>Nowhere does the CBO say that period comparisons are invalid because of dynamism. Appendix A of the full report describes the detailed process required to ensure that data is suitable for that exact purpose. If you want to shoot down the intended meaning, there are better targets than dynamism IMHO.

As I mentioned to Mike : is the question of income inequality relevant in a dynamic economy as opposed to the historically cited nations whose concentraction of wealth was not dynamic as a result of a stagnant feudal, monarachial, etc system which allowed no movement

From the CBO report : Thus, the population with income in the lowest 20 percent in 2007 was not necessarily the same as the population in that category in 1979.

Put simply, the individuals within the quintiles are not static even though the quiltiles definitions themselves are.

This, again, is important regarding your 1% argument and your statement of here we go again. As I wrote : You're implication by here we go again is that the US is repeating a historical cycle based upon income inequality. I am countering that the US is on another path do to the dynamism of our ecomomy and the ability of it's citizenry to move between income levels. The historical examples are of class systems directly preventing income mobility.

>But it's a waste of time: google "CBO Wealth Distribution" and you'll see that the CBO's meaning is well understood.

We agree, the CBO's meaning is well understood. ;)

As is Ryan's. Ryan's 1st key point : The question for policymakers is not how best to redistribute a shrinking economic pie. The focus ought to be on increasing living standards, expanding economic opportunity, and promoting upward mobility for all.

>Since not everybody will understand that much of your quotation is from a partisan attempt to deny wealth disparity,

The Ryan report does nothing of the sort as it includes the very points you cite below.

>here is what the CBO thought its report was about:
>
>CBO finds that between 1979 and 2007:
>
> For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent.
> For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
> For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale, the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent.
> For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, the growth in average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent.
>
>Since growth across the period was 62%, middle and lower income people went substantially backwards. These simple concepts are staggering if you plot them on a graph.

The Ryan report cites these points and goes further by pointing out that Considering the population as a whole, real average after-tax household income in the United States grew by 62 percent over this 30-year period. After-tax median income (half of the population is above the median, half is below) grew by 35 percent. But the trend of absolute gains across all income levels was not the focus of the study. Instead, the CBO sought to analyze the distribution of these income gains and their uneven growth over time.

It further states : In attempting to draw conclusions from the CBO study, particularly in terms of how it might inform policy prescriptions, it is useful to contextualize the analysis, acknowledging the limitations that the CBO placed on the scope of its study, as well as alternative interpretations of similar data. Recent commentary on this issue 0ften draws sharply divergent conclusions based upon legitimate differences regarding how to frame the challenge. Proper context can help advance a more informed debate on how society can best secure the natural rights of all citizens to freely pursue their happiness.