I agree that incomes for the middle class and upper class have probably gained that much percentage-wise, but I think the money numbers have to be wrong. How could 46.2% of the top 20%ers be $2,364? That would mean they only make $5000 or so a year? And I am probably in the middle income bracket, but I know 8.3% of my income is much more than $216. I think you guys need to check your numbers.

This information should come as a surprise to no one. While our poorest citizens have struggled simply to survive, the wealthy in our state have been cruising along quite nicely.

I believe it's because of a legislature more focussed on their own careers than on the people who elected them in the first place. That's progressive Oregon for ya...

I believe it's because of a legislature more focussed on their own careers than on the people who elected them in the first place. That's progressive Oregon for ya...

Actually, and with all seriousness, I think it's the "progressive" community in Oregon itself, or at least the segment that make themselves visible on places on BO, the DPO, vanity efforts like the Bus Project (that says nothing about the sincere volunteers by the way), and the peculiarly ineffectual Oregon chapters of many national groups, that are too blame. When you have a Democratic Party and substantial numbers of people from the aforementioned quarters defending really mediocre leaders like Kulongoski, Wyden, Hooley Merkley, Bates, Westlund, and even Kitzhaber (not to mention real dullards like MacPherson, Koger, Bradbury and the like), just to name a few who have been vociferously defended in what I've read here in the last few days, as the "best" instead of apologizing to the world for the failure of the leaders we pick to defend the old Democrat values of standing up for working people, you know we have a big, big problem.

Of course, one just has to read the really marginal intellectual quality of the defenses offered, and how it mainly turns on the obviously immature mental faculties and egotism of the writer --- as in "I like them, so you should recognize that is all that matters" --- and it all becomes clear.

This post, and the study, are being used to prove something they don't prove. That's not to say the "gap" isn't important, but it doesn't prove the change in income statistics.

The study compares the populous by looking at their relative income in the year studied. The study therefore does not seem to account for the fact that people may well have moved here during that time span, and earned a high income. If high-paying jobs are created, and people move to Oregon to take those jobs, then it will effect this kind of snapshot statistical analysis. By contrast, to prove that someone's income is actually increasing or decreasing, one would need to take a sample of people, and study how their particular incomes changed in 20 years.

So SDL thinks Oregon is infested with “really mediocre leaders.” Well, fine – if you don’t like them, then convince the moribund Republican party in Oregon to stop nominating knuckle-dragging wing nuts for statewide offices.

When given the choice between “really mediocre leaders” and right-wing lunatics, we’ll go with the former every time.

Chuck, we get it already, you hate rich people. Go ahead and move to Cuba, we won't miss you. Really, move already, we're tired of your "johnny one note" posts. Most of the time your're too stupid to even get your data correct. Guess that is what happens when a lawyer with an agenda pretends to be an economist.

The OCPP makes an outstanding contribution to our understanding of how the system really works. Thanks for this post, Chuck.

I agree that the numbers are somewhat persuasive and that decades of poor oversight and inadequate regulation of corporate elites have enabled a massive transfer of wealth to them, which needs to be addressed. But to really understand what's going on, there needs to be some analysis of certain demographic cohorts - age and income groups. Demographic changes, such as migration and the aging Baby Boomers, can create massive shifts in averages, masking how well people are faring at various levels.

The Democrats need to be very careful how they address this. Public and private pension funds are heavily invested in Corporate America (a very clever strategy by the capitalists when you think about it), kind of like taking us all hostage. Any action that threatens their profitability also threatens the nest eggs of millions of lower and middle income working people. We need a strategy that reins in the abuses (environmental, outsourcing, etc.) and curbs executive looting without victimizing the hostages.

Just a word about a possible strategy of raising capital gains taxes. A more efficient approach would be to tax only windfall profits by exempting inflationary gains from tax and raising the tax rate substantially and progressively on gains exceeding inflation.

Let's be smart about how we approach this problem, but let's get moving on it soon.

