What we’re looking at is a graphic that’s put together by The New York Times. And it’s a way of thinking about how incomes have grown since 1980. So before we even look at the various percentiles of income this black line is interesting to look at because this is real per capita G.D.P. And you can see relative to 1980 real per capita G.D.P. has grown, it looks like about 80%. And that’s interesting because in theory if all of the growth of productivity of a country were evenly distributed, then everyone would be growing on that per capita G.D.P. line. But what’s interesting about this graphic is we clearly do not see that. So for example, folks with incomes in the 90th to 99th percentiles, their income actually is growing in line with per capita G.D.P. And in the year that this was compiled that would be someone after taxes making $120,000 to $425,000 per year after taxes. So that’s a good amount of money, someone making $425,000 after taxes might be making roughly $700,000 or even $800,000 before taxes. But we see a spread for people making more or making less. The folks in the top 1%, their income has grown about twice as fast as per capita G.D.P. And folks in the 0.01%, so this is one out of every 10,000 people, their income looks like it is grown roughly five times faster than G.D.P. And obviously if some folks’ incomes are growing faster than per capita G.D.P. other folks’ incomes have to be growing slower than per capita G.D.P. And we can see that the middle 40%, their growth, it looks like it’s about 2/3 as fast as per capita G.D.P. And the bottom 50%, it looks like their growth is about a third of per capita G.D.P. Now some folks might say, hey this is alarming we see an increase in inequality as our economy grows. While some might say, hey, this is a side effect of capitalism. Everyone’s income is growing in real terms. But in a capitalist world some people might grow more than others. But regardless of your point of view it’s interesting to think about why we see this spread happening and we’re not going to be able to dissect all of it right now but I’ll talk about some of the areas of interest that might explain this phenomenon. And it’s not in any particular order, but some folks would point to globalization. Why would globalization do this? Well, in a globalized world capital can flow to wherever they can get the cheapest labor. And so for example, if you’re someone in the top 1% or someone in the 0.01% and you own a company you could take your capital to a lower cost place. You don’t have to make wages in your country go up. And so the demand for labor is going to go offshore. And so there will be less demand for labor in your country. So it wouldn’t drive wages up. Another possibility that folks could talk about is technology. Technology oftentimes has a similar effect as globalization. Instead of taking labor and taking it offshore to find cheaper labor technology oftentimes can replace labor. Or another way to think about it, it can make folks more productive. So you don’t need as much labor. And so the folks who own the technology or are able to take advantage of technological trends, well, they might get a disproportionate amount of that G.D.P. growth. Related to both of these is the idea of education. Maybe in a globalized world and a technology world, the payback of education matters even more. And so someone doesn’t get as much of an education and they can’t participate in the benefits of technology as much or jobs that they’re qualified for go offshore so they can’t demand as high wages. Another potential lever to think about is immigration policy which from a wage point of view could have a similar effect as technology globalization. If you have an increase in supply of lower skilled labor, economics will tell us that the price for that labor, which are wages, would be suppressed. Another major lever that folks will definitely point to is tax policy or fiscal policy in general. For example, generally speaking the ordinary income tax rates, the more money you make become a higher and higher percentage of your income. But people in the very high brackets in that top 1% or in that top hundredth of a percent, many of their income comes disproportionately from capital gains income on asset price appreciation. And that type of income today is taxed at a significantly lower tax rate than ordinary income. And then last but not least, you have monetary policy. And this is the actions of the Federal Reserve and interest rates. And many times especially when you go through crises the benefits of lower interest rates might disproportionately benefit those who own capital who are in the position to borrow at those lower interest rates and then invest it at higher interest rates. And that might speak to some of these higher brackets. So I’ll leave you there. The goal of this video isn’t to make a value judgment over what’s good and what’s bad or what likely is the case but just to get us thinking about the trends that we are for sure seeing and what might be the levers, and this isn’t an exhaustive list, that might be causing them.