Slashdot Mirror
45,000 Verizon Workers On Strike Over New Contract
Trouble with your landline? If you have Verizon, especially on the east coast, it might not be the best time to have it fixed; The Daily Mail reports that "Forty-five thousand Verizon workers from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C., are on the picket line Sunday as labour contract talks fizzled. More than a fifth of the wireless giant's work force has gone on strike as contract negotiations for the wireline division broke down last night."
What impact will this have on Verizon's legendary customer service?
#DeleteChrome
Someone will hear about this, Verizon! I dema [Closing Link: tech.slashdot.com (Disconnected from server.)]
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
In other, totally unrelated news, Verizon reported a 6.3% earnings jump from last year at this time. Of course, since Verizon has less free spending money and has invested in their hopelessly out of date network to remain competitive with the 3rd world... they decided to cut labor and give themselves raises for being so smart!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
How dare they let their petty concerns over whether they get a pittance or a laughable pittance from Verizon's bloated coffers interfere with my right to vapid chatter?
Thank you for calling Verizon. To go to the main menu, press 1. To exit this menu and go to the main menu, press 2. To return to the main menu, press 3. To hear these options again, press 4.
4
Goodbye.
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
...will not be between Black and White, or White and Hispanic, or even Rich and Poor. It will be between those who get pensions and employer-provided healthcare and those who don't.
To a certain extent, but not all that far. A fair amount of POTS calls hit the Internet when they get to the local/regional call center. VOIP (from my understanding) mostly really only matters between the Verizon substation and your home.
I'll say up front, I don't know if the workers are striking because they don't have gold-trimmed toilet seats or their vacation benefits are being cut, but I don't really care. After seeing workers getting shafted in all sorts of industries, I'm quite happy to see at least one group of workers showing the middle finger to the execs.
Unfortunately, my family uses Verizon wireless, but I wasn't going to call customer service any time soon.
"To stop the terrorists."
Can you hear me now?
Filthy scab.
#DeleteChrome
There's one easy way to solve this: stop using landlines, fire them all.
I guess that would keep Verizon/telcos from gouging customers with ridiculously overpriced, useless, decades-old technology.
and do what drop fios for comcast cable? directv?
"We", kimosabe? Lots of problems have monetary solutions, if you are willing to spend enough money. Surely, you have heard of the free market. Do you really expect to attract hardworking, talented people, if you don't compensate them properly? Conversely, if you pay peanuts, why are you so surprised when you get monkeys?
sick time
time off
health plan
not only that let's go fedex and make then have to buy / rent the tuck and pay all costs even gas and repairs.
make them have to buy there own tools, cable and more.
Elementary, my dear Watson:
Rob Malda = R.M. = Rupert Murdoch
For years, News Corp has been propping up the Google, Linux, and HURD conspiracy through the awesome power of the Slashdot media empire. Verizon's use of red in their marketing is a signal to all the socialist bourgeois to take up arms!
Buy Windows 7 today, and join the resistance!
But that would essentially be the same as taking a pay cut, definitely something worth striking over. If the employees have to pay for their health-insurance, then surely they should receive an equivalent pay rise? I don't see why you don't just add a payroll tax and get everyone universal health care coverage though, in the end it's the same except employers can't get out of it and it will be way cheaper without all the insurers skimming huge profits and a single large payer to negotiate prices for drugs and care. (and as a plus, everyone is covered and your coverage can't be cancelled when most needed based on some technicality that they've been holding out on as I understand happens quite frequently)
What kind of insane labour laws would allow firing someone over exercising their right to strike?
Years ago, a UPS driver who was our "regular" guy told me that the drivers had to pay for scratches and damages to the trucks. That's one anecdote and I never verified it. So UPS already has been shafting their drivers.
"To stop the terrorists."
Yes, except I can't get FiOS where I live, so Verizon can't get me VoIP if they wanted to. Even if they did, I'd be hesitant to sign up for one reason:
Land lines are among the most heavily regulated, heavily redundant services provided. The northeastern US had a three day long blackout in 2003. Awesome time, actually (except the driving; none of the traffic lights worked). Between the time the power went out and the time it came back, I never lost a dial tone. I remember reading somewhere that the PSTN has nine nines of reliability (99.9999999% uptime). Not even the power grid can match that.
