click for larger chart
IncomeGuide_2013_Jan17_RGB_page-11_11
Source: Visualizing Economics

 

When it comes to the top 0.01 percent of earners, it is extremely challenging to describe the differences in terms of income. Words often fail to convey the massive range.

Fortunately for us, Catherine Mulbrandon of Visualizing Economics has put together a simple chart that shows just how fantastic the spread was in 2010 between those who are merely rich and the fabulously wealthy. This is an unweighted scale. It isn’t skewed for population. It merely ranks top incomes by dollars earned.

Continues here

Category: Data Analysis, Digital Media, Wages & Income

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

11 Responses to “Income Distribution Like You Have Never Seen It”

  1. A says:

    And the sad news is, only a pittance of all that obscene wealth ever ends up with charitable organizations.

    A rounding error of that wealth would provide breakfast for a lot of hungry children, in the ‘best country in the world’.

  2. rd says:

    It certainly makes it clear why the Carried Interest provision for hedge fund fees is so critical to the US economy. The hedge fund sector would be impoverished by having those fees counted as ordinary income instead of capital gains. The loss of these critical cogs of American enterprise would emperil our ability to move freight across the country, innovate new products (where would Silicon Valley be without hedge fund mavens selling puts on oil?), manufacture our goods in our own heartland (do we still do that?), and own homes (John Paulsen’s shorts of sub-prime mortgage loans were absolutely essential to maintaining the US housing market).

  3. USSofA says:

    Pretty much sums up the definition of ‘statistical outlier’

    • Init4good says:

      Spot-On. Scale too wide – would be better if the scale started at 0 and ended at 1 Billion.

      • san_fran_sam says:

        Pretty much sums up the definition of “New World Order”

        I welcome our oligarchic masters.

  4. KJMClark says:

    Geez, I was having a so-so day anyway. That pretty much ruined it for good.

    And yet again, the President proposes to close the loophole that lets that jerk at the top get away with paying 20% on their income, while the rest of us pay based on the marginal tax rates.

    And yet again, Congress responds with the sound of crickets.

  5. stonedwino says:

    Literally off the charts…bring out the guillotines!

  6. end game says:

    Has anyone else noticed the massive effort by those on the right to recast equal opportunity as “equal incomes”? By setting up and knocking down that straw man, they hope to divert attention away from their efforts to de-fund every program, such as Head Start, day care for poor working mothers, the EITC, and college loans, that might help the poor actually enter the free enterprise system.

  7. JMH says:

    Is it possible to determine how much wealth has been created by the top 0.01%, or anyone else in the top tier of income distribution? Presumably the top hedge fund managers are paid a percentage of the money they make for their investors, institutions and others who manage money for individuals in much lower income tiers. Would beneficiaries be better off without a few extremely well paid people managing their money? I can only say that I don’t know since I am not certain as to how to measure this. Clearly Jack Bogle would say the lower income demographic would be better off in index funds, but there might be a case to be made for highly paid manager in a few instances.

    My general view is that it does not matter how much money people make, as long as they produce more wealth than they consume. I think most would agree that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jonas Salk, and Craig Venter have all produced more wealth than they could ever consume. A dictator of an impoverished country is on the other end of the extreme.

    I would also guess there are more company founder / CEO billionaires than those of the hedge fund variety. While not the founder* of Tesla, Elon Musk certainly is creating more wealth than he is consuming. Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergei Brin and many others certainly have produced more wealth, too. Shouldn’t high net worth individuals be included in the graph?

    * Tesla was started by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.

  8. [...] Ugh Visualizing how much the 0.01% make - Barry Ritholtz [...]