As revealing as we might find this data, it is worth considering - as many here know - that an even more robust financial measure of prosperity today and possibility (e.g. for one's children) tomorrow is wealth, not income. In the mid 90s a book called Black Wealth, White Wealth helped me see this distinction. The two authors, one white, one African American, both had followed similar career trajectories and earned almost identical incomes, yet had very different capacities to provide for their families. The major reason? They had dramatically different levels of financial assets that largely stemmed from what, if anything, they had inherited plus whether they had had access to housing appreciation or were shut out due to redlining. Their book showed how people with identical incomes (even middle class) could have dramatically different levels of prosperity due to assets. And this is not just about race. As one of the coauthors, Melvin Oliver, said when I saw him speak, "I came in through the door of race and went out through the door of assets."

So when I see the data Chuck provides, I ask: 1. What about assets? 2. If we could measure wealth differences and track this over time (yeah, impossible, I know), would this change what policies we advocated for? Obviously, this leads us to multimillionaire inheritances - which amputate the American work ethic, create mini-kingdoms, and set a poor example for our children - but what else?

Even with an income increase of a meager 8.3 percent, the middle class in actuality is loosing ground due to the legislature’s greed to increase taxes and fees that far exceed the $216 per year middle income wage earners have gained. When increases in property taxes and tax levies are calculated in, the taxes the middle class now must pay contribute just as much to the looming recession as do high energy and food prices.

Hey Ralph, when you tell Chuck "WE won't miss you" are you speaking of the rich who don't want this info. out there, or conservatives pretending they're not conservative?

I'm interested to hear more from those who think that public policy is the main, or even a sizable, cause of the growing income disparity. What is the government doing that exacerbates the problem? I tend to think that public policy can have a small impact in either direction, but the cause is much larger than that. Globalization and the move towards a knowledge-based economy are leaving people behind.

On a related note, Steve, what is it that the Democrats would do for the poor if they supported us in greater numbers? The party has some marginal programs that might help -- like better primary and secondary education, an increase in pell grants, and universal health care -- but nothing that can compete with the global market forces at work here.

Miles, it's what the government is NOT doing.

• no economic development strategy
• no energy policy
• not regulating monopolistic practices (enough)
• not policing corporate misconduct
• not ensuring quality education
• not planning for the time when gasoline is $20 a gallon (coming soon to a station near you) by encouraging public transit, passenger rail, compact development, etc.

Stuff like that.

I'm dubious about the data - I don't care as much about how the top 1% are doing as how much opportunity exists for everyone else. I was able to get out of poverty into a great middle-class career during this period; how many others were able to do the same? (And how many more moved here from even more depressed economic areas, keeping low income flat)? If my middle class salary isn't as much higher compared to someone's middle class salary in the 80's, as a billionaire's is to a millionaire's, who cares? The point is to get people out of poverty.

The recommendations are good though:

Leachman called for policies that produce more broadly shared prosperity, including basing Oregon’s tax system more on ability to pay.

Additionally, Leachman said that lawmakers should enact policies that promote opportunity, such as expanded job training, worker-friendly leave and child care policies, a more affordable higher education system and a health care system that is more accessible to all Oregonians.

I think we can agree on that and have a better chance of pushing such policies without resorting to class warfare rhetoric about how the trend of the top 1% is "tearing our social fabric and threatening our democracy."

Some very interesting economic modeling has shown that widening of wealth gaps is an emergent property dynamic systems with a minimal of free individual behavior. This means that classical economics is wrong; the market by itself does not magically achieve the best, most efficient result. But it also means that those who demonize the wealthy are wrong; it's a structural problem we can address by growth, fair taxes and public infrastructure, not by vilification of wealth and demagogic hyperbole.

I'm interested in hearing more on what policies people think we should pursue to help us address inequalities. Where do we go from here?

For those interested in equity issues in the Portland metro region, the Regional Equity Atlas measures access to opportunities like affordable housing, transit, parks and grocery stores. It's a good tool to help us see how we're doing as a region.

note/ shameless plug:

I work for the The Coalition for a Livable Future, which published the Equity Atlas in conjunction with PSU. We're hosting the Regional Livability Summit in May and our main focus is to look at strategies to address equity. All are welcome at the Summit.

