Okay, Then (4.00 / 1)

Maybe I won't do a diary about this, after all.  How to compete with a snazzified chart life that?

First time I ever saw anyone go all velvet Elvis on financial data.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 22:37:42 PM CDT

Excel 2007 is dangerous (4.00 / 2)

But the b&w; original was a little too austere for my tastes.  

Also I always find it hard to tell which shading pattern represents which part of the graph, particularly when they start using dotted areas with small variation in the sizes of the dots or spacing between them.  Ugh.

The top 0.01% taking 6% of national wealth is tacky enough to warrant some velvet Elvis I think.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 22:51:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can you get data for other countries? (0.00 / 0)

I believe that income inequality is up all over the world, not just in the USA.  I'd like to compare similar data for more progressive / "socialist" states, like Sweden, to get an idea how much is "US specific".

Also, the data really should be after-tax.  I suspect it will look a little less bad, but still bad.

---

by: MorganConrad @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 00:06:42 AM CDT

Yes. (0.00 / 0)

In Saez's excel sheet, if you look at figure 12, he has data for the US, UK and France for the top 0.1%.  I almost made the post about that chart instead.

To save you downloading a 4MB document, the latest data he has on each country has the US at 8%, the UK at 4.5% and France at 2.5%.

It's actually a pretty neat chart because you can really see the effects of particular government policies, mostly Reagan and Thatcher.  France never followed suit and kept its high tax brackets high, and its top 0.1% are soaking up significantly less of the national income.

Hmm, I guess whether the data should be before or after tax is debatable, but I suspect the US would look even worse in comparison to the UK and France in that case (though the absolute numbers would decrease) since both of the latter still have higher top tax rates.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 00:17:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

German bank regulator BaFin puts new limits on bonus payments (4.00 / 1)

Germany, Drawing Crisis Lessons, Tightens Bank Bonus Rules
Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Germany will tie banks' bonus payments to longer-term profitability, drawing lessons from a crisis that pushed the world financial system to the brink of collapse.

Under the new rules to go into effect on Jan. 1, short-term profits can no longer determine bankers' bonuses, the BaFin financial services regulator said in an e-mailed statement today. Bonuses have to be repaid if deals prove too risky in retrospect, BaFin said.
...
Individual bonus payments in future will have to be tied to the performance of departments and the bank as a whole, said BaFin, which shares supervisory authority with the Bundesbank. The new rules implement recommendations of a working group chaired by Bank of Italy Governor Mario Draghi, Bafin said.
...
The Handelsblatt newspaper today reported German banks will have to set up bodies -- staffed by risk-control and human- resources managers -- to supervise bonus regulations. Banks will be given until the end of the year "in principle" to revamp their bonus systems, BaFin said.

http://www.easybourse.com/bour...

I have to say, I'm really a bit proud about my country because of this. Honestly, I didn't hold high expectations that something meaningful could come out of this. But this looks good, and will significantly reduce short term oriented gambling on the financial markets - if properly supervised, which may be the weak point. I guess this new regulation became possible because of the huge public outcry about banks saved with taxpayers Euros giving obscene Boni to managers. Which was really too much, especially now, during the election campaign. Both big parties were forced to get behind tougher rules.

So, folks, public pressure can result in better regulation. Increase the heat on Dem lawmakers to come up with new rules against greedy bankers engaging in speculating for their own good! We all know now that this kind of gambling can literally "break the bank". Put an end to this!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:41:29 AM CDT

Oops, wrong link attached to the quote! (4.00 / 1)

The quote above is from Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
However, the easybourse story is good, too. The difference is in the details that are reported.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:47:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yikes! (4.00 / 1)

What a luscious display of a circumstance that is nearly (?) obscene.  And, how appropriate that you "snazzified" the chart.  Various sources on the web suggest the etymology of snazzy as a possible combination of snappy and jazzy with its origins in the 1930s.  Well. I could go on about gilded lilies, but you've already determined that I have nothing to add to a speaks for itself post.

---

by: bystander @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:40:04 AM CDT

Obscene Inequality (4.00 / 1)

So the top 0.01% averaged $28 million dollars in income, each.  Wow.

The minimum wage is now $7.25 or $15,080 annually for someone who works a 40-hour week. At this rate, a minimum-wage earner would make $754,000 over a 50-year worklife. So at $28 million annual income, the average person in the top 0.01% brings in more money in 2 weeks than the minimum-wage earner earns in an entire lifetime.

Given how our society often equates one's worth with one's income, this means that society values two weeks of the life of a super-high earner as more important than the entire life of a minimum-wage earner.

Is it any wonder then that the death of poor people (through war, lack of healthcare, industrial accidents, etc) is valued so little in our society and that the super-rich have so much power.

This level of inequality is truly obscene.

The lcurve also has an interesting way to visualize the enormity of the inequality.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:02:53 AM CDT

Chart is wonderful (0.00 / 0)

I've never seen income disparity displayed so well. It really helps to have a graphic view of 20th century America like that graph

---

by: Brian in Seattle @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:35:02 AM CDT