620
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
620 points (95.1% liked)
News
35962 readers
3179 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Idk it certainly seems that the top 1% had a great run 2016-2020. Not so much 2008-2016. Great run going up to 2008 though.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
Wow this is a shitty graph. What more can you expect from the religious right think tank of Pew Research.
Why the hell are they going in 9 year buckets? Why not standard decades, or president? Or, for that matter, single years and a trend line.
Why does the first bucket start conveniently after Black Monday but still partway through HWs term?
Why does the second bucket soften the blow of post 9/11 slowdowns and the dotcom burst by ranging from the the first half of Clinton’s second term up to just before the 2008 recession? And of course, includes most of the tail end of the dotcom buildup.
Why was this article published in 2020, graph normalized in 2018 dollars, and conveniently stops in 2016?
Do people not think critically about the data they ingest? This what “just asking questions” should be…why, exactly, is this graph so particular? Because it really seems to me that it is deliberately cherry-picking data to show to drive an agenda.
I choose this graph specifically because it disproves his point that the rich did not do well after 2008, which is obviously false. Wealth inequality grew under Obama, it was not some liberal magic that stopped it during that time.
It's organized that way because it's a section about the Great Recession.
Here's another example for you: https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
Oh no, looks like it did get worse.
I didn’t say they didn’t do well after 2008. I said they didn’t do as great as they did in the years prior.
Reading comprehension.
The comment I posted the graph to did, that's the whole point and it is true wealth inequality grew after 2008.