 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
September 8, 2010
GRAPH OF THE DAY.... Tim Noah is running a multi-part series this week and next on "The Great Divergence," focusing on an issue that too often gets pushed to the periphery: America's growing income inequality.
The series includes this graph today, based on data from Larry Bartels, showing income growth rates for the modern political era. The red bars shows growth during Republican administrations, while the blue bars show growth during Democratic administrations. As Noah (a Monthly alum) explained, "Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power? It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60th percentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95th percentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80th percentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.)." Also note, there's not only a difference in who benefits most, there's also a straight-up difference between the parties: under the GOP, the very wealth benefit more; under Dems, the middle and lower classes see their incomes grow more. But in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican. Just as an aside, if you enjoy these kinds of comparisons, I've been reading a new book called "Presimetrics: What the Facts Tell Us About How the Presidents Measure Up On the Issues We Care About." It's fascinating. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
Comments
So, for wealthy Republicans, it isn't just whether they are doing well, they also don't want to see others do well. They'll even take a little less if it means others don't get anything. Posted by: ump902a on September 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINKI would like to take the graph at face value. I guess that republican presidents are roadblocks to progress from the House, while democratic presidents are not? Of course, the remainder of the Clinton years are the opposite. Posted by: catclub on September 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK--- Written by cactus from the angrybear blog. Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 on September 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINKSo why do a majority of Americans vote against their better interests? Posted by: Goldilocks on September 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINKGoldilocks: Simple. Americans believe that they will one day be rich. Posted by: chrenson on September 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINKSo why do a majority of Americans vote against their better interests? Their overlords tell them too? Class appeal and class conciousness has historically been a ineffective tool to organize people in America, especially when a large chunk of the electorate is worried about how those policies might, God forbid help blacks. Posted by: Archon on September 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK"So, for wealthy Republicans, it isn't just whether they are doing well, they also don't want to see others do well. They'll even take a little less if it means others don't get anything." Old New Yorker cartoon: Two well dressed men in a bar talking over a pair of martinis "I just read that the top 5% of the country control 90% of the wealth. We have to do something about that last 10%." Posted by: drkrick on September 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKThis has been known for years. It is also been known for years that red states receive more back in federal aid then they pay in taxes. It is also known that median incomes are much lower in red states, therefore many who don't pay income taxes live in red states. Posted by: flyonthewall on September 8, 2010 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKThis is a False Dichotomy (a typical liberal trick). The ENTIRE Pie is shrunk during Democratic rule (trickle up Poverty). The pie is grown under Republican rule (trickle down prosperity). It's not a zero sum game. Why do you gnash your teeth over people becoming wealthy? That is a good thing, and actually creates private sector jobs and lower unemployment. Why can't the current Democrat spending spree stop the rampant loss of jobs? Posted by: Trogdor on September 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKYou might want to check out the facts behind Noah's graph before relying upon it. Could well be accurate, but the graph in his first installment had what appeared to be glaring errors. It shows employment trends for men and women with three charts for 3 different levels of education. But the composite chart (termed "All") doesn't reflect at all what the 3 individual charts show. Totally inexplicable how that graph could get published as it is. Posted by: smintheus on September 8, 2010 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINKOK.. Why would anyone vote Republican. Everyone and especially lower income groups do better with the Ds. Higher income groups do better under ds and don't need to spend all their money trying to buy Rep votes. Duh. Posted by: bILL on September 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK"It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it" Yes it's crude, very crude. And it's largely coincidental. 16 data points. I'm curious why Bartels isn't embarrassed. Posted by: flubber on September 8, 2010 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINKToo bad most people are so bad at math that they can't read graphs... Posted by: mfw13 on September 9, 2010 at 7:01 AM | PERMALINK
Benen is quite the liberal spinner. Larry Bartel's methodology doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. See my critique here: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/how-to-mislead-with-charts-whos-responsible-for-the-great-divergence/ Posted by: Mike on September 13, 2010 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINKWow - great graph. Makes me totally reconsider all of my libertarian ideals, world view, and theories of Austrian economics in just TEN BRIGHTLY COLORED BARS. I've got a graph for ya: ====================== That's the chance that Keynsian economics will ruin this country vs. the chance that one day it will magically make sense. I'll bet it's more legitimate than the one above. Posted by: OscarDeGrouch on September 14, 2010 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
