"The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century, which occurred mainly inwestern countries following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s. It ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession."
Economic recovery from the Great Depression and of WWII, a period in which demand for goods and services exploded, many social changes took place. Women filled the labor gap during the war and many happily returned to homemaking while many others remained in the paid labor force but at unequal pay. Race issues began to explode as returning African- and -Asian American military personnel returned home no longer willing to put up with segregation and Jim Crow laws. 1968 Was a dreadful year with riots, sit-ins, marches and protesters of all varieties joining in resistance to unfair laws, policing, and economic segregation.
By 1971, the "Nixon Shock", the unlinking of money from gold, meant money was printed based on nothing. When USA needed money, it was printed. The consequence is volatility.
The Bretton Woods Agreement, a system of monetary management created the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world's major industrial states. In 1971, the USA unilaterally terminated convertibility of dollar to gold, thus ending the Bretton Woods Agreement. Officially, the $ became "fiat currency", backed by nothing more than a promise to pay.
What is unclear is how one can fulfill a promise if there is nothing to back it up. Due to excess printed dollars, and negative U.S. trade balance, other nations began demanding fulfillment of America's "promise to pay" – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold.
These and other major shifts in policy brought the end to the Golden Age of Capitalism and economic decline continues at an accelerated rate.
This really shows the disparity. I don't get the claim that log graphs are better than pie charts. Well, I do see it, but with the grossness of differences, it doesn't matter which statistical display one chooses, they all show a very wide gap growing.
1979 7.5% for Top 1%
2007 17.1% "
1979 34.6% for Bottom 80%
2007 35.4% "
That is a whopper of a difference. OK, I'm done with hunting and showing data. The spread between rich and poor is growing and the middle class is falling. That is all I need to know in order to realize our country is becoming a two class society and illegal and immoral means are making it happen. Money buys elections and voters vote against their self interests.
This graph leaves out the 99th%. Can you show a log graph which includes the 99th%?
Ok great, so when you get the raw data or can show how this point is relevant as to how it applies to the 99th% we'll be all ears.
John, you have yet to demonstrate to me you know what you are talking about. Maybe your beloved log graph works for you, but you haven't come up with a demonstration to make your point. How do you insinuate that you have all the knowledge that I lack and yet can't come up with the data? Excuse me! What are your credentials?
This is the graph you should have used. it includes the top percentile. This graph does not show the collapse.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong place, but this graph only shows the 95th percentile, not the 99th. Are you sure this is correct?
Jedi, You are correct. The raw data only goes to the 95th. I got the raw date here:
The hunt is on!
As long as the graph leaves the 99th% out, the whole point is missed. Show me this graph with the 99%, so we can see whether your argument that "growth of income is more or less similar for each income group" actually holds water.
It's a fair point, John, but take this as a counterargument: suppose national income at an arbitrary number, say 1 trillion for arguments sake. And, also for arguments sake, say national taxes are 1 billion. Obviously this is not realistic, but here is my point: if taxes going towards investing in the country are a smaller fraction of money coming from the country into the pockets of the wealthy, then the simple fact that they are paying a greater share doesn't really mean a whole lot, does it? Further, look at what our tax dollars do go towards. How much of it is given back to the wealthy in the form of subsidies for oil companies, investments in weapons and military-industrial, etc., and what % goes towards investing in the middle class and the poor in the form of education and such? These are the real questions.
That is exactly my point Jedi. Thanks you for saying it so that it makes sense. Tax money to build school, hospitals, roads, railroads , education, funding advanced degrees, care of children, care of elderly, disabled, treatment centers, and bridges, etc.
Wages create consumers, consumers and owners of capital benefit by all these infrastructures. No one is left out.
When I saw the middle class growing in numbers and proportion to the population, it happened after Johnson started the war on poverty, he just forgot to stop fund the war on Viet Name.
I watched the middle class dwindle by using raw date from US Census, health data, death rates and all kinds of other raw data. I watched it decline, slowly at first but now exponentially.
When I see the middle class growing again I will know we on our way to the kind of nation I want to leave my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
This is a land of opportunity. All the patriotic flag waving, shouting and waving of guns in the air do not convince me we are on the right track. I watch how the poorest kid in the school system has access to education and food and healthcare, How the poorest elderly have a decent lifestyle for their last days.