The first slide shows the Top 1/5th making good gains. But the next slides show that the Top 1% (versus the bottom 19%) of that group really made the coin.

Now I am not in that Top 1%, since my annual take is not $800K, but the Top 1% Oregonian is nothing compared to the Top 1% Manhattanite, who is probably pulling down low-to-mid 8 digits easy ($10-30M) as a hedge funder.

Now what if I might be in the other 19%... (with a very low 6 digit income {ie 1 or 2 as a first digit}, I might probably be somewhere in the 19% group, maybe even in the Top 5-8%).

Compared to the 1%, I am a poor dude. Compared to the other 80%, I am richy rich! And the other poor 80% are poor dudes.

But compare the poor dude 80%ers with the average Mexican, and they now become the richy rich. Yes, the poorest Americans with their $29K trump the average dirt poor Mexican.

But if you compare the average dirt poor Mexican to a rural Chinese villager, then all of a sudden, that dirt poor Mexican becomes the richy rich dude.

Now, if you compare that rural Chinese villager with.... wait a minute, I forgot what my point was.

Oh, yeah rich people have more money than poor people, which is why we call them rich people.

And redistributing the rich person's wealth to the poor people who did not earn it (because they are poor, not rich) is still a communist system.

I lived in a communist country once, but I moved back to America. Feel free to move there if you like their system better.

Deep thinking, Harry! Because everyone I know compares their status to the lowliest Chinese villager rather than their neighbors. Intellectually I understand your point but anyone with even an elementary understanding of human nature knows that people compare their circumstances to others in their community, not to those of people living in a community half way around the world.

I suppose using your shrewd logic, Baghdad residents should look on the bright side of everyday violence and be happy they aren't being hunted (and largely ignored) in Darfur?

Which communist country did you live in?

I lived in the Philippines and they have huge disparities of wealth there along with the inevitable social strife that occurs in such societies. Is that what you want for America? Because the data suggests that is where we're headed. If you like it so much, why don't you move to the Philippines?

Regarding the 1% who make $800,000+ a year, I'd be interested in knowing how that figure was calculated. $800,000/year is a lot - I didn't realize there were that many people (even small/medium sized company owners) in Oregon who made that much.

One of the reasons for this is that the way the educational system works the primary benefits go mainly to those children whose parents are already in the upper middle class to well to do segments of the society. M.W.

I don't doubt these numbers, but maybe someone can help me understand something that's been bothering me about this for a while now. If the median income in OR is under $30k, and the median house price is something over $200K, how is it that so many live in owner-occupied homes? I know there are sub-prime loans, inheritances, long-term occupancies, etc., but it just doesn't seem like the 'typical' $30k family can possibly afford a $200k ($1600/mo, out of $2500) mortgage and the rest of their needs, not to mention saving up for any sort of down payment. Yet most people do live in $200K+ houses. If half the population is making less than that, where are they all? Just looking around, it doesn't seem to add up.

So does this mean that all of the state's programs devoted to bridging that gap can be deemed total failures? Or does this just mean that they need (even more) money in order to achieve those lofty goals...that they've yet to ever achieve?

because Ted K lies to Oregonians

I'm just thankful that the church is finally opening its eyes to the inequality on some level. I spent many years in "the pew" without much regard to anything going on outside of my church's four walls except if the people "had accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior" or not. Their well being, their income, their rights, their housing and job situations, were rarely of any concern.

So does this mean that all of the state's programs devoted to bridging that gap can be deemed total failures? Or does this just mean that they need (even more) money in order to achieve those lofty goals...that they've yet to ever achieve?

I'm not sure about the answer to that one. Should we also wonder whether the police and prison systems should be deemed total failures because there's still crime?

To Displaced Oregonian --- This data is a bit old, and I suppose subject to argument because it comes from "the state" (but it's hard to figure out why the state would want to look bad in this way). The state's official figures indicate that actually Oregon ranks in the lowest quintile (fifth) of the U.S. states for home ownership by owner-occupiers:

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/2005report/obm73.shtml

So a lot of of those families making $30K and less are in the 1/3 of Oregon families who don't live in owner-occupied homes. There is ample reason to suspect that all that the traditional factors you cite account for most of those families who make $30K and less who do live in owner-occupied homes. That in fact would make the picture worse, because it says that the chances for families who make $30K or less to move up to home ownership are even dimmer than one might assume from the ownership rate.

Admiral-

I think it helps to look at the cause/effect relationship here.

