I am curious, TB
Do you think I don't know how to read graphs?
The second chart and the one you posted tell the same story- and its a grim one.
And you agree that the idea of a rotten economy is some people getting rich faster than others?
No, that's the straw-man you want to argue against, but its not what I am saying. I am saying that an economy where the wealth gets concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer is not sustainable.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/18/deep-end-wall-street-bonus-pool-low-wage-workers/
To put these figures in perspective, we’ve compared the Wall Street payout to low-wage workers’ earnings. We’ve also calculated how much more of a national economic boost would be gained if similar sums were funneled into the pockets of the millions of workers on the bottom end of the pay scale.
The $28.5 billion in bonuses doled out to Wall Street employees is double the annual pay for all 1,007,000 Americans who work full-time at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Wall Street bonuses rose 3 percent last year, despite a 4.5 percent decline in industry profits. The size of the bonus pool was 27 perfect higher than in 2009, the last time Congress increased the minimum wage.
Its not sustainable, but it looks unlikely to change:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0
Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.