TOP 1% of US earners have now more wealth than the whole middle class.

[Arturo Bandini]

What do you think ?

[GMDino]

(02-16-2024, 11:55 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote:

What do you think ?

The only thing that kept it from happening sooner was a couple stock market busts.

It's been a steady march since St. Ronnie got elected in 1980.  

[*Nately120*]

You have to admire Reagan's total sleazy charm. "My economic plan will bring about a golden age for everyone! Oh, and on an unrelated note this seems like a good time to also let you know that people who are poor choose to be poor. So, keep that part in mind."

[Belsnickel]

Mmmmm, can't wait for that sweet wealth to trickle down to me.

[GMDino]

(02-16-2024, 02:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Mmmmm, can't wait for that sweet wealth to trickle down to me.

Just ONE MORE tax break and it'll happen!  For sure!  

[Goalpost]

There is never enough 1 percenters in volume to finance govt programs. Hence things like ObamaCare are funded by the middle class.

[*Nately120*]

(02-16-2024, 02:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Mmmmm, can't wait for that sweet wealth to trickle down to me.

This gives me another chance to compare legit American politics to an absurd situation I experienced when I was a kid.  Back in 1991 or so in the lo tech days I had a neighbor kid who went to a different school, and we were about as good of pals as "you live near me, we have to be friends pretty much" could have been.  My family was planning to move a whopping mile across town in the spring and that summer or fall before our planned move Nickelodeon was having some sort of contest where you call in and play some matching game on the TV live via your phone and you can win a Super Nintendo or a Sega Genesis, something to that effect.

We were sitting out on the porch doing nothing one day and I told him about that contest and he said "Oh yea, I actually played that I won the other day."  Now, my BS meter was going off, but I wanted to believe there would be a Super Nintendo within my relative grasp soon, so I kept hope alive.  I asked him what it was like playing the game and which Nickelodeon characters he matched to win and he had no idea what I was talking about.  He then assured me that he won, and added that he won the Super Nintendo and the Sega Genesis but that it probably wouldn't show up at his house until after I moved.

Anyways, all this wealth will trickle down but it might not get here before you move to the graveyard.

[samhain]

I am a Trump hater through and through. Even so, I will always consider him a symptom and not a disease. If the middle class wasn't being killed off, a guy like him would never have a chance. He's actually a sign that the system is working.

[basballguy]

this is what you call, propaganda.

Is it true? maybe?

What's the definition of "wealth"?
What's the definition of "middle class"
What's the source of this info?

These two percentages add up to maybe 53%? Are we saying the rest is lower class? Does that mean lower class has more wealth than middle class?

This chart looks like it was made by a high school economics student.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-16-2024, 09:49 PM)basballguy Wrote: These two percentages add up to maybe 53%? Are we saying the rest is lower class? Does that mean lower class has more wealth than middle class?

I would say the majority of the rest of the wealth lies in between the middle class and the 1%. It doesn’t just jump from middle class to top 1%.

If it’s true and there is no message other than showing the wealth disparity. What makes you think it’s propaganda?

[basballguy]

(02-16-2024, 10:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would say the majority of the rest of the wealth lies in between the middle class and the 1%. It doesn’t just jump from middle class to top 1%.

If it’s true and there is no message other than showing the wealth disparity. What makes you think it’s propaganda?

It’s a very limited piece of information slanted to sell a narrative. There’s no references or really any actual content that makes sense.

It could be true….but if it is why not paint a full picture instead of making a shitty line chart while omitting data?

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2024, 08:35 PM)samhain Wrote: I am a Trump hater through and through.  Even so, I will always consider him a symptom and not a disease.  If the middle class wasn't being killed off, a guy like him would never have a chance.  He's actually a sign that the system is working.

So, this is something that has been explored for a while, now. Back in 2017, there was a book that was released that explored this topic, The Crisis of the Middle Class Constitution. It's hard to do the book justice in a forum post, but the premise of the argument was that before the United States, the issue of economic inequality in governmental representation was addressed constitutionally with representation attempting to even out the political inequalities it cause. However, because the US was pretty egalitarian during the time of the founders, they didn't build this into our system. The framers understood that the bulk of those that would hold political power were the middle class of the time. The economic inequality was not high (discounting the enslaved, of course), so there was not political inequality.

Today, though, we have a shrinking middle class with a growing level of socioeconomic inequality. With a Gini coefficient more in line with developing nations than with our WEIRD peers, it means that the political inequality is going with it. As more wealth accumulates at the top, the political power accumulates with it. This of course creates a feedback loop where those with the economic power take the political power and pass policies to give them even more economic power resulting in more political power, etc., etc. 

And before anyone tries to say I am just bashing one side with this, I want to say that the Democrats are always ***** this up, as well. Because those with the power are predominantly unaware of the actual plight of the middle and lower classes, even if they are well-meaning, on the right or left, they often do not have any idea of the real issues that the average member of the public experiences. 