If the original problem we're wishing to solve is income inequality, the suggested solution then becomes to create government agencies to address the problem. The people hired to work in that agency, between salary and benefits, clear at least $100,000 per year. That salary is paid by people who make substantially less than that. After a few years of this, the agency looks at the data, and determines that the inequality still exists and that it needs more taxpayer dollars to solve the problem. Taxes are then raised, again, on people making $10 per hour in order to keep paying government employees $100,000/year in salary and benefits to try and solve the problem. And the pattern perpetuates indefinitely, and becomes worse in the process. In terms of crime and punishment, I would say that our current system is a complete failure, due largely to the high rates of recidivism. It would appear that the emphasis is less on rehabilitating criminals than simply keeping them away from the rest of us. But either way, I think you're comparing apples and oranges here, as these are two completely separate issues. By the way, I have nothing but respect for anybody who earns the title of Admiral. Thanks for your service to our country.

You have to love the way those clowns at the OCPP distort the data. They must not have a code of ethics over there or else maybe they are just too stupid to know what they are doing? Maybe they need to hire a real economist to crunch data. A good example is the chart where they compare the average high income with the median lower income. The only reason to mix average and median on the same chart is to distort the data. Good work Chuck, more useless drivel from the idiots over at the OCPP.

And redistributing the rich person's wealth to the poor people who did not earn it (because they are poor, not rich) is still a communist system.

How about merely taking away the wealthy's special privileges? You know, taxing investment income at the same rates as the bottom 90% have to pay on their salaries. How about making their special employee benefits - fully paid health care, company car, club memberships, etc. - taxable as the income they clearly are? How about treating white-collar criminals to the same punitive prison sentences that shop-lifters get?

By the way, those who derive most of their income from investments do not earn that income; they did not work for it. It is wealth that was created by someone else. So, how about policies that encourage those who actually create the wealth to receive a little more of the wealth that they've created?

Finally, wealth is power. That is the only reason to accumulate great wealth. So, concentrated wealth is concentrated power. Isn't concentrated power the very definition of tyranny? Yes, it is, and that is the primary reason why opposing the concentration of wealth and supporting policies that "redistribute" wealth are a good thing. In all of recorded history, there has never been a society with concentrated wealth that was not a tyranny.

Tangentially speaking, Warren Buffett (the third wealthiest man in the world) believes the wealthy (like himself) should pay higher taxes. An informal survey in his office found that he pays 17.7% taxes (payroll + plus income tax) and his employees pay an average of 32.9%. He claims to have no tax planning, no accountant, and no tax shelters.

"The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic and I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed." - Warren Buffet

Quibble over Buffet's proposed solution (a progressive consumption tax), but I think it is hard to argue that taxing the wealthy and ultra-wealthy at nearly half the rate of those in the middle class is fair or makes sense. Nor do I agree that making the wealthy and ultra-wealthy pay taxes at a more comparable percentage as the middle class is "wealth redistribution".

Buffet has gone so far as to offer his wealthy compatriots $1 million if they can show that any of their employees pay less taxes as a percentage of income.

Read about it/watch the video here: http://innonate.com/2007/10/31/video-wheaties-warren-buffet-shakes-things-up/

I suggest two links for anybody interested in the issue of income inequality.

The first is a piece that Paul Krugman wrote in the mid-1990s, called The Rich, The Right and The Facts:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_rich_the_right_and_the_facts

The second is Paul Krugman's daily blog page, called Conscience of a Liberal(which is also the title of his new book):

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

For those of you not familiar with his work, Paul Krugman is a very highly-respected macro-economist, who also happens to write two pieces a week for the Op-Ed page of the NY Times. His former boss is Ben Bernake, currently head of the Federal Reserve -- though I think the two of them may differ a bit on many of the issues.

And on the issue of income inequality, he puts it very well, describing how the monetary benefits of productivity gains in the American economy over the 30 years have not been shared equally among the population:

"...when incomes become more unequal, ... incomes at the top of the scale are rising faster than the average, incomes farther down must correspondingly grow less rapidly than the average. In an arithmetic sense, we can say that most of the growth in productivity was "siphoned off" to high-income brackets, leaving little room for income growth lower down. (This begs the question,) who was "siphoning off" the growth in average incomes, accounting for the fact that median income went up so little(?) The answer is quite startling: 70 percent of the rise in average family income went to the top 1 percent.

That is to say, 70 percent of the benefits accrued to the U.S. economy as a result of productivity gains, have gone to the top 1 percent of the population.

And this holds true as equally well in Oregon as in Manhattan and San Francisco.

Kevin,

That's as ambiguous an analogy as I've seen in a long time. See my comment about bitching in another M50 thread.

Harry... I really enjoy these "the rich get their wealth the same way chickens get eggs" song and dance acts right-wingers put on. It's like watching the Blazers veterans making the rookies dance at center court at the Blazers Fan Fest.

The look on right wingers faces when they try to act like they make the money they have through their own efforts, like they layed that golden egg under them themselves is just adorable.

Now, lets get serious.

