average income -- including capital gains -- among the top 0.1 percent was 127 times the average income of the bottom 90 percent,” Professor Hacker said. “Average income among the top 0.01 percent was 509 times as great. In 2007, average income among the top 0.1 percent was 220 times average income among the bottom 90 percent. Average income among the top 0.01 percent was 1,080 times as great.”
Over the past century, according to a study by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at Berkeley, the share of income collected by the top 1 percent of Americans peaked at 24 percent in 1928 -- a high that was not matched until 2007.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oh, of course it's not the regulations
Submitted by deadeyedan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:04pm.
Back in 1917 stringent regulations were just coming into place. It ought to be required reading (though many would accuse me of being a sadist, given how terribly it's written) to pore through Gabriel Kolko's improbably misnamed tome "The Triumph of Conservatism".
In it a description of just how back then that all the windy rhetoric about "trust busting" was just a ruse by the Captains of Industry who were covertly supporting the regulations that would supposedly prevent monopolization. (I nearly flunked a history class by stating in my review that it ought to have been titled "The Triumph of Liberalism".)
And did the modern version of these "robber barons" ever learn the regulatory tricks. Today's disparity can now be traced to the crony capitalism that is now so pervasive owing to guess what?
Regulations.
LIBERALISM - government of the people by the theories and for the ideologists
GLOBAL WARMING - authoritarian, rather than authoritative, science
Uh - D.C. is Richest...
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:06pm.
I suppose it's too much to ask that they read their own g.d. newspaper, huh?
Yeah.
Thought so.
Nevermind.
LOL. The country's treasure?
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:13pm.
Hey dummass, the "country" has no treasure save what it is given to do its job, it is merely a hired entity mandated by the Constitution to protect and serve the People, and that at the pleasure of the People. Nothing more nothing less.
Just look at all the Marxist
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:32pm.
Just look at all the Marxist tripe and key words in this excerpt. The author uses words like "reaped" "collected" and "controlled" and not a single time in the entire excerpt does the author describe the income as "earned".
The very concept of the wording suggests that all income actually belongs to "The Country" and it is through the auspices of Government that citizens are somehow guaranteed their "fair share".
Redistributionist Tripe of the Highest Order.
The NATION's wealth???
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:54pm.
Those numbers suggest that the Occupy Wall Street protesters can make a compelling case when they complain that the economic scales are unfairly tilted toward the wealthy. The megarich hold more of the nation’s wealth
So the "wealth" belongs to the "nation" and the "megarich" have too much of it?
The wealthy are wealthy because the economic scales unfairly tilt toward them because they are wealthy?
What does that even MEAN?
He's grading them on a curve
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 4:25pm.
He's grading them on a curve, just like he was graded in school. Of course, he's always been on the, ahh, shall we say, shallow end of that curve, so he's a bit bitter.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Fret not Sam, because by the time the Dear Ruler is finished...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 4:04pm.
..."transforming" America into a cross between North Korea and Zimbabwe, there won't be enough wealth left to say grace over.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
This is why
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 5:12pm.
I love the Davenator. In 2012 we'll kick the NK/Zimba lovers in the nads, count on it!
Yes - the top 1% got really really rich during the Clinton era.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 4:21pm.
Oh gee, it's not difficult to understand why the name of Bill Clinton - his era - only comes up when the MSM is talking about that exciting "tingle up my leg" period of "austerity" (see other post today on that issue), but when they are all out there blasting the fact that the 1% made it big during certain period of time, Bill Clinton is nowhere to be found.
Here's how it gets misused (this exact claim has been used a lot by the Obama administration, the Democrats and our national MSM, in their effort to blame this issue of theirs all on Bush and the Republicans.
Well, technically he may be right - but it's a sales job. In the light of a true presentation, he's lying through his teeth - and the national MSM loves the tale. in 2000, the number was was 20.81%. Can we round that to 21%, or not?
For reference, one can take a peak at the graph provided in the NYTimes piece, Share of the Nation's Income Earned by the Top 1% .
While looking at the graph, notice the great leap in the top 1%'s income from 1993 to 2000 (Clinton's term in office). Then mentally draw a line from the peak, in 2000 (just before the recession) to the peak in 2007 (just before the next recession).
For a more detailed look at the numbers, please refer to the Tax Foundation's, Share of Latest Federal Income Tax Data; page 7 of 11.
