The New American Aristocracy

tbergs

I didn't think this fit anywhere else, but found this to be a very fascinating read. It's long, but well worth it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

Some excerpts:

It is in fact the top 0.1 percent who have been the big winners in the growing concentration of wealth over the past half century. According to the UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the 160,000 or so households in that group held 22 percent of America’s wealth in 2012, up from 10 percent in 1963. If you’re looking for the kind of money that can buy elections, you’ll find it inside the top 0.1 percent alone.

---

A Tale of Three Classes (Figure 1):  
The 9.9 percent hold most of the wealth in the United States.

Saez / Zucman

---

Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose.

As of 2016, it took $1.2 million in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent; $2.4 million to reach the group’s median; and $10 million to get into the top 0.9 percent. (And if you’re not there yet, relax: Our club is open to people who are on the right track and have the right attitude.) “We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis. The families at our end of the spectrum wouldn’t know what to do with a pitchfork.

We are also mostly, but not entirely, white. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, African Americans represent 1.9 percent of the top 10th of households in wealth; Hispanics, 2.4 percent; and all other minorities, including Asian and multiracial individuals, 8.8 percent—even though those groups together account for 35 percent of the total population.

Let’s suppose that you start off right in the middle of the American wealth distribution. How high would you have to jump to make it into the 9.9 percent? In financial terms, the measurement is easy and the trend is unmistakable. In 1963, you would have needed to multiply your wealth six times. By 2016, you would have needed to leap twice as high—increasing your wealth 12-fold—to scrape into our group. If you boldly aspired to reach the middle of our group rather than its lower edge, you’d have needed to multiply your wealth by a factor of 25. On this measure, the 2010s look much like the 1920s.

If you are starting at the median for people of color, you’ll want to practice your financial pole-vaulting. The Institute for Policy Studies calculated that, setting aside money invested in “durable goods” such as furniture and a family car, the median black family had net wealth of $1,700 in 2013, and the median Latino family had $2,000, compared with $116,800 for the median white family. A 2015 study in Boston found that the wealth of the median white family there was $247,500, while the wealth of the median African American family was $8. That is not a typo. That’s two grande cappuccinos. That and another 300,000 cups of coffee will get you into the 9.9 percent.

Drowned Out

...and the pentagon admits it can’t account for 21 trillion dollars over the past couple decades. I think there is a lot more money in that .1% than we think.  

To understand 21 trillion:

Picture a stack of money. Now imagine that that stack of dollars is all $1,000 bills. Each bill says “$1,000” on it. How high do you imagine that stack of dollars would be if it were $1 trillion. It would be 63 miles high.

Imagine you make $40,000 a year. How long would it take you to make $1 trillion? Well, don’t sign up for this task, because it would take you 25 million years(Truthdig)

Remember the last time the pentagon admitted their numbers weren’t balancing, to the tune of trillions?

But...corrupt dictators n stuff.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

All the mechanisms are in place to preserve and even nurture the inequity. It's not going to get better any time soon.

Hell... the f**king downtrodden can't even help themselves- electing one of the most corrupt 'elite' to run their f**king country.

They deserve what they asked for.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Capitalism is a bitch.

brianlux

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

Halifax2TheMax

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

You don’t have to worry.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

You don’t have to worry.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Sad state of affairs for sure.

Don't get me wrong with my environmental comment: I was just stating aspects of the problem.

Halifax2TheMax

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

You don’t have to worry.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Sad state of affairs for sure.

Don't get me wrong with my environmental comment: I was just stating aspects of the problem.

No, I know. It’s true. The middle class spends and consumes. The top .1%? What do they buy after 4 or 5 houses, 6 cars, and a private jet? Besides food and clothes? Hookers and blow?
 

brianlux

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

The problem there is threefold:

1.  The biggest problem, overpopulation

2.  Too many people who do (or would if they could) consume more than is needed or reasonable.

3.  Waste,  not enough re-use, lack of durability.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

All the mechanisms are in place to preserve and even nurture the inequity. It's not going to get better any time soon.

Hell... the f**king downtrodden can't even help themselves- electing one of the most corrupt 'elite' to run their f**king country.

They deserve what they asked for.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Capitalism is a bitch.

Can I get an AMEN?

Drowned Out

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

You don’t have to worry.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Sad state of affairs for sure.

Don't get me wrong with my environmental comment: I was just stating aspects of the problem.

No, I know. It’s true. The middle class spends and consumes. The top .1%? What do they buy after 4 or 5 houses, 6 cars, and a private jet? Besides food and clothes? Hookers and blow?
 

Hookers, blow....and government policy. 

Halifax2TheMax

Drowned Out said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

You don’t have to worry.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Sad state of affairs for sure.

Don't get me wrong with my environmental comment: I was just stating aspects of the problem.

No, I know. It’s true. The middle class spends and consumes. The top .1%? What do they buy after 4 or 5 houses, 6 cars, and a private jet? Besides food and clothes? Hookers and blow?
 

Hookers, blow....and government policy. 

I thought they raised wages and gave out large cash bonuses?

Drowned Out

Halifax2TheMax said:

Drowned Out said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."

""We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis."

Those two statement together are very interesting.  We so often hear the 1 vs 99 percent "slogan",  yet if these statistics are accurate, it's really a 0.1% vs 9.9% vs 90% scenario.  That seems so much more accurate. 

What about what the article says about buying votes?  I would think the most votes are bout at the 9.9% level where the greatest amount of money is (56% vs 22% vs 22%).

The other thing that comes to my mind is that the biggest loser in this game is the health of the planet.  All those trillion and trillion of dollar represent all forms of human produced pollution (including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), decimated forest, rapidly dying species, global warming, reef die-off and a wide assortment of other biological and chemical imbalances.  I wonder if the 9.9 and the 0.1 recognize and understand what that means?  You would think so, eh?

The one drawback to wealth equity is the brutal toll the planet would endure.

If everyone had more to spend... they would spend it. The increased demand on food and 'stuff' would not be good for Mother Earth.

You don’t have to worry.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Sad state of affairs for sure.

Don't get me wrong with my environmental comment: I was just stating aspects of the problem.

No, I know. It’s true. The middle class spends and consumes. The top .1%? What do they buy after 4 or 5 houses, 6 cars, and a private jet? Besides food and clothes? Hookers and blow?
 

Hookers, blow....and government policy. 

I thought they raised wages and gave out large cash bonuses?

Oh they do.....to themselves.

Drowned Out

And now Bezos wants to colonize some other extraterrestrial body....while the bulk of his employees are poor.  Guess he's feeling inadequate when he sees Elon's rocket.