Did that capital those right wingers have get circulated through the US economy on US economic infrastructure?

Damn right it did.

So you right wingers have to PAY to MAINTAIN a healthy US economic infrastructure. From roads, to airports, to ports, to a skilled work force, to an Army and Navy to ensure it's security. You right wingers are allowed to profit from the entire US economic infrastructure, then You right wingers are going to pay your fair share of the costs to maintain that economic infrastructure.

The chart is pretty useless because the OCPP used adjusted gross income to calculate income distribution. AGI doesn't reflect the economic reality of how much money people have in their pockets for (at least) three reasons: (1) people cheat on their taxes, (2) lots of people are paid under the table, and (3) there is a large black market economy (drug dealing,etc.) in the United States. People of all income brackets probably cheat on their taxes, so that may not tweak the overall picture too much. On the other hand, the under-the-table consturction workers and neighborhood drug dealers are probably not in the top half of AGI. Maybe the graph reflects reality, maybe it doesn't... but it's very arrogant to claim that AGI data tracks how much money people make and that there should be political changes based on that data.

I don't believe some of the hubris that glows in the dark of some of these comments. You guys don't have a friggin' clue.

This is not just an issue that "needs to be taken seriously" (so the government can consult the one percent-ers that donate to their comapigns and talk it to death)....this is an issue reaching critical mass.

The only answer is for the ridiculous eensy weensy nudges upward in wages to instead rise in increments keeping pace with the cost of living. Traditionally, as minimum wage increases are set to take place years in the future, by the time they take effect the cost of living has outstripped them, and/or higher taxes negate them. I have never heard of any workers celebrating a mandated 50 cent an hour wage hike. After taxes that is barely a blip on their paycheck.

There are many many industries that feed the portfolios of the one percent that rely on ordinary people having some disposable income. In order to continue living like royalty, they need the monthly financial crumbs from those $29,000 households. We are a nation of consumers, many of whom are now at the breaking point of only consuming just enough to subsist. Nothing extra....nothing old and worn out can be replaced. No savings, no heath, eye, or dental care, no home of their own. The money is just not there. And the price of everything keeps going up; every week.

One way or another, that 1% got what they have from the labors of 99%. We ARE headed for some sort of financial catastrophe in the U.S. and the only thing that can change that is to bring jobs BACK to the U.S. and start speading the wealth around so the economy can be fed.

Taxing big companies is not an answer...the people who need relief will not benefit from that. It is all about WAGES. Changing tax schedules for the wealthy will not change a thing for workers.

While you guys are considering statistics and deciding whether or not these charts are accurate, or who and how many people invest in what...try to imagine working your ass off for years at some crappy boring health-wrecking job and living from paycheck to paycheck, getting deeper and deeper into a hole you can never get out of because every time you turn around the cost of living has jumped and some new tax or fee or requirement from the state has conspired to take more of a bite out of your family's income.

All these struggling unfortunates are voters, and God help you all if they ever stop believing their vote doesn't count. I would like to see one politician, at any level, take a stand on behalf of lower income workers....and really mean it.

Never gonna happen until we see campaign finance reforms, and maybe not even then because most people who run for public office simply have no reference point for the poor workers' reality.

Hey, sorry if this sounds a little abrasive but really...you should listen to yourselves and be a little embarrassed.

blizzak,

Please supply us the income data that accounts for the tax cheating and unofficial income of Oregonians. Inquiring minds want to know. We wouldn't want to come to any arrogant conclusions.

Actually, I didn't come to any conclusions. I just said it was arrogant (probably a poor choice of words) to say that AGI reflects how much money people have in their pockets. I have met (1) people that cheat on their taxes, (2) people that work under the table, and (3) drug dealers. Perhaps my reality is tweaked and there are no people in the above categories except the ones that I've met. Of course there is no data. Do you belive AGI reflects how much money people have in their pockets?

I can't help but think about what happened in France when few held virtually all the wealth. These are the best of times, and these are the worst of times right here in the US of A. At some pont something's gotta give...

• A pile of studies show that not only income is becoming polarized, but that wealth is. The latter would not be the result of occasional capital gains by a large segment of the population. The OCPP is in line with US data in general.

• Of course there is a substantial unofficial economy. There has always been, which lowers its impact on studying changes in income. Also, there is plenty of off-the-books income among wealthy folks. Ever watch The Sopranos?

Tom,

Yes, I watch fictional depictions of New Jersey crime families on television.

But I don't use fictional portrayals of the mob to make any judgments about the size of the unofficial economy any more than I use them to make judgments about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Jersey.

paul g.,

<h2>I grew up on the east coast and knew personally some upper-income off-the-books earners. I mentioned The Sopranos because I don't run the risk of being whacked by fictional characters.</h2>