Friday, September 13, 2013
Pay Gap Between 1 Percent And Everybody Else Reaches Widest Point Since 1920s
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/pay-gap-between-1-percent_n_3900373.html Due 23 Sep 2013. Analyze the chart. What are your impressions of the policy results for each President? Who was most successful; who was not? What events hindered their progress or their lack thereof??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This chart shows the income growth of the top 1% and the "bottom" 99% of the US population. In my analysis of the chart, I was able to see that the income of the top 1% always surpassed the other 99% of the population, whether it be a loss or a gain. With further analysis of the chart, I was able to see that as time went on, the income growth of all the population, both the 1% and the 99%, lowered significantly. Each president during this time period put out a policy to try and maintain a stable economy. Out of the 3 president shown, Clinton's policy was the most "balanced out" since the top 1% still had the advantage but the fraction of the total gain was only equal to around 45%, meaning the rest of the population (the 99%) was able to share the other 55% of the income growth. In my opinion, Clinton was the most successful because the growth of the top 1% and 99% were all higher than the other 2. Obama's policy has to be the unsuccessful one since in his policy, the top 1% captured about 95% of the income growth. Also in Obama's chart, the bottom 99% income real growth is barely 1%. Each of these president faced a problem in the economy while they were in terms. In the Great Recession, the stock market crash lowered everybody's income, especially the top 1%. The recession of 2001 was also caused by the Y2K crisis and the 9/11 incident.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the chart, we see that the growth of wealth of the top 1% is always far greater than that of the 99%. In all expansions, the top 1% benefits most, but, on the contrary, the top 1% also gets hit the hardest in recessions in terms of real growth/loss. Using the chart, I can see that Clinton's presidency was most successful in the balance of income growth throughout the US population. The top 1% income growth sky-rocketed and the 99% had adequate growth as well, but consequently, inflation was a serious issue in the late 90s. The Bush administration was the go-between of Obama and Clinton, not great, not bad, but good. The Obama administration has led to 95% growth of the top 1% and a mere 1% growth for the 99%. The sense of that? I'm not so sure sometimes. Several incidences have taken a huge role in the expansions and recessions of the US. Events such as 9/11, the Y2K crisis, and the most recent stock market crash in about 2008 have had significant influence on the success of the economy as well as income of the 1% and 99%.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the chart, through all the presidencies provided, the top 1% is always benefited the most from the expansions and were hurt the most in the recessions. This basically goes to say, "the higher you go the harder you fall." During Clinton's expansion, the top 1%'s growth was about 10%. During Bush's presidency, the top 1% were still recovering from the recession so they weren't as high up as they had been but still grew roughly 90% since the recession hit. Since the Great Recession, hit the top 1% has grown about 65% in the Obama administration.Clinton was most successful because the recovery during his presidency exceeded the recovery in the other two presidencies. Obama was the least successful because his recovery from the Great Recession was not as significant as the growth from the other two presidents. For Obama, what probably hindered him the most is how much of a mess he was left with from the last presidency.
ReplyDeleteMy impression on The policy results in the chart is that the rich keep getting richer while the bottom 99% is on a steady decline.
ReplyDelete2) The most successful was the top one percent. Their peak was during the Clinton Expansion, whereas their lowest was when the 2001 recession hit. the most unsuccessful was the bottom 99 percent were the top suffered the most during the recession the rest are still in recovery and they still remain at the lowest point in Obama's recovery period.
3)The events that hindered the process was that Their incomes fell more than 36 percent in the Great Recession of 2007-09 as stock prices plummeted.Increasingly, technology is replacing workers in performing routine tasks. And union power has dwindled.
After analyzing the chart shown, you can clearly see how the top 1% growth is always greater than the other 99% of the population. You can also see how during the recessions that occurred throughout the years, the top 1% was hurt the most. Also during these recessions, the tops 1% income was hit the most. During Clintons presidency, he was the most successful when it came to balancing the income growth between the top 1% and the rest of the other 99%. Also during the Clintons presidency, the top 1% had experienced the most real growth income than any of the other presidents who took office. The 99% had also experienced steady growth as well. The least successful president would have to be Obama, where the chart shows how the top 1% has gained 95% income growth and the chart has also showed how the bottom 1% barely experienced any growth as well. The 2001 recession was caused by the Y2K as well as 9/11.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the chart, I see that the top 1% has always captured the most money. During the great recession, one can see that all groups suffered, no matter rich or poor. The chart depicts that president Bill Clinton definitely assisted the income growth for the top 1%. During the Bush expansion, all classes of people benefited, although the top 1% still by far overruled the bottom 99%. Currently, with Obama's recovery, the bottom 99% seems to be suffering the most, as the bottom 99% hardly has any income growth. I believe Clinton was the most successful president because during his presidency, the gap between the bottom 99% and the top 1% was not as large as it is/was when the other presidents were/are in office. I believe a large war between the US and Iraq has hindered Obama from boosting the economy and helping the bottom 99%. I believe Bush wanted to help the top 1% but was hindered by the 2000-2002 recession, caused by a number of events, including 9/11.