So yes, I'm a bit trigger shy at the thought of moving to a fiber optic system that has a 6 hour UPS installed, when the advantages are minimal over the PSTN on my side of the demarc.
Welcome to the real world USA.
Healthcare costs money, dosh mulah.
I'm lucky. I pay 11.5% of my income towards the NHS here in the UK. My empoyer pays a similat amount.
For that I get free healthcare at the point of demand. None of this not getting treatment for breast Cancer frm Medicaid because I am a man.
Instead I get perfect treatment for my Leukaemia when ever I need it. No 'Do you have insurance' questions first.
Instead I got perfect treatment when I crashed my Motorcycle after hitting a deer and dislocating my shoulder. No, 'Do you have a credit card' questions first.
When I worked in the US my employer had to pay top dollar to get me insurance because of my Leukaemia even though I was (At that time) in remission and a simple three monthly blood test would show if it was on the way back AND give me time to return to the UK for FREE treatment.
Yeah, I despise the US Healthcare insudtry. They are a bunch of money gragging leeches.
That is IMHO a sign of what is so wrong with the USA today.
Far too many people making a living without contributing to the national wealth.
The new american dream, 'You too can live beyond your means. Just print a few more dollars, no one will ever notice honestly."
remove healthcare from all jobs and make it be it's own like personal car insurance
Depending on the union contract UPS drivers have to pay for damages to their trucks, but the UPS drivers also get things like the ability to retire with a full pension and health insurance after 20 years. Now this just changed and they added that you had to be older than 57 to retire. I just had a conversation with a guy griping that he had to wait another 10 years to retire. He thought that was just not fair, I mean he was 45 and had 18 years. But he said it wasn't all bad, because he had 8 weeks of vacation a year.
I have mixed feelings about this one. I think it is fair to expect Verizon's union workers to contribute money towards their healthcare costs. Just about every other employer makes their employees do so.
"My job sucks, so it's only fair that other people's jobs should suck too instead of taking the effort to organize with my coworkers and demand that our job suck less."
The rules are a bit complicated, but in some circumstances it's legal to hire permanent replacement workers. There's a summary of some of the relevant law here.
The Daily Mail reports: blah blah blah, don't acknowledge the existence of The Daily Mail.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
They can't even treat their workers right, and we expect more from their customer service... *sigh*
If only had a choice.
Check ...
Me and the 7 million other unemployed Americans will be happy to take these jobs and will be proud to be non unionized. Keep it up union
http://saveie6.com/
Non-Americans do not have to pay for these outrageous coverage fees and poor service. You can be jealous which is understandable, but it is unsustainable and not fair to yourself and other workers.
Why not help someone do something about it. At the current rate people will be all out in the poor house paying over 50% of their paycheck to greedy HMOs by law.
http://saveie6.com/
There are only 450 strikers. Nothing to worry about.
Old fable:
A poor peasant in a desparate country is plowing his field. Suddenly his plow turns up an exotic looking lamp. He brushes the dirt off the lamp and out comes a genuine middle eastern Genii.
The Genii speaks, "I am greatful to you for freeing me. Normally I would grant 3 wishes to whoever frees me but I am far from home, and have only the strength to grant one wish. Whatever you like - wealth, power, fame - is yours for the asking."
The impovershed peasant thinks and thinks. What one thing would bring him the most happiness?
Finally the peasant speaks, "I have my wish now, Genii."
The Genii says, "And what is your wish?"
The peasant replies. "I want my neighbor's cow to die."
American politics is like the peasant in the fable. We have the ability to achieve great things together. Instead we use our energy to ensure someone as desparate as ourselves suffers more.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Erm, you do realise you have NI numbers that show your entitlement to healthcare in the UK?
It's free to citizens, EU members and those who are here over a certain time limit. Thats it.
There's nothing to be mixed about. Verizon employees feel it's worth it to strike, let them strike. I don't want a union where I work right now because it wouldn't benefit me, but history has shown when we outlaw the ability for workers to strike, it causes real problems.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Lets go on strike and risk what few jobs we do have. Ya, that makes tons of sense to me?!?!?
