New York Times: Income mobility has not declined

The NYT is reporting on a new study that doesn't fit the Obami income inequality line which as articulated very recently by Himself is that: "we have a wonderful, splenderiferous recovery but rat bastard richie riches (excluding  my donors) are stealing it and no one can get ahead at all which of course has nothing to do with me (or my rich donors) so get those other rich bastards, particularly the Koch boys, yeah it's their fault and ignore that Obamacare thing, completely, leave it alone, seriously.  I'm paraphrasing of course, the teleprompter has about 11,000 more words of this blather.  Which was the amount of time BHO had available to repeat 'look income inequality squirrel' over and over and over until he needed to leave to make his tee time.

The study found that income mobility hasn't changed.  Over the past fifty years, the distance between the quintile 'rungs' has widened - in statistic speak the 'cross sectional variability has grown' but the 'longitudinal variability has remained constant'.  This is something one would expect in a society which requires more years of education to enter the work market and sees more and more people living long into retirement.  So does that make us more unequal or not?:  It depends if you want to look at equality at a point in time:  "my effing parents are oppressing me because they make 50 times what I do.  My gosh darn grampa is even worse, the plutocrat plumber is taking down 74 times my part time Barista wage.  Me and great grandma who says Grampa is an 'ungrateful little whelp' have formed the Johnson-McTavish Rouge to overthrown these damned dirty plutocrats.  Death to the capitalist roaders in my family!"\

Or one could look at it across a lifetime:  "heh, heh, Dad and Grampa have it good now, but with the information insecurity secrets that I'm learning from my internship at the NSA I am going to systematically overthrow their ageist hegemony.  I've also automated Great Grandma so I can continue to get her Social after she dies.  Rich! I'm gonna be rich!  They'll all bow down before Maddy Mactavish! Buwhahahahah!

But the question is why did the NYT contradict The One?  Normally this is not done, the s BPs (bien pensants) follow a strict code of Omerta - not speaking ill of each other's statist and rhetorical wheezes.  But now, the NYT is frolicking off the reservation, getting dangerously close to the Koch Boy's Liberal Blind. And without Omerta, so much is at risk.