Could you cite your source for this real-income-is-dropping assertion? There's so much information out there (much of it contradictory) that I can't figure out where you're getting it.
But my first reaction to your comment is that "does it matter if 'real income' drops if I can still buy more things with the less income?"
For example, let us suppose that fifty years ago I could earn 20% more in real terms than I can today. (Of course, in 1957, my job, or jobs like it, didn't even exist, but that's a side issue.) But today with that "less money" I can buy a car, a color TV, a personal computer, a mobile phone and an iPod. In 1957 most of those didn't exist, and I might not have been able to afford a car.
The presence of some super-wealthy people in the population does not by itself mean that everyone else is worse off today than they were half a century ago. I expect that most Americans would say that they are better off now than they were in 1957, assuming they were old enough to make the comparison.
no subject
But my first reaction to your comment is that "does it matter if 'real income' drops if I can still buy more things with the less income?"
For example, let us suppose that fifty years ago I could earn 20% more in real terms than I can today. (Of course, in 1957, my job, or jobs like it, didn't even exist, but that's a side issue.) But today with that "less money" I can buy a car, a color TV, a personal computer, a mobile phone and an iPod. In 1957 most of those didn't exist, and I might not have been able to afford a car.
The presence of some super-wealthy people in the population does not by itself mean that everyone else is worse off today than they were half a century ago. I expect that most Americans would say that they are better off now than they were in 1957, assuming they were old enough to make the comparison.