It's looks like you are correct:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_transient_income_classes.html


>No unfortunately, you're not understanding some basics of the US economy, which allows you to read the "stuff" (ut won't allow me to use the word I really want to use) on heritage foundation.
>
>84,000 and above is the income of 20% of the households (a family living under 1 roof). I do believe there is a fundamental change occurring with the US economy. I was reading about this a while back. How people were earning upwards of $20/hr from factories in rust belt cities. Now their jobs are shipped overseas, the jobs left for them pay maybe $12-14/hr.
>
>Much like the long tours forced on our US military straining families, so does this reduction in pay.
>
>>What I found amazing is this phrase:
>>
>>the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000)
>>
>>The top fifth of U.S. households is anyone with an income over 84,000/yr? Since when? I guess that means 168,000/yr for two income households?
>>
>>
>>
>>>I especially found this para interesting...
>>>
>>>"Inclusion of taxes and non-cash aid substantially reduces economic inequality. In stage 1, the bottom quintile was shown to have 3.5 percent of total income; by stage 2C, this number had risen to 5.35 percent. The income share of the top quintile falls from 49.6 percent in stage 1 to 46.16 percent in stage 2C."
>>>
>>>Only the Heritage Foundation could define 1.35% as "substantial".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I think you may find this interesting:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm
>>>>
>>>>I *guess* they hinge their whole argument on the fact that the Census Bureau quintiles have unequal "populations" in them.
>>>>
>>>>Somehow I trust the Census Bureau's techniques by far over the Heritage organization. The Census Bureau has been using various methods for well over a hundred years... long before there were MBAs and other 'statisticians' paid for specific results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting opinion on why current events don't equate past downturns:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?ex=1360645200&en=033f6da01d771f7d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss