5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans

[washunut]

Uh oh im igniting class war:ssst:....
Can you say a coming oligarchy? And the right seems to be perfectly okay with this... They complain about "mob rule" but isnt an oligarchy "mob rule"?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?


5 Facts You Should Know About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans | Economy | AlterNet

Can you tell us how this chart counts monies held for pension funds. Pension fund money is largely money held for middle class workers like the UAW or civil servants as the largest pension fund I think is Calpers for California workers. How does this chart classify money in school endowments. Those funds pay out each year so that kids who cannot afford to go to a school get scholarships.

Is it possible that this chart does not include the major holders for the middle class?

 

[PzKfW IVe]

You said, "No one living in this country owes anything to anyone, except itrems pursuant to those -actual- contracts agreed upon by the relevant parties." I assume that means you didn't go to public school, don't drive on public roads, don't use public power lines or telephone lines, never go to any public parks...

Your assumption only illustrates your failure to understand what I said - unless, of course, you -did- understand what I said and are offering up a red herring instead of actually addressing it. because of your inability to do so.
:shrug:

 

[atrasicarius]

Your assumption only illustrates your failure to understand what I said - unless, of course, you -did- understand what I said and are offering up a red herring instead of actually addressing it. because of your inability to do so.
:shrug:

Bull****. You're perfectly willing to take all these great things provided to you by society, but when you're asked to contribute to society in turn, suddenly you owe it nothing. Aren't you the ones always talking about parasites?

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Bull****. You're perfectly willing to take all these great things provided to you by society, but when you're asked to contribute to society in turn, suddenly you owe it nothing. Aren't you the ones always talking about parasites?

Thank you for proving the accuracy of my assessment.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'm aware. I was referring to the industry's well-publicized practices of boosting addictive agents, hiding cancer risks and, at times, outright lying about their products' safety. Government regulators didn't make them do those things. The market incentivized that behavior.

Riiight.
That was like 30+ years ago.

We can move past this now.
They are regulated.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the actual wealth of a society. Or even a community. Makes no actual difference so social mobility.

Wow, so dismissive.
You asked and I answered and then you just brush it away, as if it were meaningless.

When deregulation actually does good, it becomes irrelevant. :roll:

 

[coolwalker]

Explain exctly why anyone is entitled to any portion of anyone else's money. They earned it. They reinvested it and it grew and you are angry that they were smarter than you! That is very arrogant. There is nothing stopping anyone from becoming rich except themselves. Want to be rich? Invent something like Job did or even Gates, don't just whine and say you deserve some of their hard earned money.

I'm not rich and I don't care. My wife and I work hard, go to church and live and let live. I expect nothing from anyone else but expect everything from myself and I am satisfied. Too bad those whiners aren't satisfied.

 

[Mach]

That out of the way, I'll restate my previous point - everybody is battling on the rich vs. the not rich and nobody is answering to the GROWING DIFFERNCE between the two. I do not want to eliminate the rich, but it's pretty clear that something is out of balance.

We've answered that so many times.
Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. 1950-2004, earning nothing: $0
U.S. 1950 average wage: $ 2,570
U.S. 2004 average wage: $30,513

Holy ****ing ****, the wage gap is INCREASING! AHHH!!! AHHH! My liberal pants are on FIIIRREE!!
Wait, 0 income is always 0 income, yet due to inflation and real economic growth, earnings continue to get numerically higher. Are you understanding why that's an absurd argument now?

So what are we going to do about ever increasing numerical economic growth? I'm hoping we continue it if it also includes real growth.

It doesn't follow individuals. Someone typically starts their career making $0. Then they get a low paying job that is indeed, not moving in real value very fast (it's close to 0, which doesn't move AT ALL). Yet the higher end salary and opportunities are ever-increasing. That's a good thing!

If you invested in a company and you sold one can of soda per person, and today you now have access to massive global markets and a larger population, would you expect the gap to:
increase
decrease
stay the same

Compared to say, someone who cuts lawns (I did in high school).

 

[haymarket]

Mach - what does your post have to do with the facts in the OP that the wealthiest 1% own 42% of the nations wealth and the next wealthy 4% own an additional 27% making a total of 69% of the nations wealth owned by only 5% of the people here?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Don't take on too much debt, invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds, build multiple income streams, etc.

The debt part is still good advice, but investing in stocks and bonds just ain't what it used to be. Even since Bush II, class mobility has become virtually impossible.

 

[haymarket]

Oh come on, when you are 20 and daddy's paying the bills YOU KNOW EVERYTHING

or as Andrew Carnegie might have said When you are forty and living off Daddy's money you only believe you know everything.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The debt part is still good advice, but investing in stocks and bonds just ain't what it used to be. Even since Bush II, class mobility has become virtually impossible.

Sure it is.
Hell just trading off the current ups and downs is good.

Wait for another short term market dump and buy a strong company on the cheap.
BP trading very low, even now and in my opinion, I believe they will return strongly in the medium term future.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Sure it is.
Hell just trading off the current ups and downs is good.

Wait for another short term market dump and buy a strong company on the cheap.
BP trading very low, even now and in my opinion, I believe they will return strongly in the medium term future.

Timing the market is probably the stupidest way to invest, especially for somebody in the middle class. Mutual funds are great for a portion of a portfolio, but you need to diversify. Stocks are way too volatile and bonds suck. Personally I'm a silver bug, and metals generally are a good place to park assets right now.

And medium term? Who even knows if we'll have another recession in the short term.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Timing the market is probably the stupidest way to invest, especially for somebody in the middle class. Mutual funds are great for a portion of a portfolio, but you need to diversify. Stocks are way to volatile and bonds suck. Personally I'm a silver bug, and metals generally are a good place to park assets right now.

And medium term? Who even knows if we'll have another recession in the short term.

I tend not to time the market, but keep some cash on hand for good buys/small emergencies/things of that nature.
Mutual funds blow, ETF's are better, lower expenses and greater opportunity for capital appreciation.

The only reason I have any mutual funds, is because my 401k only has them and I park about half my money in bond/fixed income mutuals.

No guts, no glory.
I have no problem taking chances on what I believe is a good buy.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Riiight.
That was like 30+ years ago.

We can move past this now.
They are regulated.

The ideological principles at the core of these debates are timeless. The historical behavior of Big Tobacco is still instructive when debating whether regulating business is wise.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No guts, no glory.
I have no problem taking chances on what I believe is a good buy.

This sums it up then, doesn't it? There isn't a good way to play it safe and strike it rich at the same time. Mind you, I'm not saying there should be. But you can't follow the old wisdom anymore when it comes to the stock market and expect it to work. The old playbook is out the window. Now the choice is between a safe investment that may or may not keep pace with inflation, or a risky investment that might leave you broke.

Where are you on precious metals, by the way?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Explain exctly why anyone is entitled to any portion of anyone else's money. They earned it. They reinvested it and it grew and you are angry that they were smarter than you! That is very arrogant. There is nothing stopping anyone from becoming rich except themselves. Want to be rich? Invent something like Job did or even Gates, don't just whine and say you deserve some of their hard earned money.

I'm not rich and I don't care. My wife and I work hard, go to church and live and let live. I expect nothing from anyone else but expect everything from myself and I am satisfied. Too bad those whiners aren't satisfied.

Your mistake is in assuming that people are after riches. What they really want is security -- a stable home and not having to live paycheck to paycheck to service 30-year-old debt. Wage stagnation is creating these pressures and trapping people in unsustainable financial situations.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The ideological principles at the core of these debates are timeless. The historical behavior of Big Tobacco is still instructive when debating whether regulating business is wise.

Some people do bad things.
It's well noted and they will still do bad things, whether or not, regulation is involved because people design the regulations.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This sums it up then, doesn't it? There isn't a good way to play it safe and strike it rich at the same time. Mind you, I'm not saying there should be. But you can't follow the old wisdom anymore when it comes to the stock market and expect it to work. The old playbook is out the window. Now the choice is between a safe investment that may or may not keep pace with inflation, or a risky investment that might leave you broke.

I'm more of a value/contrarian/dividend investor.
If it is overvalued, time to sell.
If it is at a stable value and the dividend is good, buy.
If it is under valued, buy.

Basically along those lines.
Not trying to shoot in the dark, read the balance sheets, analyst opinions and quarterly statements.

Where are you on precious metals, by the way?

I don't hold any.
That stuff is way overvalued.
The pricing is mostly driven by economic fear.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Some people do bad things.
It's well noted and they will still do bad things, whether or not, regulation is involved because people design the regulations.

Fair point. But regulation -- in theory -- helps protect honest people from such predatory practices. In practice, it can be equally destructive if poorly applied.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Your mistake is in assuming that people are after riches. What they really want is security -- a stable home and not having to live paycheck to paycheck to service 30-year-old debt. Wage stagnation is creating these pressures and trapping people in unsustainable financial situations.

The cost for a whole heap of consumer goods is lower now than ever before.
It takes 70% less working hours, on average, to buy the same stuff, that you could buy in the 1970's.

 

[Mach]

Mach - what does your post have to do with the facts in the OP that the wealthiest 1% own 42% of the nations wealth and the next wealthy 4% own an additional 27% making a total of 69% of the nations wealth owned by only 5% of the people here?

It points out the irrelevance of the fact, and, how it's misleading.

Mathematically, it's normal and expected. It's not following individuals, so it's only a gap between 0 and near zero earnings, and the very highest.
Given population growth, and global expansion, and ever-increasing opportunities to access larger markets that young kids can jump in and dominate (see facebook, google, yahoo, etc.), the top is and should be increasing dramatically. So take any time today, and 20 years from now the bottom earners should be fairly flat, relatively close to 0. Those earning the most, should be some percentage of the overall markets, which are ever-increasing(*). Again, it's not individuals, so only if you keep doing the same job, for the same wage, your entire life, would this be relevant.

Put more simply, if you earned nothing twenty years ago, and earned nothing today, you'd have flat income growth.
If you instead grabbed 10% of the video game market via business venture 20 years ago you'd get $500M in revenue. Holding that share you'd then have 4x that, or $2B in revenue.
Assuming you get compensated in some way based on percentage, what happens to your income with respect to the $0 earners (or near 0 such as min wage).? And since that is not a figure based on individuals over time (the gap is not following the same people), it doesn't prompt any call to action..other than today is better than every before to participate in world market growth (well, not today, but you get the idea).

A far more comprehensive analsyis can be found here that takes into account entitlements, size of the brackets, and work:
Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States

The remaining inequality in society is heavily influenced by the lack of work at the bottom. If working-age adults in the lower quintiles worked as much as their higher-income counterparts, the income disparity of the top to the bottom quintiles would fall to $2.91 to $1.00.

 

[Mach]

The debt part is still good advice, but investing in stocks and bonds just ain't what it used to be. Even since Bush II, class mobility has become virtually impossible.

So no one has moved in class since Bush2? I don't follow.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So no one has moved in class since Bush2? I don't follow.

Nah, I think he's alluding to the current market volatility, which makes it seem to be bad to do the passive buy and hold strategy.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

The cost for a whole heap of consumer goods is lower now than ever before.
It takes 70% less working hours, on average, to buy the same stuff, that you could buy in the 1970's.

I'd be curious to see that data broken down. My first inclination is to argue that those cheaper goods are mostly luxury items. No denying that digital cameras, cell phones, TVs and the like are much, much cheaper (which is why so many poor people have them). But is it true with the things we rely on most? Transportation? Housing? Health care? Those things represent the biggest expenses for most households.