Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/berkeleysympo2.pdf
>>
>> "Figure 2, Panel A plots the top 1% income share in France and the
>> United States since 1913.20 The patterns are strikingly parallel from
>> the beginning of the century up to the 1970s. The shares were very
>> high, around 18-20% in both countries, at the eve of the first World
>> War.21 The top 1% share is highest in the United States in 1929, at
>> the onset of the Great Depression. The top 1% income share falls in
>> both countries during the Great Depression, and especially during
>> World War II. The fall during World War II is more pronounced in
>> France, which suffered much more directly from the shock of the war
>> than the United States.By the end of World War II, top 1% income
>> shares are around 11% in the United States and 9% in France, about
>> only 50% of their pre-World War I level. Strikingly, in the prosperous
>> years and decades following World War II, top income shares do not
>> come back to their high levels of the pre-war period, but remain
>> relatively stable in France or decrease further (and slowly) in the
>> United States. In the 1970s, the top 1% income share is around 8% in
>> both countries. The pattern of top income shares in the two countries
>> displays a striking contrast over the last 25 years. While the top 1%
>> income share in France has remained stable around 8% up to year 1998,
>> the top 1% income share has increased dramatically and is around 17%
>> in 2000, almost as high as in 1913."
>>
>> We have entered a new "guilded age" in the U.S. with huge income
>> disparities. As a direct consequence, we are entering a new
>> Depression.
>
> Actually, that's "gilded age", not "guilded age". Sorry about that.
It could be "guilded age" too when you consider all the unions and
professional organizations that extort money by virtue of their
government enforced privileges.
|
