The End of the Middle Class Century: How the 1% Won the Last 30 Years

fugue

http://www.theatlantic.com/busin ... st-30-years/262221/

Between 1921 and 2008, the top 10% and the bottom 90% shared income gains equally. The split was 50-50 exactly, according to a new fun interactive graphic built by the Economic Policy Institute with data from economist Emmanuel Saez.



But between 1971 and 2008, real income declined for the bottom 90%. All the growth went to the top 10%, and more than half went to the top percentile.



Saez' income data is widely used, but also controversial, since it focuses on market wages and discounts gains from government programs to help the lower-income. But this is a familiar story. The remarkable gains of the (broadly-defined) "middle class" in the middle of this century stopped cold in the last quarter of the 1900s. The all-important and impossible-to-answer question is whether the next generation will look more like the 30 years after World War II or the last 30 years.

solidtu

坐等顶楼内容的自由联想……比如top 1%是些神马人啊，从事神马职业啊，与资产周期以及新科技的联系啊，与社会主义福利制度以及相关货币财政政策的联系啊，71年以前为神马能够比较均衡啊，与工业革命的关系啊，与世界先进生产力以及霸权的转转的关系啊神马的。

solidtu

我在想这30年的现象的原因是不是因为国家干预经济的理论得到系统性应用的结果？我隐约感觉这是近30年最不一样的地方。（哈耶克好像在70年代挺活跃的，他好像抱怨过“现在人人都是社会主义者”……）

要证明这个假设的真伪我目前想到的是要做下面几个事情：

1，看看凯恩斯的学生将他的学说系统化理论化的时间以及里程碑式的著作。我记得图书馆经济类里有个小类是福利经济学，可以查查那一类书的作者及其主要观点。

2，看看凯恩斯主义的学者在政府担任要职的人事任命及其时间。

3，看看诺贝尔经济学奖当时的潮流。

当然要是有更简单的办法就更好了……因为上面的活其实挺无聊的，没有文献学基础搞起来比较麻烦。