>>So you agree it's IS about perception which, contrary to Atwater, is not reality. Thus, again the crux of the issue. This is not pre-Revolution France and people are not "stuck" in their quintile or "class".

That's a mighty leap. The authors say that quintiles are "not necessarily the same" across the years. That's a basic statistical principle of demographic population studies: static is not necessary for the conclusions to be valid. You seem to read the "not necessarily" as some sort of proof that there's a robust quintile exchange that will preserve the Republic. You may be right, but it's not what the report is about and you've provided no evidence. Certainly I would take a bet that some populations are definitely static- parts of Detroit spring to mind. IMHO they would spit your assertions about dynamism back at you, or worse.

>>This statement reminds me of baseline budgeting where not increasing as much as previously budgeted is considered a cut. Here you claim that even though the income of the lower half rose, because it rose less than the upper half that they went backwards.

Only a particularly foolish straw man would try the comparison you have come up with. It's actually very simple: since you have agreed that the economy grew 62%, quintiles who grew less than 62% went backwards compared to the overall economy and quintiles that grew more than 62% increased their share. This mathematical truism forms the basis for the paper. Relying on median would shroud the truth that practically everybody went backwards while a fortunate few reaped a bonanza.

>>When I look at these numbers I see the obvious. "It takes money to make money" or "the first million is the hardest". It does not surprise me that incomes increase faster the more money one makes. There are many types of investments and capital gains that are simply not attainable until one has money to risk. There are even laws in place to prevent underfunded investors from risking their limited capital. Work harder, get a second job, save and invest. Anyone can do it and people from all walks of life have.

Only a particularly foolish straw man would disagree with such truisms. However, there have been wealthy people for a long time without needing to concentrate so much at the very top except for the sort of places that are currently enjoying revolts. Whether the masses can be labeled "jealous" isn't much help once they decide they've had enough.

>>This whole income distribution distraction boils down to jealousy and the Occupy movement has solidified that. Occupy looks and acts like a bunch of spoiled children who are angry at their failures in life and are throwing a tantrum at anyone who appears successful, claiming they must have cheated to attain their success, because to believe otherwise is to turn the mirror inward and that's terrifying to an entitled mind.

Only a particularly foolish straw man would accept your connection of the authors of this paper to a loaded description of a protest group. As for jealousy: you're saying that Warren Buffett is jealous, as is his growing cadre who are concerned about income distribution? Ha. Try again. ;-)

>>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

Some of that will be familiar to you: Lobbyists for the big banks made the winning case that forcing them to break up was “punishing success,” Brown says. Yep, nasty jealous people wanting to punish wealthy bankers and their shareholders who deserved every $B of the welfare sent their way so they wouldn't risk their own capital on which they'd paid a huge 15% tax, if any. And the result? Apparently something that could unite the Tea Party and Occupy. If they can get past the habit of demonizing each other, that is.