Smart move CWA.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I see. "I have to pay for a small part of my healthcare" means "my job sucks".
Let's all organize and demand unlimited freebies until executives cut their pay to $50,000 per year. I'm sure they'll be doing that almost right away. Remember all those times that executives cut their own pay to under $100,000 at all those other companies?
Insightful, not flamebait.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
"in the end it's the same except employers can't get out of it"
There you go.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Only.. the "rich" pay the majority of the taxes, both as a percentage overall and as a percentage of income.
sure, it's the Daily Fail and it's to be expected, but the summary (drawing form the article?) clearly seems to be trying to get customers mad at the workers.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
What's your point? You seriously think the "poor illegals" won't get their free health care as well? Or their children? We have a population of poor people larger than most of the countries in the EU. Things won't work the same way here.
http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com/
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
I have mixed feelings about this one. I think it is fair to expect Verizon's union workers to contribute money towards their healthcare costs. Just about every other employer makes their employees do so.
If employee's should be forced to contribute to their company provided health insurance...
What is the difference to paying a tax that provides universal health care?
Answer: The tax will cost less.
Signed,
An Australian.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It's fun that you think your employer pays 11% of your pay for NHS...
Take amount you think you're getting in compensation. Your salary, the value of any benefits you're getting, etc. before taxes.
Now take the amount you think the your employer pays on your behalf. The NHS benefit, any payroll type taxes that also don't show up (does the UK have something like FICA?) etc. These numbers might be more difficult to find, as they might not printed directly on your pay-stub.
Add those numbers together. That is what you're worth to your employer.
Actually, it's the lower bound of what you're worth to your employer. If you weren't doing something worth more than that amount to them, they simply wouldn't be able to afford to keep you on. You might be worth more to them. Perhaps quite a bit more, even.
But that is, at least, the level of compensation that you both agreed to. Both of you weighing in factors of what you needed to do, and what you could do against the market of other workers. Do you really think that without the government demanding that a portion of your compensation be spent in a certain way, that you wouldn't be able to get that level of compensation and that you wouldn't be better off if you could spend it yourself in the way that is most beneficial to you?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Indeed. Verizon workers should be perfectly free to strike. Also, Verizon should be perfectly free to end their contracts and hire new people *. Let everyone vote with their feet.
*Unless said contracts include a clause which prevents this....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Yawn, more fucking lies and rabble rousing. Even after all that stuff the wealthy pay more taxes as a percentage of income, though it's at least closer to equity. And let's not forget the fucking wastes who pay $0 and actually derive money _from_ the government, that's a good sizable chunk.
Yes, even after the mythical "tax deductions". No matter how many times you say "fat cat", it won't change the fact that the rich pay the bills around here, _and_ they pay the salaries of the rest of us.
I find your pathetic rhetoric laughable. Frankly I'm glad the wealthy have disproportionate power. If comes down to a numbers game. The rabble have the numbers and the vote, the rich have the voice and the political power. If the rabble start tipping the balance and taking more and more money from people who work, we're fucked.
I realize that's your wet dream, for the poor people to rise up and use their larger numbers to make radical changes. Too bad it'll never happen - poor people (as a class, not individuals) are fucking stupid and will never rise up or do anything of worth as they're by definition lazy and useless. The only thing the poor class (again, not individuals - many poor individuals are exceptional human beings) is good for is spitting out children they can't take care of.
The state of the economy is pretty darn irrelevant. If the company is posting good results obviously they can afford to pay their workers more.
If you're accepting pay cuts because 'the state of the economy' even if your company is doing well, then you're an idiot.
Depends on whose perspective. Verizon is paying more. Workers will pay more. Looks worse from each end. So it seems like a pay cut, but it depends on your perspective.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The strawmen you're referring to get free healthcare NOW. They get it in emergency rooms for an order of magnitude more money than it would cost to provide reasonable preventative care. They get heart valves replaced for six figures because they can't afford $500 to get an abcessed tooth pulled. And everyone else foots the bill.
Of course, as the poster mentioned already, it's also not the most difficult thing in the world to have some access controls in place. How would you go about getting a doctor's visit fraudulently billed to Medicare today?
The Plutocrats are not the ones in charge, if they were, they would never have allowed their planet to be demoted.
