

The bottom 90 percent are poorer today than they were in 1987 - wslh
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/22/the-bottom-90-percent-are-poorer-today-than-they-were-in-1987/

======
patio11
The bottom 90% are also younger than they were in 1987. [+]

(People really do not have a good intuitive understanding of how claims
comparing statistical distributions over time map to facts about individuals
in the world.)

[+] I'm having a smidgen of trouble sourcing this soundbyte, so if you'd
prefer, you can rewrite it as "Americans are on average 6 years older than
they were 30 years ago", which is conveniently demonstrable via Census data.
[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0007.p...](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0007.pdf)

~~~
fennecfoxen
Yes, and as long as we're pointing out that, let's note that this graph
measures (real) wealth, not income (and certainly not transfer-adjusted
incomes).

Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession
(surprise, surprise) while the headline itself plays up the "bottom 10%"
impact. Clickbait for a certain crowd.

~~~
vidarh
> Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession
> (surprise, surprise)

It _also_ points out that the reason for this is that most people have most of
their assets in property. And so most likely saw little to nothing of the
large increase in paper-wealth before the recession, or in fact in many cases
saw it negatively affect them due to higher mortgages.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
You have a strange definition of everyone - one that conveniently ignores the
massive gains in wealth made by the 1%.

The age difference is a nitpick, and almost entirely irrelevant to the obvious
political and economic implications.

