But this analysis doesn't explain the change in the share of income the %1 has accumulated to itself in the last 30 years.
In other words if this analysis were complete, we would expect to see straight line growth.
In other words if this analysis were complete, we would expect to see straight line growth.
A more detailed analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-demo...
Until this fact is acknowledged, they have no business even bringing up numbers.
Another possible point of confusion: Maybe the top 1% aren't merely wealthier, maybe the top .1% is more numerous. Wouldn't that be good news?
You may want to rethink that.