Killing the spider plant

spiderplant

I recently killed a spider plant. I did my best to keep it alive, but the southern exposure was too intense and even a spider plant couldn’t handle it. Still, it’s depressing, being the kind of person who managed to kill a spider plant.

The U.S. economy is a lot like that spider plant — almost impossible to kill, and yet, we did it anyway.

Incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans only grew by $59 on average between 1966 and 2011 (when you adjust those incomes for inflation), according to an analysis by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston for Tax Analysts. During the same period, the average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071, Johnston found.

To put that into perspective: if you say the $59 boost is equivalent to one inch, then the incomes of the top 10 percent of Americans rose by 168 feet, Johnston explained to Alternet last week.

4 Responses to Killing the spider plant

  1. imhotep March 26, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    “We” had nothing to do with killing the economy. Ronald Reagan and his Milton Friedman supply side (trickle down) economists killed the economy. They killed economies all over the world by forcing uber-Capitalism on everybody. In reality the Capitalist economic system died in 1929. FDR resurected it from the dead for a time by shifting the accumulated wealth of the 1% downward to the 99% with a Social Security system, a minimum wage, unemployment payments, and a massive public works program. The 1% has always wanted its wealth returned to them. And every president since Reagan has been told to get it down. “We” either need to hammer the Capitalists of the 1% or pack up what little we have left and relocate back to Europe.

  2. Alek Hidell March 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    You actually believe those numbers?

    Taking 5 minutes to Drag stuff off the internet, mostly from the gub’mint:
    –(median) income of families in 1965 was $6,900
    –2011 Median household income falls to $50100
    From an inflation calculator:
    –What cost $6900 in 1965 would cost $48539.73 in 2011.
    So,
    $50100
    -$48540
    =$1560

    What cost $59 in 1965 would cost $415.05 in 2011. Obviously not $1560.

    Total crap article and you just eat it up because it’s what you want to hear.

  3. lless March 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    Same old liars poker game Alek. The government shifted to household income to obscure the huge loss of purchasing power of the middle class. So you trumpet those lame hypothesized household figures from the sixties when the metric wasn’t even maintained. Then you completely ignore the fact that Johnson’s figures are individual wages and disaggregate the the top ten percent. I call. Your numbers are crap.

  4. Tom March 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    Beyond this, we only have about 10 years (if that) before the atmospheric pollution we ignore daily prevents any vegetation – trees, plants, crops, etc. – from growing. When there’s no food available what good is money? Already, if you’re paying attention, you’ll notice that an awful lot of trees are dying (or already dead but still standing).

Site Meter