I am not sure what planet the Tea Party is from.
So the poor are getting stomped becuase they're stupid? Still doesn't seem fair...
Whe you say "landlines" do you mean the physical lines or the service?
The physical lines are indeed antiquated but they neeed to be maintained until such time as they can be replaced with something more modern. Remember DSL is delivered over the same lines as POTs.
The service of high quality and reliable phone calls needs to be maintained somehow. VOIP over the open internet works well most of the time but it's sufficiantly unreliable (especially with SIP behind NAT) that i'd be wary of depending on it for a buisness.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Were these workers outside of their two year contracts? 450 workers x $300 = $135,000. Seems this might be nothing more than nice bonus for a Verizon exec.
The strikers will tell everyone they'll show up to the picket lines somewhere between noon - 4PM. They'll show up at 4:30, knock quietly once, leave a "Sorry we missed you" sticker and go home.
How do you figure a tax will cost less?
I don't think you understand how inefficient our bureaucracy is.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Verizon's wireless division is hurting, the need for their services is shrinking. Yet they want to pretend it's still the gravy days. No, they can't just mix it in one big pool with the profitable wireless division, since that's a joint venture with Vodafone. Aside from that, how would the wireless people feel about their profitable division being drained by the unprofitable wired division? Sorry, no raises for you this year, we had to bail out the wired division.
Here are some desired concessions:
Contribute to their own health care premiums: I've always done that.
Freezing and killing pensions. That does suck, but the other side is an expanded 401k.
Five sick days a year instead of unlimited: When was the last time I got sick days at a company?
Deny raises to sub-performing employees: This can be an issue only for the lazy, which is probably why it's an issue.
$200 billion is supposed to be a lot of deductions, right? Well, when you divide it by the 31 million companies that exist in the United States, that is less than $7,000 each. I had more tax deductions than that myself and so does anybody with a couple of kids and a house.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I actually did the calculations using the IRS numbers. I also tried to adjust for Social Security taxes (both sides = 12.4% on the first $107K), Medicare (2.9%) and State taxes. The latter varies wildly depending on the state, but a good rough estimate overall is 10% on the first 100K (mostly sales tax, excise tax and misc. fees) and 5% on income after the first $100K (mostly income and property tax). Note that the rich still pay 10% state tax on the first $100K. This drop in effective taxes occurs because consumption and thus sales taxes are lower as a percentage of income in higher income groups, they are more likely to be able to avoid taxes by buying non-food expenditures on the Internet or while traveling, they are more likely to move to low or no-income-tax states. Even without the state tax approximation, or making a flat or progressive approximation, the qualitative results are the same.
By dividing the average AGI for each category by the estimated after-tax income and subtracting the result from 1 we get the effective tax rates:
(add 1 to 5% to percentages above $100K if you don't buy the state tax calculation)
Total average tax rate: 34.89%
No adjusted gross income [1] 100.00%
$1 under $1,000 25.31%
$1,000 under $3,000 25.58%
$3,000 under $5,000 25.52%
$5,000 under $7,000 25.70%
$7,000 under $9,000 25.85%
$9,000 under $11,000 26.01%
$11,000 under $13,000 26.36%
$13,000 under $15,000 26.60%
$15,000 under $17,000 26.84%
$17,000 under $19,000 27.12%
$19,000 under $22,000 27.52%
$22,000 under $25,000 27.87%
$25,000 under $30,000 28.40%
$30,000 under $40,000 29.36%
$40,000 under $50,000 30.31%
$50,000 under $75,000 31.35%
$75,000 under $100,000 32.21%
$100,000 under $200,000 34.83%
$200,000 under $500,000 39.90%
$500,000 under $1,000,000 42.76%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 43.29%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 43.31%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 43.15%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 42.36%
$10,000,000 or more 40.04%
[1]These people had negative income but still paid income tax, and presumably other taxes as well - the nominal rate was set at 100%, though it is really infinite.
