Comments on: Share of GDP: 99th 95th 90th http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/ Sun, 13 May 2012 01:48:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: David http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/comment-page-1/#comment-111 David Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:08:12 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/#comment-111 Great website. I know this is an old post, but I'm intrigued – and confused – and not an economist... this graph seems to show that by 2004, the top 10% of earners in the US were taking home something like 67% of GDP? But your 19 March 2006 post suggests that the share of the top 10% around 2002 was around 60%. Am I reading these graphs correctly? These are particularly startling figures, when I look at this post on the World Bank site: http://psdblog.worldbank.org/psdblog/2010/01/gdp-inequality.html It has a graph showing that the Top 10% of earners in South Africa (my notoriously unequal home) are taking 40% of GDP. Which suggests that the US is more unequal than South Africa.... is it really, or am I just missing something? Thanks! Great website.

I know this is an old post, but I’m intrigued – and confused – and not an economist… this graph seems to show that by 2004, the top 10% of earners in the US were taking home something like 67% of GDP?

But your 19 March 2006 post suggests that the share of the top 10% around 2002 was around 60%.

Am I reading these graphs correctly?

These are particularly startling figures, when I look at this post on the World Bank site:
http://psdblog.worldbank.org/psdblog/2010/01/gdp-inequality.html

It has a graph showing that the Top 10% of earners in South Africa (my notoriously unequal home) are taking 40% of GDP.

Which suggests that the US is more unequal than South Africa…. is it really, or am I just missing something?

Thanks!

]]> By: joan http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/comment-page-1/#comment-110 joan Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:44:08 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/#comment-110 happyjuggler0: The top graph represents incomes up to $315,000. Very few prople earn more that this because of their "education". Most doctors, lawyers, Phd's etc earn well below this level. The fact that this curve also show a decline indicates the the loses suffered by the "uneducated" workers are not being captured by the "educated" workers. happyjuggler0:
The top graph represents incomes up to $315,000. Very few prople earn more that this because of their “education”. Most doctors, lawyers, Phd’s etc earn well below this level. The fact that this curve also show a decline indicates the the loses suffered by the “uneducated” workers are not being captured by the “educated” workers.

]]> By: happyjuggler0 http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/comment-page-1/#comment-109 happyjuggler0 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:30:08 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/10/17/share-of-gdp-99th-95th-90th/#comment-109 Thanks for the recession bars CM. Some graphs they will have more effect than others. This one it looks like the wealthier weather recessions better than the rest in general. It also looks like that recession effects are swamped by longer trends. Thanks to the long run view you provided it looks like the trend that started in the early 70's roughly played itself out about a dozen years ago as the WWII effect finally ended and we reverted to the pre-WWII nadir. However there may be another trend, such as the popular theory that there are now higher relative returns to education due to high tech than before. By the way, my WWII effect hypothesis is that wages went up for the uneducated thanks to WWII and stayed up thanks to the fact that most of the high human capital world was bombed out. Blue collar labor was selling at an artificial premium. Once "everyone" bought all the stuff they had wanted to own since the Great Depression started, those industries became mature and growth in the manufacturing of stuff leveled off. In a mature industry that has increasing productivity you then have fewer and fewer workers in those industries. So between the rest of the world being rebuilt, and the maturing of those low education required industries, the blue collar premium ended and the higher relative return to education (vs those who are relatively uneducated) started revealing itself again. Thanks for the recession bars CM. Some graphs they will have more effect than others.

This one it looks like the wealthier weather recessions better than the rest in general. It also looks like that recession effects are swamped by longer trends.

Thanks to the long run view you provided it looks like the trend that started in the early 70′s roughly played itself out about a dozen years ago as the WWII effect finally ended and we reverted to the pre-WWII nadir. However there may be another trend, such as the popular theory that there are now higher relative returns to education due to high tech than before.

By the way, my WWII effect hypothesis is that wages went up for the uneducated thanks to WWII and stayed up thanks to the fact that most of the high human capital world was bombed out. Blue collar labor was selling at an artificial premium. Once “everyone” bought all the stuff they had wanted to own since the Great Depression started, those industries became mature and growth in the manufacturing of stuff leveled off. In a mature industry that has increasing productivity you then have fewer and fewer workers in those industries.

So between the rest of the world being rebuilt, and the maturing of those low education required industries, the blue collar premium ended and the higher relative return to education (vs those who are relatively uneducated) started revealing itself again.

]]>