USA: The Great Prosperity / The Great Regression : 5 charts
from David Ruccio
The USA Charts
The Great Prosperity 1947– 79 / The Great Regression 1980 to now
Income gains by fifths 1947– 979
Income gains by fifths 1980 – now
Wealth redistribution
Household spending 1975 to now
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books

follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Irrational Exuberance — Robert Shiller’s modern classic
- India’s central bank launches new campaign against cash
- In Thrall to the Infallible Hand
- Economic methodology — Lawson, Mäki, and Syll
- The Religion of Economics
- Comments on rwer issue no 93
- CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution
- The Keynes-Tinbergen debate on econometrics
- We can do better with a thousand years
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Ikonoclast on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Asad Zaman on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- George H. Blackford on Economic methodology — Lawson, Mäki, and Syll
- Ikonoclast on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Ikonoclast on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Steven Klees on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Asad Zaman on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Ikonoclast on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Asad Zaman on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Gerald Holtham on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Steven Klees on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Gerald Holtham on Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics
- Gerald Holtham on Economic methodology — Lawson, Mäki, and Syll
- Meta Capitalism on The Religion of Economics
- Meta Capitalism on In Thrall to the Infallible Hand
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-

Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan

————— Herman Daly —————-

————— Asad Zaman —————

—————– C. T. Kurien —————

————— Robert Locke —————-

Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
Looks like one can draw the vertical line earlier, say ca 1971 for example…
This is consistent with the proposition that land rent absorbs much of the gains from economic growth. The high inflation of the 1970s caused real estate prices (i.e. land values) to escalate, and wages to stagnate, and the land-value based derivatives of the ozo years (2000-2009) pushed wealth further into the land-value bubble.
*sigh* …looks like I’m part of the “lost generation”….
Looks like one can draw the vertical line earlier, say ca 1971 for example…
David Harvey (and probably most) would date the end of the post-war ‘golden era’ to the 1971/1973 crises and the response to that.
Is it a coincidence that Nixon ended the gold standard in ’71 ?
@Strategist Further on that note, it’s worth checking out Leigh Harkness’s website and his Optimum Exchange Rate System. Se e.g.
http://www.buoyanteconomies.com/Impact%20of%20floating%20exchange%20rate%20Growth.htm
Olafur
You may find the charts and explanation in the following link more relevant to the US recession. I identify 1973 as the turning point.
http://www.buoyanteconomies.com/DebtIncome.htm
Looks to me like the vertical line is at 1979 and appropriately so. GDP per capita and median household income break down there as well. Excellent display. (One might include the explosion of government debt at this time, too, or slightly later. GDP growth. The Reagan regression?)
Piketty and Saez have interesting data also for 1920-1947. Guess what peaked in 1929.
I wish I had found that chart when I was trying to explain the relation between becoming slaves to stuff and slaves to employers.
http://nexusofchange.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/competitive-shopping-and-the-race-to-the-bottom/#comment-87
I believe part of this is due to over time….companies didn’t see workers as a valued asset..but rather as a necessary evil…so if someone would do the same job cheaper…then why not…companies demand allegiance from their employees..but do not give the same allegiance in return.
>Pay rose with productivity.
>And then didn’t.
It’s almost like something was introduced in the early 1980s that increased productivity without the need for additional human labor.
Whatever could it be?
http://bit.ly/1Nrt7Bo
Maybe, perhaps, the top 10%ers had tremendous gains in Net Interest Income (NII) from the sale of the increased production. Please does anyone have a chart showing the (NII)
from financing the apx. residential and commercial building sector. Maybe, $35 TRILLION, at an average rate of 5% ( a constant $1.75 trillion per year every year since the 70’s),since
each year the new production will at least replace the principal paid.
We have legislated this entitlement to the Private For Profit Banks, so please, do not blame them for doing a great job-“making profits”.
Great set of charts… I wonder if UK that follows an economic model similar to US, would mirror the above trends -thanks again
The long post-WW2 boom wobbled in 1971 but ended in 1974. Growth was slower after that in most developed countries. The big swing in income distribution occurred later shortly after 1979 when the wage share peaked and the profit share began a long rise.. The trends are confused a bit by cyclical recessions. You need two lines not one for two big changes: one from faster to slower growth, two from a stable or rising wage share to a declining wage share.. The UK is similar though the wage stagnation is not as marked and started later.
The slowdown was not caused by abandoning the gold exchange standard and will not be reversed by the invention of crypto currencies.