ReplyDelete-Anita Pizzirani (Pizza)
Period: 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter analyzing the chart, I can conclude that the top 1% has always been the ones who get affected severely by those prevailing economic crises. During the 2001 recession, for example, the growth of the 1% people dropped to -30%, which is lower than that of the bottom 99%. The bottom 99% people, however, have always been the ones who get affected the less. The reason it is true is that they are not as involved as the those entrepreneurs. President Clinton did the best job in the economy; the percentage of the income growth of the bottom 99% people is the highest. Based on the chart, President Obama did the worst because the average income is extremely low. The outbreak of 911 could be the reason why President Bush did a mediocre job during his presidency. As for President Obama, the the fact that the U.S. is being at the rim of the outbreak of the war between U.S. and Syria could be hindering his plan to recover the economy.
ReplyDeleteClinton's policy results show the closest percentage between the bottom 99%'s real growth versus the top 1%'s real growth, which proves that he is indeed the most successful. Bush's policy results show something quite different, as the top 1%'s real income growth is clearly more than the bottom 99%'s, and by no small amount, either. Obama's results show that his policies were obviously the least successful, as the largest difference between the top 1% and the bottom 99% is shown in this chart. Obama's lack of progress is probably due to the Great Recession, and Bush's lack of progress is most likely hindered by the same thing, the 2001 Recession.
ReplyDeleteWith so many friends and family losing their jobs, and so many neighbors getting foreclosed, it would be impossible to miss the growing inequality between the rich and poor over the past decade. The chart magnifies the details of this huge difference. As it shows, between 1993-2012, the top 1% incomes real growth has reached over 80%, while the income real growth of the bottom 99% has barely reached 10%. Clearly, Clinton's presidency achieved the most in regards to lessening the gap between the rich and poor. However, the Y2K and 9/11 led to the 2001 Recession, bringing the statistics down to the negatives. In 2002, the Bush expansion managed to revive the real growth of both the top 1% and bottom 99% incomes Obama has done the most incompetent job with leveling the growth of the rich and poor. His recovery period has resulted in the fraction of total growth captured by the 1% to reach nearly 100%, while the bottom 99%'s incomes real growth is close to 0%. However, it is important to note that though the top 1%'s growth was always significantly more than that of the bottom 99%'s, they suffered the most in both the recession of 2001 and Great Recession. Nonetheless, the inequality between the top 1% and bottom 99% continues to reach all time records.
ReplyDeleteWith so many friends and family losing their jobs, and so many neighbors getting foreclosed, it would be impossible to miss the growing inequality between the rich and poor over the past decade. The chart magnifies the details of this huge difference. As it shows, between 1993-2012, the top 1% incomes real growth has reached over 80%, while the income real growth of the bottom 99% has barely reached 10%. Clearly, Clinton's presidency achieved the most in regards to lessening the gap between the rich and poor. However, the Y2K and 9/11 led to the 2001 Recession, bringing the statistics down to the negatives. In 2002, the Bush expansion managed to revive the real growth of both the top 1% and bottom 99% incomes Obama has done the most incompetent job with leveling the growth of the rich and poor. His recovery period has resulted in the fraction of total growth captured by the 1% to reach nearly 100%, while the bottom 99%'s incomes real growth is close to 0%. However, it is important to note that though the top 1%'s growth was always significantly more than that of the bottom 99%'s, they suffered the most in both the recession of 2001 and Great Recession. Nonetheless, the inequality between the top 1% and bottom 99% continues to reach all time records.
ReplyDeleteThe statement seems to hold true that as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The chart exemplifies the fact that over the years between 1993-2012 there has been growth in the gap between the top 1% and lower 99% of the country. No matter what time period the chart defines, the income real growth of the top 1% always exceeds the income real growth of the lower 99% or vice versa if there is a loss of income real growth, the top 1% has a greater loss. Clinton's presidency seemed to be the most productive in increasing the average amount of income real growth across the board, therefore I think his presidency was the most successful. President Bush did average, it wasn't very successful, however it wasn't as bad as President's Obama's results. Bush however is responsible to leading to the larger gap that we have today. Lastly, Obama's presidency,the least successful of all has the greatest gap between top 1% and bottom 99% as well as the lowest average income real growth of all the three presidencies. Some of the hindrances that might have cause this the condition that the economy was in prior to his presidency, the crash.
