So Who Are The 1%?

[GregLee]

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To add some statistics regarding income, take a look at the above link.

Also from the Wikipedia, specifically on income inequality, on who is the most unequal (you'd never guess):

A study done by University of Texas economists James K. Galbraith and Travis Hale found that most of the gains enjoyed by the top 1% came from a small number of counties, rather than a national trend. Almost all of the richest 1%'s gains occurred in the economic hotbeds of Silicon Valley and New York City. If the top four counties in those regions are removed, there is almost no trend[quantify] towards income inequality in the US in recent decades. On this basis, the researchers ascribe the recent growth in income inequality to the growth of information technology.[17]
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[haha]

I hope that when election time comes around, the competiting candidates discuss their concept of "wealth" in some dollars and cents detail that omits the vargaries, emotionalism and subjectivity that's going around today.

I don't think that is how modern campaigns are conducted, much less won. I expect this year's show to be considerably worse than even the hideous earlier ones.

 

[haha]

Could be, but it still seems mostly misplaced to me.

Corporations cannot affect laws/regulations unless a politician agrees to it, so it should still be the politicians that they should be directing most of that angst at.

If the cops are accepting bribes, should we complain about crooked cops, or bribe offer-ers? Sure, some blame rests on each of them, but it seems to me the bribe takers are the ones with the responsibility to serve the public, and the ones that should be held to a higher standard.

-ERD50

If there is money available to fund corruption, corruption will rise to absorb that money. Humans taken as a group seem to be almost infinitely corruptable. It's like if candy is available, children will eat it. Best to dry up the source of candy if you want children to eat less of it.

Ha

 

[Koogie]

From the article: "Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%. "

Just call me Trigger.

 

[MasterBlaster]

The Wall Street Journal has a calculator based on family income to detrmine where you rank.

What Percent Are You? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Do you measure up ?

 

[MasterBlaster]

So it only takes $1.2MM of investable assets to make it into the top 1% and only $1.8MM for the top 0.5% ?

As mentioned in the article that sure won't sustain a "wealthy" lifestyle very long.

I wonder about those figures.

I thought those figures thrown out were way too low.

This reference, that quotes 2004 US household net worth shows that (in 2004) to be in the top 1% that you needed $6MM

http://www.mynetworthblog.com/net-worth-percentiles-rich-o-meter/

 

[Hamlet]

I've always felt that "household income" is a pretty inexact measure of affluence.

A household income of $200k for a family of four with two income earners is a lot different than a single person making $200k per year, but all of the discussions lump them together.

The family generally has a much lower tax rate than the single person (and higher living expenses).

Note also that they are talking about adjusted gross income, for the most part, so your participation in 401k plans can make a big difference in your ranking.

 

[HFWR]

The Wall Street Journal has a calculator based on family income to detrmine where you rank.

What Percent Are You? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Do you measure up ?

I'm pretty rank...

 

[foxfirev5]

With the income requirement I guess I'm closer to the original definition of a 1%er -Outlaw Biker- Than the top affluent category.

 

[Bimmerbill]

I am not sure why people are panning "the 1%."
Isn't it the American Dream to make it there?

 

[harley]

I thought those figures thrown out were way too low.

This reference, that quotes 2004 US household net worth shows that (in 2004) to be in the top 1% that you needed $6MM

http://www.mynetworthblog.com/net-worth-percentiles-rich-o-meter/

I was suspicious about these numbers too. I went to the Wealth Calculator that you listed, and ended up in the 84%, which seemed low according to the numbers that have been thrown around. They have a link to another calculator based on wealth instead of income - The Wealth Report - WSJ. I entered my number and came out at 97%, which while nice was certainly not in the 99+% range which is where some of the other comments would have me. These percentiles seem more likely to me.

 

[M Paquette]

I am not sure why people are panning "the 1%."
Isn't it the American Dream to make it there?

I suspect some of the folks not yet in the 1% are getting annoyed with the cleat marks on their shoulders.

Not to worry, though. Someday, everyone will be in the 1%, except for the slackers and the unmotivated. It'll be our Lake Woebegone moment.

 

[MichaelB]

I suspect some of the folks not yet in the 1% are getting annoyed with the cleat marks on their shoulders.

Not to worry, though. Someday, everyone will be in the 1%, except for the slackers and the unmotivated. It'll be our Lake Woebegone moment.

Like this guy

 

[eytonxav]

Like this guy

Hopefully that is not you without the hat

 

[FUEGO]

Like this guy

This is why I want to ER!

 

[FinanceDude]

Also from the Wikipedia, specifically on income inequality, on who is the most unequal (you'd never guess):

Ya know what they say about statistics? "There's lies, damn, lies, and then statistics".........

 

[palomalou]

Not your fault. People need to use better thread titles than "Interesting Article".

I am the people who will try to do better with the title next time. Sorry!