But if we subtract a nominal $10K from the average gross earnings in each category to represent a minimal after-tax budget for essentials such as food and shelter:
Total tax burden after paying for essentials:
Total 51.35%
No adjusted gross income [1] 100.00%
$1 under $1,000 1935.57%
$1,000 under $3,000 523.62%
$3,000 under $5,000 276.33%
$5,000 under $7,000 192.67%
$7,000 under $9,000 150.84%
$9,000 under $11,000 125.98%
$11,000 under $13,000 109.77%
$13,000 under $15,000 98.06%
$15,000 under $17,000 89.41%
$17,000 under $19,000 82.67%
$19,000 under $22,000 76.34%
$22,000 under $25,000 70.44%
$25,000 under $30,000 64.82%
$30,000 under $40,000 58.10%
$40,000 under $50,000 52.64%
$50,000 under $75,000 47.62%
$75,000 under $100,000 43.78%
$100,000 under $200,000 42.33%
$200,000 under $500,000 43.38%
$500,000 under $1,000,000 44.23%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 44.12%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 43.89%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 43.48%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 42.51%
$10,000,000 or more 40.08%
You would have to reduce the budget for essentials to less than $5300 before a family making $40-50K (mean $44.8K AGI) would not be paying a higher tax rate than one making $200-500K (mean $288K).
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Here are some numbers relating to the US federal income tax:
- the top 2% of earners in the US pay 43.6% of all federal income tax (while earning 24.1% of all income)
- the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (while earning 13.4% of all income).
- the top 5% of earners (which equates to an average income of $137,056) pay a whopping 57.1% of all federal income taxes.
For more recent figures (2007) 3.22% of the returns (AGI over $200,000) made 40.39% of the total income and paid 54.65% of the Federal income tax. But this does not count Social Security or Medicare taxes, nor does it count State taxes. These latter are regressive taxes.
Estimating these as above, the $200,000+ club made about 29% of the after-tax income and had a total tax burden in the neighborhood of 43%, compared to an average for the whole population of about 35%. This doesn't seem unduly high, especially if any allowance is made for subsistence, as in my post above. (And nearly 97% of the population made less than $200K, so that group has little effect on the overall figures.) The total tax burden number for the category of "$200K+" is pulled down somewhat by those making over $10M, who paid only 40% on average.
More than half of all federal income tax (55%) comes from those making $50-500K. (Again, this ignores, Social Security contributions, which almost all come from those making less than $100K -SS is a flat 12.4% tax with a cap at $107K; less than 13% of returns are above $100K. These SS receipts were $784.9B in 2007, vs. total income tax receipts of $1116B). Once we add that in, we see that about 56% of the taxes are paid by those making less than $100K, a group that only earns around a 47% share of the income.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Interesting - thanks for the additional info.
Of course, the "fairest" system would be a single flat income tax or a single consumption tax (where here I'm defining "fairest" as "each person pays an equal share of what they earn/spend"). Then, using your figures above, the 56% of earners making less than $100K would contribute 56% of the revenue. The benefits of such a system would include eliminating the enormous tax-preparation industry that exists simply because the tax code has become so confusing and complicated.
Are you using the stats here http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm ?
What's interesting is that if you plot this data out, comparing share of income with share of households, some things jump out:
- from about $52K to $100K, share of income almost exactly matches share of households;
- from $100K to $150K, the share of income jumps dramatically compared to the share of households: the percentage of all households in this division is 11.54% however this group earns 20.70% of all income, the second largest discrepancy;
- for the groups in the $150K to $200K and $200K to $250K, the discrepancy drops (to 4.10% households/10.42% income and 1.53%/5.04% respectively);
- at $250K+ the discrepancy rises again dramatically, to 1.93%/13.01% (the biggest point spread of all);
- the halfway point for households is about $50K: 51.36% of households make less than that while 48.64% make more. The share of income is 19.47% ($50K);
- there are almost certainly some extreme outliers at the top end.
Unless you have a system whereby the government entirely dictates who gets what, there will always be natural discrepancies between share of households and share of income, just as two people who sit in adjacent cubicles may make different salaries based on their perceived worth to their employer. And there will always be those who decry any result as "unfair". I guess the better question is: is it possible for a household to make the jump from one income tier to the next?
