[awshepard]

Without meaning to quibble with the numbers in the article, they point out that the bottom 50% of income has gone up $8,000, while the top 1% has gone up $800,000, which is indeed a 100x difference in absolute numbers. But on a relative basis, the bottom 50% of earners' incomes have gone up 42%, and the top 1% have gone up ~250%. Still a large difference, but not nearly as extreme as 100x.

Is there merit to analyzing these numbers on an absolute vs. relative scale, and/or is that beside the point? Does it miss the point if analysis like this doesn't also look at the cost/standard of living in those time periods too? E.g. if a particular standard of living that cost $19k in 1970 (manageable in the bottom 50%) now costs $21k, that's a great boon, but if it now costs $30k, that's probably a bad sign.