>>>>>Put simply, the individuals within the quintiles are not static even though the quiltiles definitions themselves are.
>>>
>>>By definition, demographic populations are dynamic. Even so, as a term it's not much help to fit young people who want work in communities with unemployment into double figures. To them, claims about dynamism may be a modern version of "let them eat cake".
>>
>>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".
>>
>>>>>After-tax median income (half of the population is above the median, half is below) grew by 35 percent.
>>>
>>>Median is useful for other purposes, but for this purpose all it tells you is that half the population definitely went backwards in their share of economic growth. It doesn't tell you what happened in the top half. Specifically it doesn't tell you that most of the top half also went backwards while the top few grew 275%.
>>
>>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. For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979.
>>
>>>This is why the report used quintiles. Just as well, because otherwise interested observers might not realize that the middle class also went backwards... we know that a prospering middle class is a crucial component/aspiration for dynamism as a source of growth and vigor.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>This is why they do not lay their blame, but rather seek support from the government (their surrogate partent). They want daddy to beat up the bad guy (banks) and mommy to sooth them with assurances that all will be ok (more regulations) and buy them a new toy(pay their student loans, extend unemployment, etc). If they admit their parents guilt (after all DC WAS the one who wrote the BIG check to the banks) then that makes their goose the bad guy, then where will they get their golden eggs?
>>
>>Update : I should've written that DC WAS the one who wrote a BIG check not the BIG check. After all the $700 billion lended publicly is actually less than 10% of the $7.77 Trillion lent behind the scenes.
>>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
>>
>>and now there too bigger to fail.
>
>To me it has been a masterful spin job to redirect attention from Wall Street as protest targets to the protesters themselves. The whole OWS movement started as an outraged protest against the financial institutions who got us into this mess and are still sticking it to us every chance they get. Somewhere along the line the protesters came to be viewed as lazy, resentful, spoiled, jealous failures. That undoubtedly does describe some of them. But not all of them. Bankers and investment bankers have done the seemingly impossible: come to be viewed as victims. Amazing.
>
>IMO Barry Blitt, the incomparable provocateur of The New Yorker, nailed it once again ---
>
>http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/The-New-Yorker-Cover-October-24-2011-Prints_i8533744_.htm

Sounds like exactly what you're doing to the Tea Party.