I arbitrarily picked 2002 data (which you can find here: http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032003/hhinc/new06_000.htm) and compared it to the 2007 data. This shows that the number of households in virtually every category below $85K decreased (notable exception: the number of households earning between $70K and $72.5K increased 11.84%) while the number of households above $85K increased, in many cases dramatically (for example: number of households earning $85K to $87.5K increased 5.39%; $87.5K - $90K: +6.94%; $90K - $92.5K: +8.19%; $92.5K - $95K: +11.52%; etc.).
What can one conclude from this? Well, everyone seems to be making more money (note: the data does not seem to correct for inflation, but inflation has been historically low during the sample period). The rich are getting richer, if you define rich as those making more than $85K. The richest households saw the greatest number of new entrants: there was a dramatic increase in the number of households earning $100K - $150K (+27.46%), $150K - $200K (+53.08%), $200K - $250K (+47.62%) and 250K+ (+45.97%). My quick analysis of that leads me to believe people are capable of bettering their place on the income ladder in the US. YMMV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZIHE3qYEtE
Thanks, I'll take a look at the census data. I was working from the IRS data at: SOI Tax Stats - Individual Time Series Statistical Tables, but some data for more recent years is also available in more difficult to use form at: SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income. The IRS data has categories on higher levels of income than the census data, and this allows seeing just how concentrated income really is at the top. For instance, nearly 1/6 of all income in 2007 went tho the 0.28% making over $1M per year.
Here is the 2007 IRS data, with "share" defined as "Share of total income divided by percentage of population". An equal share = 1. Also shown is the percentage of households falling into each category.
Income - % of Population - Share .3.25% . 0.16 .. .2.44% . 4.73 .. .. 0.46% . 11.16 .. .. 0.12% . 19.86 .. .. 0.05% . 28.33 .. .. . 0.076% . 49.17 .. . . 0.02% . 112.68 .. .. .. 0.013% . 502.49
$5,000 under $7,000 . . 3.38% . 0.1
$7,000 under $9,000 . . 3.47% . 0.13
$9,000 under $11,000 .
$11,000 under $13,000 . 3.37% . 0.2
$13,000 under $15,000 . 3.33% . 0.23
$15,000 under $17,000 . 3.18% . 0.26
$17,000 under $19,000 . 3.04% . 0.3
$19,000 under $22,000 . 4.42% . 0.34
$22,000 under $25,000 . 4.06% . 0.39
$25,000 under $30,000 . 6.30% . 0.45
$30,000 under $40,000 . 10.31%. 0.57
$40,000 under $50,000 . 7.80% . 0.74
$50,000 under $75,000 . 13.60%. 1.01
$75,000 under $100K . . 8.21% . 1.42
$100K under $200K . . . 9.41% . 2.19
$200K under $500K .
$500K under $1M .
$1M under $1.5M .
$1.5M under $2M .
$2M under $5M .
$5M under $10M .
$10M or more .
(The % of all income earned by each category can be found by multiplying the two numbers together.)
Another interesting statistic is that those making over $1M make nearly as much as everybody earning under $40K combined. (That's 57% of the population making about the same as 0.28% of the population).
While inflation supposedly has been low (I'd say it has been understated at least 1-2% during this period to make GDP growth appear positive and keep government cost-of-living-adjustment expenses down), even using the official numbers that's compounded so that a 2002 dollar is worth over $1.25 today. If the inflation figures are too low by 1.5%, its more like $1.43. Inflation for the rich has likely been higher than for other segments of the population - for instance, boarding schools have quadrupled tuition over a period when the CPI only doubled (since the late '80s).
So using the official figures, $100K today is $79.7K in 2002. That is a big enough difference that eyeballing the figures is not going to work. The problem is that the categories themselves are what needs to be adjusted for inflation, while the available figures are categorized by nominal dollar earnings, so it's hard to compare across years. The Census data also shows the cutoff earnings for each quintile over time, and these can be inflation-adjusted. Here's a graph of that. In inflation adjusted terms, essentially all the real increase in earnings over the past 40 years has gone to the top 20%, virtually all of it to the top 5%. (That's in dollars. In percents things look more even, but that's an illusion.) The bottom 20% have seen shrinking / flat real earnings for several decades. Many people will rise over time in the distribution, but on average the lower you start, the lower you end up, and the more quickly income gains will tend to stop. With
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry