El Viajero? El Viajero?

Another way to think about it is in terms of how long it would take people in one category to make the annual salary of the people in the another.

The person in the middle quintile who makes $52,100 per year would have to work for 23 years in order to earn as much as the person at the bottom of the top 1% makes.

Also, the person at the bottom of the top 1%, making $1,200,300 per year makes about $23,082.69 per week, or (assuming 5-day weeks) $4,616.54 per day, or (generously assuming a 60 hour workweek) $384 per hour. If we assume a 40 hour workweek, that's $577 per hour. The person who makes $52,100 takes close to three days to make that.

It would be pretty easy to make a graph showing the actual dollar changes. Here's the data (increase in income 1979-2006 in--I assume--2006 dollars):

Bottom Fifth: $1600
Second Fifth: $5400
Middle Fifth: $9000
Fourth Fifth: $17,900
Top Fifth: $85,800
Top 1%: $863,100

(All values rounded to nearest $100)

j.e.b., I did the same thing, and I ran that 863,000 number 4 times because it was so insane. I thought I MUST be screwing up the math. Sadly, no.

So what? The former Soviet Union had far less "income inequality" how did that work out for them? Look at the difference between the poorest American and the richest American as your potential. When everyone is equal, your potential will have been eliminated.

I know it's hard, but try to let go of your envy. Remember, "thou shall not covet ...". Envy, not greed, is the root of all evil.

One must first buy into egalitarianism as a goal before any of this is a problem.

The former Soviet Union had far less "income inequality" how did that work out for them?

Nobody is talking about going Commie, but it is a well-known fact of human nature that great inequalities of income(as in Czarist-era Russia, pre-Depression American, etc) lead to social instability, which isn't good at any income level.

For the love of money is the root of all evil

Unless you don't believe in Christianity, Pauline variety.

One must first buy into egalitarianism as a goal before any of this is a problem.

Indeed:

The Levellers were a political movement during the English Civil Wars which emphasized popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance

We all know the last would be a deal breaker for you, ED.

So what?

So the only reason people "go along" with the free market consensus is because of the promise of making everyone's lives better. Everyone's. If it turns out that it really only benefits a few people at the top, then people are going to start deciding that free market's aren't such a great idea.

So if you want to continue your little free market experiment, I suggest you start bribing everyone at the bottom in order to give a bit of evidence to buy into the myth that this is the best thing to make everyone much better off. Why, after all, should people support a system whose main benefit is to disprorportionately benefit a few when another system might be better for the greater populace? Free markets depend on consent of the governed to support them. You need a way of making the myth of free markets more real for them if you want their continued support for the idea.

I do not buy into egalitarianism as a goal.

However, I worry about the "skew" in the numbers. What we do not want to have is the rich getting richer while the rest do not....that leads us to a society that is like many Latin American societies---the rich living in walled enclaves protected from the masses.

Look at the difference between the poorest American and the richest American as your potential, suckers.

Fixed your typo there, shay-shay.

"So what? The former Soviet Union had far less "income inequality" how did that work out for them?"

Your excluded middle is showing, and your strawman isn't impressing anyone.

The Nordic countries in Europe also have far less income inequality than USA, and they also have better social mobility, better healthcare (judging by the results!) and generally higher level of contentment.

Hence the tail end of the old slogan, "... to each according to his needs." Everyone's needs (roughly speaking) are about the same -- everyone needs the same amount of food, needs protection from the elements to about the same degree, etc.

But psychologically, of course, nearly everyone needs to feel greatly superior to someone else, and sitting on a pile of moolah is the easiest way to get that satisfaction, especially when that pile comes largely from inherited wealth or some other accident.

I really have to chuckle to myself when the fans of capitalism say, "Oh, but the rich got that way deservedly -- they work much harder than everyone else, have much more respectable personal habits, etc."

You don't really believe that chart, do you? I mean sure, the nominal figures are right, but the rich and poor have very different price indices, as Tyler Cowen points out in the the URL in my name....

The stuff that the rich buy hasn't gotten that much better in 30 years....But the stuff the poor buy has gotten a lot better since then. Thank you trade!

You know it's true! That's what makes this hard to read!