Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
100-1=99, not 90.
That's because the top 1% don't own more than the entire 99% of the rest of the country. Only the bottom 90%. 9%, obviously, were left out.
This is what is wrong with Republicans. For one, they don't know how to read. Second, what ever it is they do read, they imagine it to be something else.
Do you even read the links that you post?
The 9% WERE included.
Where have I ever claimed I was a Republican?
The top 1% is supporting how much of the bottom 90%?
From the OP...
You do realize RDean that about 40% of the Forbes 400 are people who came from "first base". Meaning that THEY created all of that wealth -- not their parents or ancestors. That alone tells how dynamic and MOBILE wealth in America is. It's actually pretty wonderful to ponder. AND -- it gives you an example of how hard it would be to accurately measure..
Most wealthy people come from industries. Industries that make the big bucks employ thousands of people. There are always exceptions (like entertainers and sports stars), but most wealth is actually created by a large pool of labor.
So again... it's not like they really earned all of it themselves. We're simply part of a system where wealth accumulates at the top. Most systems are like this anyway, but it's a consequence of human nature, not of work ethic so much.
NOPE.. Most wealthy people come from entertainment, arts, sports, authors, doctors, lawyers, inventors, and hard working smaller entreprenurial businesses. The 'Wall Street' contingient is a small portion of our top 10%.
On the BILLIONAIRE level -- yes the majority of those folks came from Corporate wealth.
And Like I said above -- JK Rowling had an army of "workers" to create and maintain her Harry Potter empire. So does Phil Mickelson. There is no diff. There is no THEFT. We should "move on"...
From the OP...
The 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the bottom 150 million Americans.
You do realize RDean that about 40% of the Forbes 400 are people who came from "first base". Meaning that THEY created all of that wealth -- not their parents or ancestors. That alone tells how dynamic and MOBILE wealth in America is. It's actually pretty wonderful to ponder. AND -- it gives you an example of how hard it would be to accurately measure..
All this talk about the wealthiest of Americans has only just recently flared up.
Logic tells me that it must be the Obama administration that is making it possible for all this wealth to be growing like it is.
maybe the economy is better than we think!!
How much do you JK Rowling made per book sold to the public? Rothleisburger makes far more for each pass completed doesn't he? Now how much does the CEO of Firestone make for each tire sold?
Can you explain the diff -- No there isn't one. You could take the CEO of Firestone and fleece him down in the parking lot and fire him. Distribute all the proceeds to the employees and they could afford MAYBE a set of tires at corporate discount.
From the OP...
The 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the bottom 150 million Americans.
You do realize RDean that about 40% of the Forbes 400 are people who came from "first base". Meaning that THEY created all of that wealth -- not their parents or ancestors. That alone tells how dynamic and MOBILE wealth in America is. It's actually pretty wonderful to ponder. AND -- it gives you an example of how hard it would be to accurately measure..
75% are self made
Let's start with the obvious: Unemployment. Three years after the financial crisis, the unemployment rate is still at the highest level since the Great Depression (except for a brief blip in the early 1980s)
Corporate profits just hit another all-time high.
Corporate profits as a percent of the economy are near a record all-time high. With the exception of a brief happy period in 2007 (just before the crash), profits are higher than they've been since the 1950s. And they are VASTLY higher than they've been for most of the intervening half-century.
CEO pay is now 350X the average worker's, up from 50X from 1960-1985.
CEO pay has skyrocketed 300% since 1990. Corporate profits have doubled. Average "production worker" pay has increased 4%. The minimum wage has dropped. (All numbers adjusted for inflation).
After adjusting for inflation, average hourly earnings haven't increased in 50 years.
In short... while CEOs and shareholders have been cashing in, wages as a percent of the economy have dropped to an all-time low.
In other words, in the struggle between "labor" and "capital," capital has basically won.
Of course, life is great if you're in the top 1% of American wage earners. You're hauling in a bigger percentage of the country's total pre-tax income than you have at any time since the late 1920s. Your share of the national income, in fact, is almost 2X the long-term average!
In fact, income inequality has gotten so extreme here that the US now ranks 93rd in the world in "income equality." China's ahead of us. So is India. So is Iran.
And, by the way, few people would have a problem with inequality if the American Dream were still fully intactif it were easy to work your way into that top 1%. But, unfortunately, social mobility in this country is also near an all-time low.
So what does all this mean in terms of net worth? Well, for starters, it means that the top 1% of Americans own 42% of the financial wealth in this country. The top 5%, meanwhile, own nearly 70%.
And remember that huge debt problem we havewith hundreds of millions of Americans indebted up to their eyeballs? Well, the top 1% doesn't have that problem. They only own 5% of the country's debt.
And then there are taxes... It's a great time to make a boatload of money in America, because taxes on the nation's highest-earners are close to the lowest they've ever been.
How much do you JK Rowling made per book sold to the public? Rothleisburger makes far more for each pass completed doesn't he? Now how much does the CEO of Firestone make for each tire sold?
Can you explain the diff -- No there isn't one. You could take the CEO of Firestone and fleece him down in the parking lot and fire him. Distribute all the proceeds to the employees and they could afford MAYBE a set of tires at corporate discount.
When money is directly tied to quality of life, it poses several questions regarding what one's worth really is.
The idea that we've been programmed to believe is that someone is worth whatever the market will bear, but then that leaves us with some rather disturbing thoughts.
After all... does this mean that a handicapped person is worthless? Does this mean children are only worth what they could accomplish in a sweatshop?
The point here is that the only reason money accumulates at the top is because profit drives our system. People work for the sake of accumulating wealth, but the profit made is merely a consequence of market conditions that are relative -- so there is no absolute value involved.
For a society to function properly, profit cannot be the sole motivator. If a society reaches that point, then it culturally atomizes. A certain amount of public good must be established and promoted via public investment. This includes entitlements.
So, the wealth accumulated by the elite is the largest pool of funds to work with. The more wealth disparity a country has, the more its systems depend on the wealth of the elite for taxes.
The good news is that public investment can decrease wealth disparity, so that there is less of a tax burden on the elite in the long run. However, it would seem that dogma prevents many from realizing this.
That's because the top 1% don't own more than the entire 99% of the rest of the country. Only the bottom 90%. 9%, obviously, were left out.
This is what is wrong with Republicans. For one, they don't know how to read. Second, what ever it is they do read, they imagine it to be something else.
Do you even read the links that you post?
The 9% WERE included.
Where have I ever claimed I was a Republican?
The top 1 percent of Americans possess more wealth than the entire bottom 90 percent.
Read it again. Try reading out loud. Maybe that will help.
100-1=99, not 90.
100-1=99, not 90.
Math isn't rdweeb's best subject. He doesn't like his teacher - so it's the teacher's fault that he's an idiot.
100-1=99, not 90.
That's because the top 1% don't own more than the entire 99% of the rest of the country. Only the bottom 90%. 9%, obviously, were left out.
This is what is wrong with Republicans. For one, they don't know how to read. Second, what ever it is they do read, they imagine it to be something else.
100-1=99, not 90.
Honestly, that is incredible; you actually can do basic math. Unfortunately, your reading comprehension is atrocious. The OP never stated that 100-1 = 90. The statement was that the top 1 percent earned more than the bottom 90 percent. The two have nothing to do with each other. It wasn't a math problem.
100-1=99, not 90.
Honestly, that is incredible; you actually can do basic math. Unfortunately, your reading comprehension is atrocious. The OP never stated that 100-1 = 90. The statement was that the top 1 percent earned more than the bottom 90 percent. The two have nothing to do with each other. It wasn't a math problem.
