aujourd’hui<\/a> un commentaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abThe New York Times reported Thursday on an analysis of income tax data carried out by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of University of California-Berkeley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, well known for their work on income inequality.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbTheir research indicates that in 2005 the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people, received their largest share of the national income since 1928: 21.8 percent, up from 19.8 percent only the year beforea 10 increase percent in one year. The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of over $139,000, or about 14 percent.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005also the highest percentage since 1928, on the eve of the Depressionan increase of 2 percent from 2004, and up from 33 percent of the reported total in the late 1970s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people) and top one-hundredth of 1 percent (30,000 people) enjoyed the greatest increases of all. The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year, according to David Cay Johnston’s article.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl ne faut pas, nous semble-t-il, trop s’attarder \u00e0 la m\u00e9canique des chiffres ni \u00e0 la situation \u00e9conomique. L’important est la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 sociologique et psychologique dont rendent compte ces chiffres, si on sait les interpr\u00e9ter. Cela ne signifie pas n\u00e9cessairement une nouvelle Grande D\u00e9pression, cette tentative de pr\u00e9vision ressemble trop \u00e0 de la divination, cela signifie une fragilisation extraordinaire du tissu social am\u00e9ricaniste au moment de tensions multiples, comme il n’y en avait certainement pas dans les ann\u00e9es 1920. De ce point de vue, cette rencontre des chiffres entre aujourd’hui et l’ann\u00e9e d’avant la chute de l’Am\u00e9rique est un facteur important pour l’\u00e9tat d’esprit de ce pays.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 30 mars 2007 \u00e0 08H37<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Il faut \u00eatre attentif aux symboles, et les USA eux-m\u00eames y sont particuli\u00e8rement sensibles. Rien ne r\u00e9sonne plus comme un symbole de calamit\u00e9 dans ce pays que le terme Grande D\u00e9pression (d\u00e9tonateur du crash boursier d’octobre 1929, d\u00e9t\u00e9rioration \u00e9conomique dramatique \u00e0 partir de l’automne 1930, jusqu’aux abysses de l’hiver 1932-33, une trag\u00e9die nationale et la… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3228,3083,2891,6553,3099,6477,2804],"class_list":["post-68670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-crise","tag-depression","tag-grande","tag-inegalite","tag-psychologie","tag-richesse","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}