[samhain]

(02-16-2024, 11:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, this is something that has been explored for a while, now. Back in 2017, there was a book that was released that explored this topic, The Crisis of the Middle Class Constitution. It's hard to do the book justice in a forum post, but the premise of the argument was that before the United States, the issue of economic inequality in governmental representation was addressed constitutionally with representation attempting to even out the political inequalities it cause. However, because the US was pretty egalitarian during the time of the founders, they didn't build this into our system. The framers understood that the bulk of those that would hold political power were the middle class of the time. The economic inequality was not high (discounting the enslaved, of course), so there was not political inequality.

Today, though, we have a shrinking middle class with a growing level of socioeconomic inequality. With a Gini coefficient more in line with developing nations than with our WEIRD peers, it means that the political inequality is going with it. As more wealth accumulates at the top, the political power accumulates with it. This of course creates a feedback loop where those with the economic power take the political power and pass policies to give them even more economic power resulting in more political power, etc., etc. 

And before anyone tries to say I am just bashing one side with this, I want to say that the Democrats are always ***** this up, as well. Because those with the power are predominantly unaware of the actual plight of the middle and lower classes, even if they are well-meaning, on the right or left, they often do not have any idea of the real issues that the average member of the public experiences. 

That's why so many voters view Trump as an almost religious figure.  He's most definitely an outsider in Washington.  He plays lots of games in terms of how he attains his wealth, but he doesn't play the Washington elites particular variety of game.  He doesn't lose much if he refuses to shut up and play ball.  

Street-level perspective of voters here is that DJT will disrupt the system that grants them less and less power and compensation every year.  The only thing they don't get is that he doesn't care about them or their place on the political/economic spectrum.  He only cares that they grant him power through their vote.  He'll gladly break the system,  but fixing it is a different thing.  

[Millhouse]

This trend has been in the works for decades now, like the last 60 years or so. Like in the 1950s, the wealth distribution was much different, but then globalization and the rise of the shareholders of these companies began happening in the following decades which accelerated a lot in the 1980s and 90s.

At this point there isnt much that can be done imo other than passing a few 'band-aid' like bills for amputations that can't be reversed so to speak.

[Belsnickel]

(02-17-2024, 10:22 PM)Millhouse Wrote: This trend has been in the works for decades now, like the last 60 years or so. Like in the 1950s, the wealth distribution was much different, but then globalization and the rise of the shareholders of these companies began happening in the following decades which accelerated a lot in the 1980s and 90s.

At this point there isnt much that can be done imo other than passing a few 'band-aid' like bills for amputations that can't be reversed so to speak.

Oh, there is plenty that could be done. The problem is that the further down the path we go, the more radical the solution will need to be.

[BigPapaKain]

Eat the rich.

[Belsnickel]

(02-18-2024, 10:36 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Eat the rich.

Honestly, the rich are just crafting their own demise.

[*michaelsean*]

It looks like the top 1% starts at over a little over $1 million? Is that correct? Lots of seniors have that amount in their home and 401K or IRA or whatever. These aren’t super rich people running around pulling the levers of government, and a lot of people who do not have that much eventually will.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-18-2024, 01:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It looks like the top 1% starts at over a little over $1 million?  Is that correct?  Lots of seniors have that amount in their home and 401K or IRA or whatever.  These aren’t super rich people running around pulling the levers of government, and a lot of people who do not have that much eventually will.

I've seen different numbers, but most commonly I think on an annual basis it's about $400k for an individual annually, and closer to $500k for a married couple.  But most people are only in this group once or twice in their career thanks to a company sale (equity) or a one-time bonus from landing the whale of a lifetime.

I think the better measure is net worth, and from that perspective I think 1% is @ $10M.

The popular target for taxes always seem to be "making over $250k".  And that's far from rich, especially when you consider the COL in the cities where many people making that money live.  These are also people reaching the pinnacle of their earnings power, maybe the last 10 years of their career if they're lucky.  So we're talking about soaking these people at a time in their career where they're finally at a point to start accumulating some real wealth.  But, nope, the tax man cometh.


People always rant about "trickle down economics", but in my experience - and plenty of research backs it up - TAXES almost always do "trickle down".  Do people still really believe that raising taxes and costs on Amazon will result in lower margins for Amazon?   But there's research on that, too, that the less transparent actual tax burdens are the less people notice and complain.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-18-2024, 04:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've seen different numbers, but most commonly I think on an annual basis it's about $400k for an individual annually, and closer to $500k for a married couple.  But most people are only in this group once or twice in their career thanks to a company sale (equity) or a one-time bonus from landing the whale of a lifetime.

I think the better measure is net worth, and from that perspective I think 1% is @ $10M.

The popular target for taxes always seem to be "making over $250k".  And that's far from rich, especially when you consider the COL in the cities where many people making that money live.  These are also people reaching the pinnacle of their earnings power, maybe the last 10 years of their career if they're lucky.  So we're talking about soaking these people at a time in their career where they're finally at a point to start accumulating some real wealth.  But, nope, the tax man cometh.


People always rant about "trickle down economics", but in my experience - and plenty of research backs it up - TAXES almost always do "trickle down".  Do people still really believe that raising taxes and costs on Amazon will result in lower margins for Amazon?   But there's research on that, too, that the less transparent actual tax burdens are the less people notice and complain.

My bad. I thought it was top 1% of wealth holders.