Kari:

You really think this is the best study that can be done? Seriously? There are decade-old studies on tons of issues that are more detailed and hidden than income (e.g. from yesterday's paper, whether women with a 36 inch waste line are more likely to die). I suspect a researcher could even do a retrospective study, i.e. find an appropriate sampling of people, and survey how their particular incomes have changed over the past 20 years.

A much better measure/study of economic disparity is measuring poverty rates. I believe Oregon has improved a little, but is still in miserable shape. That kind of discussion doesn't pit rich against poor, but instead asks what can be done to benefit the most economically needy people. If nothing else, the comments on this post prove the point -- rich vs. poor debates are not a particularly effective way of getting everyone to talk about policies. And the harshness of discussion is exacerbated when the "statistics" being used don't prove the point made.

The idea that this is a Republican vs. Democrat problem seems a bit naive to me. It's a mindset problem.

Who are these wealthy people? Mostly white males who had rights and priveledges handed to them. Most of them had wealthy white male heads of their households growing up.

And who are the poor? People of color, white folks who grew up on the "wrong side of the tracks", single parents who chose the wrong partner, and people with disabilities.

Good education and opportunity are hard to come by when it's mainly reserved for a chosen group. Then you have corporate media (run by who?) filling these people's heads with lies about how it all works.

Let's not make believe it's anything more than government controling the masses. It's been going on since the beginning of time.

Jack, while there is upward mobility, there is also downward mobility---people doing well in the 1990s are not necessarily doing well now. A layoff, huge medical bills, moving for a better job and not being able to sell their old home (esp. in a depressed area like Jackson County) all can contribute to people who were once secure financially being worried/scared about their financial stability.

And yet, over recent years the Republicans have been the party of "tax cuts solve all problems".

There has been talk among Republicans I know about "restoring the brand"---there was a time when Republicans were the dominant party in this state. But that was back in the days of Hatfield, McCall, Paulus, Clay Myers, etc---people who probably couldn't win a primary in today's Republican party where anti-government, tax cutting, slamming public employee unions, rhetoric like "we must have spending discipline but don't ask for specifics of budget cuts".

There are some common sense Republicans beginning to become well known. Mike Huckabee's views on education (regardless of what you think of his views on anything else) would have led Minnis, Scott, Richardson et al to brand him as some kind of "liberal". So why was he the last candidate standing outside of McCain?

St.Sen. Frank Morse is admired by people who used to be Republicans but either got fed up or were told by the dominant faction around the time McCall died that they didn't belong in the GOP, aka "we don't want your kind".

Huckabee talked about small town folks and the problems they face--something the GOP hasn't discussed for years.

It is going to be interesting to watch this year and see what happens with these issues. If someone brings up income disparity (incl. people working part time who would like to be working full time but can only find part time work) and a Republican (candidate or activist) begins an answer with "But the Democrats..." they will deserve scorn. From late 2000 (remember the chants of "he won, get over it!") until election night 2006, Republicans were in control of this country, and blaming Democrats is not likely to win over people who are not strong partisans but are either in financial difficulty or know someone who is.

Chuck has taken issue with me over the fact that his numbers are wrong. I don't disagree with what his article is saying, but THE NUMBERS DON'T MAKE SENSE! So then Chuck has the nerve to e-mail me and try to explain himself, even though he obviously needs to learn how to write as well as do math in his head, because anyone with a 3rd grade education can figure out that 46% of the top 20% income bracket PER YEAR is not $2300. That would mean that the top 20% income bracket would make somewhere around $5000 a year....duh. Get a life Chuck.

I have to wonder how many degrees in rhetoric are represented here. Argument seems to be more important than truth.

After reading through these comments (and so many comments lately) I'm surprised people still put themselves out there and post on BlueOregon anymore. You people are harsh.

Thanks Katy, I wonder where all the progressives are?