 

[ERD50]

If there is money available to fund corruption, corruption will rise to absorb that money. Humans taken as a group seem to be almost infinitely corruptable. It's like if candy is available, children will eat it. Best to dry up the source of candy if you want children to eat less of it.

Ha

No question that humans are corruptible, but I just can't follow that drying up the money is any solution. Seems like poor places are often more of a hotbed for bribes?

I see it more as a crime of opportunity. If it is known that the cops accept bribes, bribes will tend to be offered. If it is known that the cops are straight, one is not likely to offer, fearing a charge of attempt to bribe.

To clean up the source of bribes pretty much requires that the cops are already clean, else why would they enforce it?

-ERD50

 

[haha]

No question that humans are corruptible, but I just can't follow that drying up the money is any solution. Seems like poor places are often more of a hotbed for bribes?

I see it more as a crime of opportunity. If it is known that the cops accept bribes, bribes will tend to be offered. If it is known that the cops are straight, one is not likely to offer, fearing a charge of attempt to bribe.

To clean up the source of bribes pretty much requires that the cops are already clean, else why would they enforce it?

-ERD50

We are not talking about bribes, which are illegal, but legally applied contributions and lobbying. And we are not talking about police, where I think your concerns are quite justified. We are talking about legislators, administrators and regulators most of whom are less brave than police.

Your issue is real no doubt, but I think less important. And the bribes you mention in poor countries- there is no shortage of money in these places, it comes from giant multinationals. There is however a shortage of law and order.
Swiss court approves African kleptocracy: Mobutu's loot to go to his family - Afrik-news.com : Africa news, Maghreb news - The african daily newspaper

Ha

 

[ERD50]

We are not talking about bribes, which are illegal, but legally applied contributions and lobbying. And we are not talking about police, where I think your concerns are quite justified. We are talking about legislators, administrators and regulators most of whom are less brave than police. ...

Ha

I see, yes, I agree that at the higher levels there doesn't seem to be any way to fight the corrupt (sometimes subtle) use of that power. Dry up the money, and they will look for anything else worth having. Transparency is all we have, but those in power control that to some degree also.

Things are probably better than in the days of the chief or feudal lord. If things really go too far, we get the angry mobs with pitchforks (or modern equivalent). I don't think we are there yet, however there will always be some group that feels they are being held down by 'the man'.

-ERD50

 

[Sue J]

And then there is the 2%

 

[marylandcrab]

I remember a time working hard and smart and being successful was something to aspire to, not disparage and hate. Why should I care what someone else has who has lived a different life and made different choices?

There's a whole lot of unmotivated, unintelligent, poorly educated people out there who just have their hands out instead of doing it on their own. Why do people need to measure their success in life only on their wealth? Are they happy, have their needs met, in a satisfying loving relationship?

 

[Animorph]

Another WSJ article. Looks like it's not so great at the top from this perspective (Subscription needed?):
The Wild Ride of the Wealthiest 1% - WSJ.com

"During the past three recessions, the top 1% of earners (those making $380,000 or more in 2008) experienced the largest income shocks in percentage terms of any income group in the U.S" (roughly 3x the beta)

"The super-high earners have the biggest crashes. The number of Americans making $1 million or more fell 40% between 2007 and 2009, to 236,883, while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50%—far greater than the less than 2% drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less, according to Internal Revenue Service figures. "


And this last quote makes it seem that the majority of high-income earners are acutally just one-time wonders:

"Though often described as a permanent plutocracy, this elite actually moves through a revolving door of riches, with some of today's nouveau riche becoming tomorrow's fallen kings. Only 27% of America's 400 top earners have made the list more than one year since 1994, one study shows."

 

[clifp]

Another WSJ article. Looks like it's not so great at the top from this perspective (Subscription needed?):
The Wild Ride of the Wealthiest 1% - WSJ.com



And this last quote makes it seem that the majority of high-income earners are acutally just one-time wonders:

"Though often described as a permanent plutocracy, this elite actually moves through a revolving door of riches, with some of today's nouveau riche becoming tomorrow's fallen kings. Only 27% of America's 400 top earners have made the list more than one year since 1994, one study shows."

An interesting article I was about to post it. On the other hand the top of top 1% is clearly different from the rest of us.

s. Siegel has started a nonprofit called ThriftMart, a mega thrift-store that sells donated clothes—many from her own closet—and other items for $1. She does miss one luxury—the Gulfstream. After they defaulted on the $8 million jet loan, the banks seized the plane. The Siegels can use it only occasionally, with the banks' permission.
Recently, the family boarded a commercial flight for a vacation, making for some confusion. One of the kids looked around the crowded cabin and asked, "Mom, what are all these strangers doing on our plane?"

Imagine the poor children only being able to fly occasionally on the Gulfstream, I hope flying commercial doesn't traumatize them for life.

 

[Nords]

Like this guy

Boy, and we thought we were frugal for cutting our dryer sheets in half... or not using dryer sheets at all... only to find out that this guy doesn't even do laundry!