ReplyDeleteThe top 1% and the rest of the America is widening. The chart depicts that bill Clinton definitely assisted the income growth for the top 1%
ReplyDeleteThe top 1% peak was during Clinton expansion and their lowest was during the 21 recession the recovery under Obama is closing the gap between the real growth if the 1% and 99% but the Great Recession has given 1%, 90% of the total growth.
Next the income fell more than 36% in the Great Recession of 2008-2009 as stock prices plummeted.
Clinton's era was the one that experienced the most growth, and Bush expanded slightly less than Clinton, while Obama's office has seen almost all of the growth occurring in the top one percent. Obviously the recessions were a period of negative growth, but the expansions of the two former presidents were much more evenly distributed than Obama's recovery. One thing that may have hindered the recovery in Obama's administration is the highly volatile political climate that is opposed to budging in either direction to get actual work done on the economy. Bush and Clinton experienced much more flexible representatives and senators. Furthermore, the global political climate is also much different, because there is a shift occurring in the global economy in terms of who the economic powerhouses are in the world, which has interfered with the typical expansion strategy that had been employed since WWII.
ReplyDeleteThe charts displays how the top 1% wealthiest Americans benefit the most during growth periods and also take the hardest hits in periods of decline. The real income growth or loss of the top 1% is always greater than that of the bottom 99%. Out of every presidential expansion in the chart Clinton’s was the most successful. During his presidency both the top 1% and bottom 99% experienced growth. As mentioned earlier, the top 1% wreaked the majority of the growth. Compared to the others represented in the chart President Obama has been the least successful in regards to the economy. Under his presidency the top 1% has captured 95% of the growth while the bottom 99% has experienced very little growth. The Great Recession of 2007, a lack of investing, a lack of spending, war, and a House unable to make decisions has hindered growth and progress
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom this chart, we can see that the income of the bottom 99% is at an all-time low, besides from the 2001 and 2007 recessions. The total growth of the top 1%, however, is at an all-time high, showing a growing gap between the rich and the poor than ever before. Out of all the presidents, Clinton’s term shower the least amount of difference between the poor, but the growth of the top 1% was the highest during his presidency. During Bush’s presidency, the rich grew richer as they recovered from the recession, but the average income was raised. Based on the gaps between the rich and poor, Clinton’s term was the most successful and Obama’s is the least successful. Obama was the least successful because after the 2007 recession, the growth during his presidency showed the least amount of change. The growing gap signifies the extent to how great the poverty in America is today. Events such as 9/11 contributed to the weakening economy of the 2001 recession.
ReplyDeleteThe chart illustrates income growth during three different administrations. The chart indicates that in the past 30 years there continues to be an increasing disparity in income between the 1% and the 99%. For the first time in a long time, the income growth during the Clinton administration was realized for both the 1% and the 99%. Clinton’s administration proved to be the only one in which the gap between the 1% and the 99% lessened for the first time in 30 years making it the most successful. During difficult economic times, the chart shows that the 1% have a larger negative growth of approximately 35% while the income of the 99% only fell 11.6%. The Obama administration has proven to be the least successful with the 1% capturing 95% of growth and the 99% experiencing the least amount. Several factors which have occurred that have led to this result is the Great Recession of 2007-2008, more clerical and call-center positions being outsourced to countries like India and the Philippines, advances in technology that replace the laborer, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with competition between low wage earners in China and the monetary needs of the American laborer. As more U.S. corporations opt to send their industry needs outside of the U.S., the profits continue to grow for them and the disparity between the 1% and the 99% grows as is seen in the current Obama administration.
ReplyDeleteThe gap between the rich and the rest is definitely increasing off the charts with the top ten percent holding 48.2 percent of last year’s total earnings. The chart shows the disparity and that the wealthy are most affected in times of economic growth and loss. Out of the three administrations, Clinton’s shows the highest real growth of income for the bottom 99% at a little over 20% growth during the expansion. This was by far the most successful time for most Americans where the gap between the top 1% and the rest of America was smaller than it would ever be in the future. During the expansion during Bush’s presidency, the income of the bottom 99% was cut in half, but was still much higher than during Obama’s era where it dwindled down to almost 0% income growth, making his the least successful administration for income. Even though the economy has recovered from the recession in 2007-2009, the income growth for all Americans decreased with the rich capturing almost 100% of the total growth. This could be because Obama has had a more challenging presidency in terms of opposition from congress. The economy has not still fully recovered from the recession in 2007, and jobs are being outsourced to Asian countries now more than ever. Obama also has to deal with the problems caused by the Bush administration like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThe graph portrays the income of the top one percent and the people at the bottom of the food chain(%99). The chart also clearly shows that Clinton did the best job, as the wages look more balanced while he was in office.
