Author Topic: DUmmy shines a light, but The Hive is too blind to see  (Read 908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dandi

  • Live long, and piss off liberals.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Reputation: +553/-28
DUmmy shines a light, but The Hive is too blind to see
« on: October 16, 2011, 10:18:58 PM »
Blinded by ideology and indoctrination, that is.


Quote
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sun Oct-16-11 05:31 PM
Original message
The 1%ers are less likely to be bankers...
   
Edited on Sun Oct-16-11 05:53 PM by dkf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how...

How the top 1 percent made its money in two charts
Posted by Suzy Khimm at 11:22 AM ET, 10/11/2011

You’d be in the top 1 percent of U.S. households if your income in 2010 was at least $516,633. Your net worth in 2007 was $8,232,000 or more, and your average income this year is $1,530,773. But where did the top 1 percent make its money? Two charts from Mother Jones’s Dave Gilson shed some light on the question.

The first takes a look at the occupations of the top 1 percent of incomes in 2005, as calculated in a paper by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley T. Heim. What’s notable is that there are more non-financial-sector business executives and medical professionals in the top 1 percent of households than people who actually work in finance — the sector that’s been the most explicit target of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

(SOURCE: MOTHER JONES) In other words, it’s a more complex and heterogeneous group than the image of the 1 percent that’s been popularized by the 99 percenters. That being said, when you look at the very richest Americans — the top 0.1 percent of households by income — then business executives and financial professions do take the lion’s share, and they’ve been pulling away from the rest much faster. “We find that executives, managers, supervisors, and financial professionals account for about 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent of income earners in recent years, and can account for 70 percent of the increase in the share of national income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution between 1979 and 2005,” the paper’s authors write.

And the vast majority of the wealth held by the top 1 percent doesn’t come from income, but from stocks, securities, business equity and other investments. Edward Wolff, an economist at Bard College, examined the proportion of assets held by the top 1 percent in 2007, those whose minimum net worth was $8,232,000 or more. Mother Jones has more charts on the 1 percent here and income inequality here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2129561#2129740

It should be obvious to anyone that out of 3,000,000 U.S. citizens (1%) only a relatively small group could be Wall Street bankers and owners of investment houses. But we're talking about DUmmies here, who have never been known for their grasp of the obvious.

Another DUmmy helpfully provides a chart:

Quote
NYC_SKP DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sun Oct-16-11 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. charts
   
How the top 1 percent made its money...




Now, just looking at that chart, I'm seeing a whole lot of people who made money through their own skill, education, risk and proven performance. People who perhaps spent many years "toiling in obscurity", working their way up, developing skills and talents, perhaps failing more than once, until they finally achieved financial success. Yet the Left would punish them for no greater crime than daring to have more. Snot-nosed kids, for the most part, who have never risked or known adversity their entire lives, are the ones passing this judgement. They are egged on by 60's-throwback academics and radicals who contributed nothing but division, while cynically making their own fortunes off the gullibility of the very people they claim to support (Michael Moore, anyone?).

Conservatives, too are against vote-buying, corruption, and politicians being in the pocket of moneyed interests. The difference is the Left isn't satisfied with cleaning up the corrupt (though they have plans to substitute their own brand of corruption). They won't be happy until everyone on the list, regardless of how they gained their wealth or how long it took, has it confiscated and redistributed. This their idea of the "level playing field". Not one of equality of opportunity, but of equality of outcome through force of government. That is the true killer of progress.


Quote
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) 

7. The 99% does the heavy lifting, the 1% gets the goods.
   
And don't forget, the 1% is in no way committed to the success of the 'people of the United States.'

Quote
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts)

6. Is it just me or is this not about indiv. rich people?
   
Corporate entities and the damage they've done to our country are much more important to me. Yes, if these people weren't actively trying to prop up the status quo it would be nice, but I personally don't care about how one rich guy got his money.

But your side chose to make it about people the minute they divided the country into two groups, the 1% vs. the 99%. At that point you were no longer talking about corporations but individuals. Individuals who are American citizens just like you. Class warfare.

Quote
EdMaven (276 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sun Oct-16-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. "the vast majority of the wealth held by the 1% doesn’t come from income, but from ...investments."
   
Edited on Sun Oct-16-11 06:39 PM by EdMaven
Indeed.

And as the top 1% own 70% of all financial assets (and financial assets represent ownership of real assets), we are pretty much their serfs. Except that serfs were guaranteed a place to live, a share of the harvest, & the ownership of their own tools.

Serfs don't have time to camp out and party in downtown New York. They're too busy, well, being serfs.

Quote
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts)

10. Well the people don't want investments...look at the arguments against privatization!
   
If you gave me a chance to put my social security into stocks and bonds I would jump on it. If you gave me the opportunity to vote for putting some of SS's investments in stocks and corporate bonds instead of treasuries I would jump on it.

The arguments against privatizing social security show why the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top. The bottom thinks its too risky.

HERESY!

 
I don't want...anybody else
When I think about me I touch myself