Policies that would help:

expanding food stamps, medicaid, and welfare/JOBS programs so people who need a little help to become self-sufficient. Currently welfare reform (from 1996, then 2001) kicks people off welfare as soon as they get their first fast food job. we underfund job training in these programs so people don't build long term capacity to care for themselves and their kids.

fund major child abuse prevention campaigns

fund drug treatment

fund public safety efforts to hold domestic violence perpetrators accountable (we don't...)

massive earned income tax credit expansion coupled with tax reform

clamping even further down on predatory lending policies

and I'm not EVEN a poverty policy expert.

You know, it's kind of sad for me to say this, but I know a lot of republicans who show more compassion than the poor than I've read above (but I still think they are voting for the wrong people).

One important thing both parties should do to bring more equity when it comes to income for the middle class is to find compromise by eliminating taxes on capital gains when a person’s total adjusted income is falls within what would be considered a median income bracket or less. Then raise the tax on capital gains for people in the very top percentiles of income. The concept could be designed to be revenue neutral as it relates to taxes collected by the government, would act as an incentive for small investors and also would help protect income erosion for many people that rely on stock dividends to supplement fixed incomes.

Rose's ideas are good ones, and I would support them. Making life marginally better for those at the bottom, as Rose suggests, is a good idea, but it won't close the income gap. Similarly, the gap isn't being driven by CEOs giving themselves $50 million bonuses, since the number of people who have the ability to do that is too small to move the overall numbers.

So why is the top fifth (about $127,000) farther away from the bottom fifth than they were 20 years ago? It seems to me that the income gap is growing due to larger global and societal forces. We're fully immersed in a knowledge-based economy, and if you don't have that knowledge, you aren't going to be able to keep up. Used to be that a high-school grad who was hard-working could do a blue collar job most of his life at a manufacturing plant and be solidly in the middle class. There are very few of those jobs anymore, and due to the oversupply the pay hasn't kept up.

But if you have knowledge, you're going to do quite well. Take a teacher, which is one of the lowest-paying knowledge-based professions. A family with two teachers with graduate degrees with 10-15 years experience will be pulling in about $100,000 in Portland. 20+ years experience, and they'll be pulling in $120,000, which puts them in the top 5% of all families in Oregon. Not too bad, and the pay only goes up from there for other knowledge-based jobs.

I think the "solution", which is very long-term, is to give everyone the educational opportunity to participate in the knowledge-based economy. That means much better schools. And since the bell curve is such that not everyone will succeed, it's incumbent upon us to also create a high-level floor (minimum wage, universal health care, social security, etc.) below which no one will fall.

Exactly why I am trying to stop Illegal immigration.

A flood of "will work for anything" peoples in the tens of millions has stagnated wages to the most needy, the working un-educated poor.

Harvard Prof. of economics - Dr. Howard Borjas( a legal immigrant) just assisted the Arizona case brought on by the ACLU & other ethno-centric groups, to prove that illegals have drastically reduced or staganted wages to the tune of over $1 Billion in lost pay just last year. He & the working people won and AZ. can make companies check the immigration status of workers. Same in Oklahoma. And wages are rising there already!

Supply & demand is simple, Employer has non stop option of hiring 3rd worlder thrilled to get even min. wage(or under the table for less), employer takes advatange of this supply. If employer had lower supply of workers, especially from countries where $1/hr. is normal, employer would be forced to pay more for limited supply of workers.

Example; My Black Brother-in-law, factory worker in Salem = $11.90/hr. After Union dues, Insurance & Taxes he brings home not even $400/week, with a Family of 4 to take care of. I made $10/hr. roofing in Bend in 1978. Hello?

And yes Republicans reducing min. Fed income Tax from 15% to 10% Is a 50% cut for the lowest paid workers and you Democrats want to get rid of that? Democrats such as Jeff Merkley do NOT want employers to hire Americans and pay them well? (He stopped an employer check status bill). Democrats beleive that illegals who are paid under the table or paid low wages pay ANY fed income taxes or ANY state income taxes? And their non English speaking kids @ $12,700 each per year in a Bilingual School is "Good for the economy"? Hello?

I am sick of American workers suffering and I am doing something about it, why aren't you?

My bad, thanks for the correction Darrel. I was thinking "top fifth" but wrote "top 5%."