next »

[vh]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

iLol'd

[Bla]

I like the first comment.

"unbelievable...every single voter in america needs to read this and explain why they aren't outraged and marching with torches."

Where is your democracy now?

[smjjames]

I don't know how realistic that bottom bar in the first chart would be, but that would definetly be in a perfect world or some kind of utopia.

Still, THIS is the reason why we need more taxes on the rich and get the damn corporations to actually pay thier taxes.

We need a modern Robin Hood methinks.....

[FiahOwl]

I don't know how realistic that bottom bar in the first chart would be, but that would definetly be in a perfect world or some kind of utopia.

Still, THIS is the reason why we need more taxes on the rich and get the damn corporations to actually pay thier taxes.

We need a modern Robin Hood methinks.....

Methinks too.

[Bla]

I don't know how realistic that bottom bar in the first chart would be, but that would definetly be in a perfect world or some kind of utopia.

Just tried to make it more comparable to what would actually be a perfect world (in my opinion). A perfectly equal world economically.
I don't see why some people wouldn't want that. Because they want more for themself? Or because they're afraid of being labeled as Communists? Or because they think some deserve more for their work than others?

I find it interesting that people think that the poorest 20% have more than twice of what the poorest 40% actually have.

[Bla]

I thought it'd be fun to compare it to Denmark (my own country). It's from 1992 and inequality has increased since then. I didn't measure the exact numbers of pixels but drew them approximately.
Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Denmark-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

[FiahOwl]

Pwned.

Did I just do an equality?

[Bla]

Not neccesarily. If 1% of those 100% own 100% of the wealth, and 99% own 0%, they would still collectively own 100%.
If you had 2 blocks with 50% each, and they both filled 50%, everyone would be equal, because if a few had more than the rest, they would enlarge the top half.

In any case, 100% are bound to own 100% of the wealth.

[FiahOwl]

Not neccesarily. If 1% of those 100% own 100% of the wealth, and 99% own 0%, they would still collectively own 100%.
If you had 2 blocks with 50% each, and they both filled 50%, everyone would be equal, because if a few had more than the rest, they would enlarge the top half.

In any case, 100% are bound to own 100% of the wealth.

But why put 50% and 50%? That would make no sense (even though it would). But there would be no bottom 50% or top 50% so they are 100% since they are all equal.

[Bla]

But why put 50% and 50%? That would make no sense (even though it would). But there would be no bottom 50% or top 50% so they are 100% since they are all equal.

If you only put 100%, the chart doesn't tell you anything, because 1% of those 100% could own 100%, and when you add them to the 99% other people they would still own 100% together.
You need at least two different areas to say anything about equality.

Otherwise you just say "all the wealth is owned by people".

[Bla]

More charts!

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/charts-economic-myths-jobs-deficit-taxes