Display:
Here is the best I could find to figure the gain in wealth over the period. Most charts like to talk in percentages, not absolute dollar amounts so the calculations are mine.

Table 3. Mean Wealth Holdings and Income by Wealth or Income Class, 1983-2001   
(In thousands, 2001 dollars)               

Top Next Next Next Top 4th 3rd Bottom
Variable 1.0% 4.0% 5.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% All
A. Net Worth
1983 7,796 1,289 560.8 302.8 939.3 145.2 60.3 5.1 231.0
2001 12,692 2,453 937.4 490.3 1,604.7 215.3 75.0 2.9 380.1
% change 62.8 90.2 67.2 61.9 70.8 48.3 24.4 -43.6 64.6
% of gain 32.8 31.2 12.6 12.6 89.2 9.4 2.0 -0.6 100.0
B. Financial Wealth
1983 6,722 984 384.6 172.4 715.3 61.9 13.3 (6.9) 156.7
2001 14,075 1,833 669.8 301.5 1,388.4 102.7 21.5 (10.1) 298.5
% change 109.4 86.2 74.2 74.9 94.1 65.8 61.4 46.1 90.5
% of gain 51.9 23.9 10.1 9.1 95.0 5.7 1.2 -0.9 101.0
C. Income
1982 655 169 105.1 78.9 132.2 55.2 36.1 14.7 51.0
2000 1,117 224 139.7 102.3 186.8 69.3 44.3 17.9 67.2
% change 70.5 32.5 33.0 29.7 41.3 25.6 22.7 22.0 31.9
% of gain 28.4 13.5 10.6 14.4 67.0 17.4 10.1 7.9 102.3
Source: own computations from the 1983 and 2001 Surveys of Consumer Finances.  
For the computation of percentile shares of net worth, households are ranked according to their net worth;
for percentile shares of financial wealth, households are ranked according to their financial wealth; and
for percentile shares of income, households are ranked according to their income.
Source:
Levy Institute

Wealth increase over the period:
Households in 2000 is about 106,000,000
So top 1% = 1,060,000
Population 1983 234,000,000
Population 2000 276,000,000
Households in 1983 is about  90,000,000
Wealth in 1983 is 900,000 X 7,796,000 = 7,016,400,000,000
Wealth in 2001 is 1,060,000 X 12,692,000 = 13,453,520,000,000
Gain in wealth = 6,437,120,000,000

So, if I have done this correctly, the top 1% got about $6 billion wealthier in approximately 20 years. Not even close to the increase in the size of the deficit. Next conjecture will concern the size of the military spending over the period...

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 02:28:56 PM EST
I take it you have adjusted fur Purchasing Power Parity?
by ATinNM on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 10:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The figure is $6 trillion, not billion, which is not all that far from the US federal debt over this period.  

In the original post, you didn't say which deficit you meant:

  • Federal deficit?
  • Combined govt (federal/state/local) deficits?
  • Trade deficit?
  • Balance-of-payments deficit?
by tyronen on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 03:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oops! Thanks for catching that. I should use scientific notation.

My guess was that the deficits (domestic federal and trade) were basically used to make the rich richer. It seems like I'm mostly correct.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 04:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The figures being of similar magnitude implies at most correlation, not causation.  Even correlation requires stronger proof than that.
by tyronen on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 06:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Occasional Series