ReplyDeleteThe chart shows that the income of the top 1% has been significantly higher than the bottom 99%. During recessions,however, the top 1% had a larger negative growth than the 99%. The policies of Clinton and Bush seem to be the most balanced in that the top 1% doesn't take as much. Though under obama, the top 1% gained the most out of the losses. Clinton was the most successful since most benefited from economic growth. Obama seems to have experienced the least growth for both the top 1% and the bottom 99%. This was probably due to the great recession being so great.
ReplyDeleteThe chart shows the terms of three presidents and the growth and decline of activity of the Top 1% and the other Bottom 99%. The information it displays is the Average income real growth, Top 1% incomes real growth, Bottom 99% incomes real growth and Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by the Top 1%. It basically shows us how the Top 99%’s real growth has been greater than the Bottom 99%’s, even though they suffered more in the downturns. The Top 99%’s income has been rising while the Bottom 99%’s barely does. Mostly all of the presidents’ policies’ look like they benefited the Top 1%, it’s always above the Bottom 99%’s real growth. The most successful would be Bill Clinton and the least would be Barack Obama. Barack Obama came into presidency just after the recession so that hindered his progress. As well as George Bush, who arrived after the 2001 recession.
ReplyDeleteThe chart shows the income of the wealthiest 1% has been much greater than the bottom 99%. The richest Americans were hit hard by the financial crisis. Their incomes fell more than 36 percent in the Great Recession of 2007-09 as stock prices plummeted. Incomes for the bottom 99 percent fell just 11.6 percent, according to the analysis. But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices. 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent of American households had pretax income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000. Because of Obama the top 1% gained the most out of the losses.
ReplyDeleteThe chart points a very startling picture of the state of the US economy. It shows that income of the top 1% greatly exceeds that of the bottom 99%. The policy results for each president are very intriguing, although every president still enacted recoveries that resulted in economic gains towards the top 1% that doubled that of the bottom 99%. The chart points out that Clinton was the best for the Middle class in that out of all three presidents, he garnered the most economic growth for that of the middle class, leading to the most balanced economic growth for the US. Obama is shown to be the least successful in the sense that his presidency lead to near 0% economic growth for the bottom 99%. Some hindrances to the progression of economic growth are both the 2001 recession for Bush and the great recession for Obama.
ReplyDeleteClinton had the best expansion period overall. Bush did well considering the fact that he started in recession. If Clinton had ordered the execution of Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, the attack on the world trade center might not have happened. I’m sure that the attack played a strong roll in affecting the economy both negatively (at first) and positively. Bush was able to expand after recession because people were hiring to clean up the mess. The attack brought a sense of patriotism and people thus wanted to work and fulfill the needs of New York City to restore what once was. When people are back to work, the national average for income generally rises. However the positive side of this does not outweigh the loss America has suffered from that attack. Obama seems to have done the worst going into an 11% loss in the 99%’s income right off the bat. He only brought them back up 1%. After an 11% loss, you would need about a 12.5% gain to get back to where you were before. In Obama’s time, it seems that the 1% have benefitted the most. I believe this is attributed to a congress that is split with a Republican House and a democrat senate. However, the Obama recovery is not over yet. –Ian Hunt
ReplyDeleteThe inequality in today’s world is baffling to me. The graph clearly exposes the increasing gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99% in the time period 1993-2012. In fact, real income growth for the 1% grew by 80% in the decade, while it only grew 10% for the 99%. The most efficient administration in advocating growth for the 99% was Clinton’s. During his time in office, the gap was the smallest it would be in at least a decade, which makes him the most successful. During the Bush Administration, the income was decent, when compared to Clinton’s, but it was much better than it was for the Obama Administration. The Obama administration has seen nearly a 100% growth for the 1% and almost none for the 99%. This is a great contradiction to the premises under which the president was elected of bettering life for the middle-class, yet, he has had the fight of his life with an unhelpful congress. His is, therefore, the least competent and successful of the three administrations.
ReplyDelete