In 1993 the top 1% earned 13.79% of all personal income earned (AGI). For 2000, the top 1%'s share of income had soared to 20.81% (21%).
Under Bush this data point managed, in 8 years time, to rise from 21%, to 22.5% -- Whoopi !
(;~/ gary
Gary to Gary...
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 5:14pm.
Well said friend! Spot-the-frell-on! Oh, and you're a racist for bringing up facts. o_O
back at Gary, gary
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 6:24pm.
Hey thanks. Bought a watermelon over the weekend - feeling pretty fair and balanced on the racist front. (and yes, someone will consider that racist, as well.)
(;~> gary
Puhleaaase, Gary
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 6:49pm.
We know you put vodka in it.
:)
(Speaking of food....I'm making my New Mexico Red chili as we speak....I am addicted to those things). Who knew one could make chili w/o chili powder?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:00pm.
. . and either the vodka, or the watermelon will cut the burn after your chile.
On a weekend jaunt through some of CA's choice farmland (in the hills around Arroyo Grande), we picked some Ripe - bright red - jalapeno's. Honestly now; 5 - 5 1/2 inches long, big and fat (99 cents/lb wow). Last night I stuffed 4 of em for dinner; panko crusted batter and fried em up. 2 each was a meal.
OK - so for me, it tested my gut (around 3 AM) - never bothers my wife (amazing).
(;~> gary
Drool
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:44pm.
; )
Well, there's your mistake...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 4:55pm.
"The megarich hold more of the nation’s wealth and collect more of the overall income today than at any time since right before the Great Depression."
Well, there's you mistake. "Wealth" doesn't belong to the nation, it belongs to the individual. If you feel otherwise, I'm sure you'll be happy to give me some of the portion of the nation's wealth that YOU currently hold. What do you say, care to meet me at the ATM in, well, let's give it a week, after you receive your next paycheck? I eagerly await your response.
What's that you said? Go what myself? And just what do you mean by LOL?
What is with these supposedly "smart" people who keep thinking that "wealth" is some type of fixed, absolute resource? That there is only so much of it available at any given time? That if someone has more of it then someone else must, automatically, have less? They treat "wealth" is if it isn't a variable. If that were true, if it really wasn't a variable, then America would have the same amount of wealth as it did the day the Constitution was signed, or Columbus first stepped upon the shore of the New World, which we all know isn't true. There's more "wealth" in America today than there was just 20 years ago, although you'll never convince the Paulbots about that because they are absolutely sure that the total amount of world wide wealth hasn't changed since man first discovered gold.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hay, liberals...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 5:20pm.
Hay, liberals, let me ask you a simple math question:
Question: Yesterday Johhny had 12 apples and you had 3. Today Johhny has 30 apples and you have 6. Who has more apples?
Answer: You both do!
Now, let's put that in perspective of the economy.
Question: During the depression the wealthy held 10 percent of total wealth in America and 25 percent of the population was unemployed. Today the wealthy holds 25 percent of the wealth in America and 15 percent of the population is unemployed. Which group is better off?
Answer: They both are!
Do you "get it" now?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Now, one final question:
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 6:52pm.
Question: In 2006, the mid point of a presidential terme, the federal government spent 2.2 trillion dollars, 9 percent more than it received, and 4.4 percent of the population was unemployed. In 2010, another mid point of a presidential term, the federal government spent 3.4 trillion dollars, 37 percent more that it received, and 9.3 percent of the population was unemployed. Which group is better off?
Answer: Nether.
Bonus question: Did that nearly 50 percent increase in government spending between 2006 and 2010 lead to a lowering of the unemployment rate in America during the same time period?
Answer: No, it more than doubled it.
Now, one final question:
Essay question: How has Obama helped America?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
To quote the former
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 5:18pm.
Zinger (Thedailyzing I think was his name)... AWESOME! ; )
The NYT has become a useless
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:11pm.
The NYT has become a useless propaganda machine. What they have to say is meaningless, anymore.
Distribution of Wealth
Submitted by IrateNate on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:35pm.
Can't even remember who said it, but I remember hearing a comment on how foolish the argument is over the 'uneven' distribution of wealth: "Nobody distributes wealth in this country, except perhaps the government; the rest of us have to work for whatever we can."
Thought it relevant to the discussion...
When OWS can win a kick-ass majority in Congress
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:44pm.
When OWS can delivery a turnaround of 60 seats in House and 5 seats in the Senate, I'll be impressed. Until then, let the MSM keep fantasizing.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER