Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Scarlett Madison
6706 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Rodrigo Tabarez
2288 Followers
beatnut2k4
4852 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
ONOLAST CARD
3682 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
animeworld
680 Followers
narachinvestMay 7, 2011
The graphics are interesting. Looking at the future and keeping the time value of money and inflation trends in perspective; to achieve a reasonable level of financial recognition, trillionaire would be a better bet.
scabnabbitApr 24, 2011
"Most of us are still working our jobs, waiting for our paychecks and hoping or wishing to someday be millionaires."
Nice pipe dream. Most of us are work our jobs hoping we have them tomorrow, let alone not getting raped on our retirement...
enantiodromiaApr 25, 2011
i dont know one person to get laid off in the last few years.
cosmicsurferApr 25, 2011
I was laid off at Christmas, my husband's best friend in January, his ex-wife in November.
I had a $60,000/yr job and now unemployment is $1200/month. I am in my late 50's and can't even get an interview after pouring dozens of resumes out every week and calling every lead I can get. I could get a part time at McDonald's, lose unemployment and make less than $1000 a month - that Our friend was cut to 20 hours a week in Oct, 2010 and lay off hit in January. He is 62.
My husband's ex was with the EPA as a research librarian. Masters degree and decades of service, first with the Law Library at UC then with the EPA law since 1990's but at age 63, she cannot get inside any door.
Don't EVEN get started on the "retirement" or "401K". Those ar3 not what many believe them to be and they have already been used to pay off medical debt (my husband went through renal failure 2 years ago and out of work 6 months with major surgery and an infection requiring constant monitoring, major drugs and expensive therapy. He was lucky. We got his kidneys and bladder functioning again so he doesn't need a transplant or continued dialysis.
What most people ignore is that there is a secondary issue we don't discuss. The lay offs and job loss of the Boomer generation should bring attention to one of the most prevalent forms of bigotry in the nation. Age-ism. We are more qualified by experience, education and maturity and have the ability to offer another 15 to 20 years but cannot get a job.
A BA given in 1960 and 1970 is not equivalent to today's. It is better - the quality of education was better then than it is now. A Masters today is no where near the quality it was in the 70's. A PhD today barely comes close to the PhD of 20 years ago.
Hell, my high school education puts many college's to shame .
Given excuses of being "over qualified", or nothing at all. We can't get responses on 90% of the inquiries or resumes sent.
Two things on which the people of this country need to be focusing:
1. WE will be trying to get into Social Security early as our only means of survival. If they raise the age limit, we are looking at homelessness and/or death. Many of us have no one to which we can turn. No kids or kids in similar financial distress; uninsurable - I am a cancer survivor since age 35 which cut me out of every policy as of the year 2000 unless I had group coverage under an employer....HCR won't hit for some time and even then it is too little
2. We will be a huge financial drain on you because the corporations who refuse to hire us are the ones who are lobbying against us as well. We will be forced to take advantage of every social program there is left and those are dwindling. Next, you will have to pay to bury us. There are millions of us, by the way.
ren1999Apr 25, 2011
How the U.S. government treats you and wants to treat you is sickening.
celarnorApr 25, 2011
You have my sympathies.
For what its worth, ageism works both ways; people coming just out of college, or still in college, can't find jobs outside McDonalds either. Of course, they don't have the medical expenses that someone in their 50s or 60s has.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is people like the grandparent, who, much like the ostrich, seem to think these problems don't exist just because they don't see them.
amaoicanApr 25, 2011
"I could get a part time at McDonald's, lose unemployment and make less than $1000 a month" In IL, you can earn up to half your unemployment income before losing a dime of it. I guess that could vary from state to state. That would mean an extra $600 per month.
"they have already been used to pay off medical debt" You had a $60k/yr job but no health insurance?
"Many of us have no one to which we can turn." No one to whom we can turn. I would have let this slide but after you went on and on about your great education...
In any case I think a big part of your problem, as in most cases, is _PROBABLY that you thought the $60k/yr was going to last forever. That's foolish. Nothing lasts forever.
cosmicsurferApr 25, 2011
Though I appreciate the thoughts, that wasn't my point. The government, at least not by its self, is not doing anything other than what they are being told to do. We get the government we deserve - we vote idiots in because we buy the scam aand stopped paying attention. Hell, most of us don't vote.
The corporations that would prefer to not pay taxes and take the jobs to cheap labotr...those are the biggest perpetrators of any crimes here. They won't hire me for my age and my experience. They won't hire fresh out of college because they can get you cheaper outside the US with outsourcing.
There are fewer and fewer small companies since they have mostly been eaten by the corporate owners of the country.
celarnorApr 25, 2011
Where do you work? Finance?
inajeepApr 25, 2011
Really, I know 14 in the last week.
BluntzworthApr 25, 2011
Then you don't know too many people to begin with.
bdbrApr 24, 2011
There's a new word for millionaire: retiree. The average age of millionaires in the U.S. is 62. When you start getting close to 60, you are facing the prospect of no income and heavy medical expenses for 30+ years.
Many of these are people who have scrimped and saved their whole lives for a retirement, but haven't yet drawn it down a lot. They're just saving enough to get the same retirement that is guaranteed to an equivalent public worker. If they were living like they're rich, most of them wouldn't have a million dollars in savings.
agent888Apr 25, 2011
Pfff, heavy medical expenses for 30+ years? Screw that. That's what Medicare is for. I'm gonna blow all my money now and let the government worry about my medical expenses later.
Who needs a rainy day fund anyway. I'd rather live outside of my means and have nothing to fall back on. I mean, medicare and social security are always going to be there, and I'm entitled to it.
/sarcasm
amaoicanApr 25, 2011
"medicare and social security are always going to be there, and I'm entitled to it."
If you pay in for 10-40 years, how are you NOT entitled to it?
rjeyApr 25, 2011
"If you pay in for 10-40 years, how are you NOT entitled to it?"
Very true, ask those in Washington that question though.
amaoicanApr 25, 2011
I will... as soon as they suggest restructuring SS in such a way that contributors, on average, will get back less real buying power than they put in.
tospokApr 24, 2011
Are they aware that billion is 1000 times millon? why do their perception jump 1000 times? If they define "made it" as not having to work any more or being able to buy, almost anything, why not rise it to 10 million or 50 million?
grammerpantsApr 24, 2011
It really depends on what you do with the money to get to the "don't have to work anymore". Hell you don't even need a million to do that.
sbuckley00Apr 24, 2011
I agree 100 percent. Us intellects would EASILY be able to live the rest of our lives off of 1 million, where as it takes a non-intellect to not be able too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grammerpantsApr 24, 2011
Pro-tip, skip the huge house and expensive cars. I recall reading an article about lotto winners once. Most of them are bankrupt within a few years.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
Everyone talks about reading "some article" about lotto winners who are broke, but no one ever links to it.
Because that article doesn't exist. Yes, many are. But NOT most.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grammerpantsApr 24, 2011
http://www.uky.edu/~swhank2/research/lottery_bankruptcy.pdf
Some information on the topic. Doesn't completely support what I was saying. But it was the first google result.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
Really? THAT is what you are referring to? People who win $50,000-$150,00?
That is not winning the lottery. that is getting third prize.
HUGE differnece between someone winning $100,000 and someone winning the jackpot for a typical lottery.
I never implied that people who win $100,000 lived happily ever after.
nicocoteApr 25, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavigueur_family
Oh, sorry, it's not a million...
it's 7,5 millions.
In 1986.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
It truly is like comedy of stupidity here. nicocote...please show me where I said it has NEVER happened, which would make your ONE example mean a damn thing.
KelseyGrammer's pants said MOST go broke...and that is not true.
There are many far better examples of individuals who go broke after winning much more than the Lavigueur (including a guy who won over $100 million after tax lump sum) But that doesn't off set the several hundred per year that become instant millionaires in this country alone.
amaoicanApr 25, 2011
There was a This American Life story about an industry (that no longer exists AFAIK) for buying lottery annuities.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/329/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it
The gentleman who worked in the industry had worked with "thousands" of lottery winners, many of whom had done frivolous things to end up needing the buyout.
It supports, though doesn't prove, the intuition that people who win the lottery (or otherwise come into a lot of money suddenly) have a tendency to squander their winnings.
(And my own experience. having known several people who came in to "a lot" of money all at once, whether it is several thousand dollars or several tens of thousands of dollars, they very often DO squander it...)
anomaly100Apr 24, 2011
I saw a show about Powerball winners. It was so bad as far as them going into eventual bankruptcy, they thought it was a curse. One guy, decided to purchase an airplane, houses (multiple), jewelry, cars, golf carts to roam around his property, etc. He went broke in 4 years.
I can't even imagine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
But those are the exceptions...not the rule. A lot of people ARE idiots. But the vast majority of people are smart about it. That is why you often hear about a large jackpot winner who hasn't come forward to claim their prize yet. Because so many get financial advice before even claiming the prize.
rockcosmosApr 25, 2011
We can all come up with stories of lottery winners blowing through bucks (I know 2 families - Denverite won CO $7 mill and decided to get into restaurant business knowing nothing about it...went with investors who robbed him blind; Another won big on Lotto scratchers $1 mill...blew it in 6 months in Vegas). Many of the current winners are groups splitting the prize after pooling to spend a few hundred on each play, CA had one in late 80's to early 90's that was a consortium that spent $1 million to win $30-40 million - now illegal.
Others gave it away because they felt their friends and families needed it; others invested wisely and never pushed any limits on their lifestyle.
A CO gas station attendant in Ft Collins won big and bought a house (a middle class home in a middle class neighborhood that needed fixing), car and put himself through school to learn how to invest it.
The ones that get the shorts and docudramas are the idiots and that may be why there is a misconception of winners losing everything
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
The mere fact that you refer to yourself as "us intellects" pretty much guarantees that you are not one.
(Also, intellectual people wouldn't say "off of")
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
intellectuals, not intellects
f**king dumb idiot
enantiodromiaApr 25, 2011
Weird because the highest concentrations of "intellects", and the highest concentration of wealth in the world, the Silicon Valley/Bay Area, are the same exact place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
benjammin822Apr 25, 2011
Without some degree of income inequality, an economy can't grow... The richer one becomes, the more their marginal propensity to save increases and thus, gross savings increase which leads to greater capital investment yadda yada yadda...
All the rich bashing of late though has become completely absurd. There are, and always will be rich and extremely rich members in a society. That's not a bad thing. This "exponentially expanding" gap between the rich is wildly overstated... The Gini coefficient has increased in recent years, but only by about .05 in the past 40-50 years... Nothing to write home about...
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
rofl you are a retard. there is a difference between being rich, and where you do not pay taxes, and lobby anything to anyone
benjammin822Apr 25, 2011
And where in this article does it talk about how non of these 8.4 millionaires may taxes?
amaoicanApr 25, 2011
It may not seem like something to write home about for YOU. But when you have a strained relationship with your folks, you can't be so choosy about what to write about.
celarnorApr 25, 2011
'Rich-bashing'. Heh.
The Gini coefficient isn't a great measurement of overall inequality. It has a number of problems, and the system of calculation hasn't been adjusted significantly since...1992, I think.
Basically, it has a lot of problems with the way in which data is plotted toward the lower end of the share of income earned scale. Income counted after benefits vs before, etc. Also, it ipso facto assumes even efficiency and an even tax system, which is not the case. A rich person is better able to leverage their assets than a poor person. They don't pay income tax on all their income like I do, thanks to the advantages of capital gains. They don't count investments at all (only income from investments). They can hire lobbyists to perpetuate the system.
Tl;dr people like you try to use the Gini coefficient as a measure of equality, when it really only functions well as a measurement of comparative payroll income distribution.
Even so, however, our index its still pretty high compared to the rest of countries.
We're still higher than all the other countries indexed, with the exception of Mexico and Brazil (and recently soon China). Compared to the rest of the civilized world, our level of inequality runs at least 10 points above everyone else.
benjammin822Apr 25, 2011
Of course it isn't perfect, but it's the most widely used method and is considered the best indicator among all of the other tools.
And while we are in the top 33% probably of all Gini's around the world, we're also not nearly as socialist as most of the other industrialized countries in the world (thank god).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
benjammin822Apr 25, 2011
Also, what do you mean they don't pay taxes on all income? Unless you're in the top two brackets, you don't pay anything on long-term capital gains, while the top two pay 15%. Short term capital gains are taxed just like regular income... So I don't really understand your comment...
celarnorApr 25, 2011
Why would anyone with enough money that they don't actually need it choose short-term rather than long-term investments?
It's not just issues with gaming the capital gains system. It's the whole AMT system. There's a multitude of ways by which the wealthy (or perhaps more accurately, anyone who doesn't need to spend all their income to survive) can use it to their advantage. I only wish I had enough money to be one of them, lol.
One that comes prominently to mind is the interest rate differential on tax-exempt bonds. If you can afford to put your money into bonds, you only pay some percentage interest as opposed to a higher percentage in taxes on the same sum. The richer you are, the lower the differential is.
benjammin822Apr 25, 2011
Ah, I see what you're getting at. Valid point.
ren1999Apr 25, 2011
There are a million Chinese millionaires who equal 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire population of China. They have 41.4 percent of all the wealth. How did they get wealthy? The real-estate prices shot up and they became rich from the land they owned in a very short time. Some sources say that landowners only comprise 20% of all millionaires.
There were 42 Chinese billionaires in 2009 and this shot up to 128 in 2011. All of them made their money on exploiting the working class.
dronicadevynApr 24, 2011
I'd be perfectly happy with a million dollars, I'm not that greedy.
nairebisApr 24, 2011
A friend of mine just recently sold his company for about a million dollars. He immediately started looking to start a new company and get some income coming in, because he knew it wasn't going to last that long. He needed to really chop back his expenses.
It sounds like a lot when you're living paycheck to paycheck, but you can't retire on it. If you have any sort of upper middle class lifestyle, you'll burn through it pretty fast.
Obviously, it's possible to live on a million if you're a miser living in the trailer park, but to retire and live on the money in any sort of good lifestyle, you need at least 5-10 million to be stable. If you want to be a millionaire by the purchasing power standards of, say, 1900, you need $20-40 million. Of course, when I say "stable," I mean you're able to live in the income produced by the money itself and you're not eating into the principle.
goweigusApr 24, 2011
Pretty sure most Americans don't need 5-10 million dollars to have a stable retirement especially since most won't every earn even half that in their whole life anyway. But I get some of what you are saying about living off the interest, which could certainly work but most people probably invest to make more instead of living off the interest.
goweigusApr 24, 2011
A million bucks could easily last me the next 30 years at about 30k annual, even twice that or longer if I did nothing to change my lifestyle from the last few years and prices and $ value never change
nairebisApr 24, 2011
$30K/year is a trailer park lifestyle, and good luck with that if you want to get married and raise a family (there's no way you currently have kids and think that's adequate). And, of course, "prices and $value never change" is just a fantasy.
randompretenderApr 24, 2011
Yikes, really? How many people in America do you think make 30K vs. how many live in "trailer parks". Granted it's not a lot, but it's not akin to a trashy lifestyle.
nairebisApr 24, 2011
I'm guessing you're young and single...
The poverty level for a family of four in the US for 2011 is $22,350/year. For a young, single person with roommates, $30K/year is probably fine to have a fun lifestyle. But living an "adult life" with a family, health insurance, transportation, on and on, it adds up fast.
randompretenderApr 24, 2011
@nairebis Well then that's the distinction. We are talking about families with a million dollars, not individuals. I'm still a bit stuck in my own past concerning having a million dollars but I do understand your point.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
nairebis...so to you there is no middle ground between a single person living with roommates and having a family of 4?
kjh1985Apr 25, 2011
$30K would be fine to live off of.
If your home and vehicle were paid off, what else do you really have to pay?
You couldn't buy a bunch of jet skis, HDTVs and other garbage that most people in the US put on credit. But do you really need that stuff?
celarnorApr 25, 2011
Lots of people are below the poverty level, nairebis. Where I'm from, we call that "normal". For more realistic values, try around $12k-$18k.
Most of my adult peers would kill for an opportunity to pull in $30k. That'd be doubling earnings for most of them. That's "rich folk" money.
A million dollars is a sum so far removed from reality that its barely even thinkable.
nairebisApr 25, 2011
They would "kill" for an opportunity to pull in $30K, yet how many of them actually go out and attend night school and get more education? How many really bust their ass in their $12-18K job to try and get to the next rung up?
There is a reason they are stuck in the lower class, and it's not because of the existence of rich people.
If you pulled me out of my current life, took away everything, told me that I couldn't do for work what I currently do, I guarantee I could start from the bottom at something completely different and work my way up.
All of this is assuming you live in the United States. There is no lack of opportunity.
celarnorApr 25, 2011
Most of them already have degrees, nairebis. Some have masters. I know of one that even has a PhD. In my neighboorhood, we've got former network administrators, database technicians, even experts in some fields that are supposedly in super-high demand, like COBOL programmers. We've got laid-off teachers and a former environmental sciences professor who now works as a low-level employee at a company that makes cleaning supplies.
I had to cut my time at college short when I was $246 short for my spring tuition payment after scholarships and loans. I still haven't saved enough up to go back.
There's this fantasy out there rich people have that if you work hard you can pull yourself out of poverty. This is not the case.
ganjadude4391Apr 25, 2011
Location matters too, I make 40 K a year pretax, after taxes i only bring in about 26K, and living in NY the cost of everything is WAY up, and im not even in the city
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
You are assuming that $30,000 will buy the same in 2040 that it does in 2011. And with just normal inflation, it won't even buy half as much.
goweigusApr 25, 2011
this is one reason why I have trouble getting myself to save any money :P
gotta spend it now before I'll get too much less for it
UnfashenomicApr 25, 2011
If you've invested in stocks which will rise with the price level, that is not so much of a problem.
nairebisApr 24, 2011
Well, it's a fair point that many people retire as a senior on less money than that, but it depends on your lifestyle. A senior generally has a pretty simple life at that point. If you want to retire young (which I think is the point of this article) and you want to have a nice home, raise a family, do a fair amount of traveling, etc, a standard retiree income isn't going to cut it.
randompretenderApr 24, 2011
I see a million as a starting point. Having a million dollars would afford me so many opportunities including temporary stability. I'm sure it's not something you can count on forever all by itself or even interest, but it's a damn sight better than living in squalor and debt.
tankslapApr 25, 2011
Did he at least get to do two chicks at the same time?
celarnorApr 25, 2011
The thought that there are people out there who have accumulated such an obnoxious amount of wealth that they can literally live off INTEREST on their money, while the rest of us scramble to come up with that last $50 to make the rent this month really irks me.
My grandmother, aged 70, still has to work because she can't. She works in a college cafeteria. Her husband, aged 74, with a pacemaker, still stocks milk at a gas station. They actually DO live in a trailer park, and certainly don't have a million dollars.
Why people think this is okay is beyond me.
nairebisApr 25, 2011
The thought that there are people out there who think that no one is entitled to the fruits of their labors just because someone else was less successful irks me as well. My friend who sold his company literally risked everything he had. He borrowed against his house, worked odd jobs to keep his family of 5 fed and worked his ass off to create a company of value. It easily could've cratered and left him bankrupt. But he ended creating something of value that incidentally provided jobs to a whole bunch of people.
I guarantee there are people in third world countries who think you and your grandmother are wealthy beyond their dreams. Should we confiscate everything you have and give it to them? Should everyone by law have to live at the level of the lowest person in the world?
To be honest, people like you piss me off. You jealously whine that someone else lives better than you. Do something of value yourself.
UnfashenomicApr 25, 2011
I don't see why anyone would seek a "stable" retirement where they never eat into the principle. What's the point of dying with $20 million in the bank? Even with $1 million invested and earning 3% on the market, that's $30,000 a year of income... spend $80,000 a year, and it will take 20 years to eat away the principle, which is plenty of time to enjoy retirement. I think your figures are inflated.
ren1999Apr 25, 2011
If it is true that there are 8.4 million American millionaires, now we know who has been so politically active in trying to take every last dollar away from the poor. Now we know who destroyed the middle class.
There were 6.7 millionaires in 2008. What is wrong with this picture? I see a lot of greedy executives who have destroyed middle class management and paid themselves for doing nothing!
Stealing all the profits!
ganjadude4391Apr 25, 2011
or, just perhaps a good portion of those middle management types got promoted, did well and made out good for it. Blind hatred of the rich is whats gonna keep the system in place
ren1999Apr 28, 2011
Have you talked to any middle managers who've got promoted lately?
I've talked to a lot of middle managers who came to work for me for $14.00 an hour from 2003 to 2005.
roy5000x2Apr 25, 2011
I think you forgot your /s at the end of that thought. Do you really think you could live the rest of your life on just one million dollars? I hope your house, car, and kids college is already paid for. Given the declining value of the dollar, the rising cost of oil, and the rising food costs, you might need a bit of luck to go with that one million.
humanitApr 25, 2011
There is one good option: change the country. You do not have to move to some banana state, even in Northern Europe you could live actually quite well with million dollars. Public healthcare, good scholing system etc. will help really much in that. Even universities are free. Of course, there are probably many things that are not same like where you live now, but it depends on the personal character how much one needs those things (and not having actually lived in US I probably am not the right person to guess what you would miss).
I95guyApr 24, 2011
Fortunately for the Dems, they have plenty of hate to spread around. They can easily cover 8.4 Million Millionaires with their anti-rich rhetoric.
kamtsaApr 24, 2011
I see your point
|Democratic Hate| > |US Millionaires|
But without new Millionaires they will run out of other people money.
enantiodromiaApr 25, 2011
Unfortunately for you, most of the millionaires actually live in the blue states, and your fantasy that Democrats hate 'rich people' is just that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I95guyApr 25, 2011
Democrats do hate rich people. It's been their mantra for quite a few months now. At least the ones on Digg. Haven't you been paying attention?
enantiodromiaApr 25, 2011
I guess once I see a lame strawman, I just ignore it. Silly me.
TalismenApr 25, 2011
El pesimista se queja del viento; el optimista espera que cambie; el realista ajusta las velas.
WARD, William George
brockorrApr 25, 2011
Just thinking outside the box here..
(I read the article, but this is more of a response to some comments rather than a direct commentary of the article, so I guess I be trollish):
Sure its easy to hate on the rich and call them greedy for wanting more, but why is it wrong for somebody to have more money than other people? I know the economic system is flawed (broken is a better word for it), and trickle down economics probably don't work, but the fact is everybody reading this comment is in the upper class, so measurement of wealth is completely relative.
More importantly: Why does it matter how much other people have? I know there are people dying around the world because of poverty, and that sucks. The thing is, most people whining about rich getting richer (at least around these parts of the internet) aren't starving at all [clearly this is an assumption, I did not do a poll]. The amount of money somebody has does not make them live a better or more fulfilled life (unless you cant afford the basic staples, and I talked about that already).
So if getting richer isn't fundamentally wrong, and if it doesn't matter how much other people have, then who is actually at fault? (again, I am directly speaking to the target audience of this website and this type of article, not the people dying of cholera in Haiti)
The fact that people whine and bitch about this issue at all directly implies their selfish greed, but isn't that what they are accusing the rich of being? Don't get me wrong, I am one of those selfish greedy people whining and bitching.
I guess my point is desiring wealth for the sake of wealth is completely pointless.
Chime in people. Tear this argument apart. It is obviously half baked and full of tasty red herrings; I just wanted to throw this viewpoint out there.
humanitApr 25, 2011
One thing: when people's income are enormously different, they "live in different worlds". There is not so much honest change of opinion. Many people can not comprehend that they do not understand other peoples stand at all, because they _never_ had to worry about same kind of things. Many filthy rich people just think that they are better, entitled - much like kings of today. Not that I'm not saying "most". Anyway, this means that things will slowly get worse, and in some bad depression sh*t will really hit the fan, the rioting starts and "trash people" are against "elite", the latter having police on their side and the former (when things go reaaally wrong) some kind of "freedom fighters" (who elite call terrorists). That is the logical outcome of ever deepening division. I do not remember who, but someone has said long time ago, that the only thing rich people fear is the middle class - poor people have no means or energy to began rioting.
ganjadude4391Apr 25, 2011
You mean kind of like how we bitch and moan on our ipads, while watching cable TV chatting on our cell phones about the "big bad rich" meanwhile in cuba, the avg YEARLY salary for everyone is around a few hundred bucks? I think some of the people in america bitching about "the rich" need to look at it from some of these other countries shoes
celarnorApr 25, 2011
It's wrong because there are hungry people, sick people who can't afford the things to make them not hungry and not sick. The woman who lives next door to me has to use all her income for medical expenses and housing; she has literally no money for food, and makes like $10-$20 too much for foodstamps. You know what she does? She looks around for cans whenever she's not at work, picks them up and collects them unless she's accumulated two dollars worth. Then she goes to taco bell and buys whatever you get there for 99 cents. This is how she eats.
She does this EVERY SINGLE DAY. Sometimes she can't get enough cans, so she goes without and saves them for a later day.
People _can't_ afford staples. You don't need to look to third world to find people dying of malnutrition. People die of malnutrition here, too. Look for cause of death listed as 'nutritive deficiencies'. It definitely still happens.
I don't have a problem with someone making twice or even three or four times what normal people (e.g, minimum wage) do. Obviously some workers are more valuable than others.
But when it becomes so ridiculous that some people have enough money that they can live off interest sitting at home all day while others working two jobs alternate going without food, medical care or shelter, there's a problem with our income distribution that needs to be addressed.
And I am nowhere NEAR the upper middle class, or even the middle class. I used to be what I guess would be lower-middle class (trailer park lifestyle) but my family got hit hard by the economic downturn. Now, both I and my parents are well below federal and state poverty lines. Excluding any web development contracts I can find on the side, I make around $10k a year. My mother is on disability and undergoing ECT treatments for extreme clinical depression, and my father makes about $16k.
Me, I have fibromyalgia and hypokalemia. For this, I take super-expensive preglabin (weed works much better, but I can't afford it) and a potassium uptake assistor. I'm lucky enough to qualify for foodstamps, but only after a protracted battle with the department of human services. Every month I spend about a week's worth of wages buying these prescriptions; sometimes I can't afford it and pay heating (~$50), electricity (~$100) and rent ($320) at the same time.
So, please, don't make assumptions. I don't want to fleece the 1%'s pockets and take everything they have for myself; I just want to be able to live not worrying about what I staples I can't afford to buy this month without becoming homeless.
I'm a hard-working American; is not starving and not being homeless really so much to ask?
ferretmanApr 25, 2011
Good to have goals....
djbventuresApr 25, 2011
And as soon as this is reached we will need to be trillionaires
novenatorApr 24, 2011
The problem is that there is only so much wealth that can be created by the working man to go around. The absorption of this wealth by the very rich (wealth consolidation) has been intensifying over the last 30 years of fiscally conservative economic policy, leaving more and more people poor and fewer people in between the rich and poor.
How many yachts and manors do these people need?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nairebisApr 24, 2011
It's not a zero-sum game. More rich people doesn't mean more poor people. In fact, there's an inverse relationship. Pulling down the rich has a tendency to decrease the opportunity for the poor. Bums don't create jobs. Capital creates jobs.
And notice that yachts and manors create jobs. Someone has to build them, and someone has to service them.
The price of an efficient economy that produces jobs and opportunity is income inequality. You simply can't have an efficient economy where everybody makes the same amount. Bringing down the rich casts everyone into poverty.
pinkfish411Apr 24, 2011
Yes,capital creates jobs, but let's not forget that the workers themselves are also seen as capital, and a fundamental rule of business is to use as little capital as possible to get the desired return. Greater wealth disparities usually mean less bargaining power for those on the bottom, and the business owners usually aren't paying them any more than what they can successfully bargain for.
Massive inequality is NOT the price we must pay for economic efficiency. Some quite successful companies operate on a "distributist" model that spreads out earnings on a more equal level (giving the highest paid executives, say, a cap of ten times the salary of the guy sweeping the floors). "Bringing down the rich" doesn't have to mean decreasing productivity or decreasing profits; there is NO logical necessity that dictates that.
Libertarian economics quite often assumes that the only reason people work is personal greed, and in that sense, it's far more out of touch with Christian and Marxist economic theories that see work as an inherent part of human nature. There are numerous people who would gladly take meaningful work in high-level positions for far less than what big-time executives are pulling in now, but libertarianism assumes that the only way to get the best people is to pay them exorbitant salaries. I've read the theory, but I simply don't follow the logic, because it's out of touch with human experience and is too rooted in a pessimistic, Calvinist anthropology.
ganjadude4391Apr 25, 2011
the theiry is that if say GM pays their CEO 10 million, but ford offers him 15 million he will leave and work for ford, thus leaving a void in GM, as such GM has to rais its pay for their CEO to keep in line with the other CEOs. Do i like it? no, but there is some truth to it
pinkfish411Apr 25, 2011
I have a hard time believing that it's impossible to get people who will take some degree of pride in the company and who aren't just there to exploit it for all the personal gain they can get. If that's really the standard character of executives, I'd say that's a bad sign for business--but it does explain a lot of what's wrong in the corporate world.
novenatorApr 25, 2011
A zero sum game is *exactly* what it is. There is only a certain amount of real wealth that can be created, and all of it comes from labor, from working men and women who actually *do* things. Mathematical games that artificially inflate numbers are just a game of tricks that do not actually create any actual wealth.
That is no different than lowering the official poverty line to pretend like there is less poverty, or increasing the definition of "small" business until it means anything with less than 500 employees.
Jobs are created by demand, and you don't get that by giving a greater proportion of the created wealth to those who are already well off. Jobs get made when poor and middle class people have money beyond what they need to just survive, they then recycle that back into the economy to buy things.
I agree that a certain degree of inequality is inherent in any incentive based economic system, but laissez faire quickly turns into caveat emptor (let the buyer beware), or predatory capitalism that creates extreme inequalities of wealth, and kills the potential for economic mobility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nairebisApr 25, 2011
I promised myself I wouldn't reply to you, but I can't take it. "There is only a certain amount of real wealth that can be created" is so absurd as to be parody. Are you saying there is exactly the same amount of wealth today as there was 100 years ago? or 1,000 years ago? Or 10,000 years ago?
PLEASE please go study some economics. The expansion of wealth is basic economic theory.
novenatorApr 25, 2011
I understand economics better than you think, but thanks for the blind insult.
Wealth is anything of value. There is more wealth today because more people are alive, and we work for a great proportion of our peak time on this world. What I have a problem with is the artificial "expansion" of wealth where the numbers are deliberately manipulated to make it appear as if everyone is getting more wealthy when in fact only the rich are (like what has happened during the last 30 years of fiscal conservative caused class warfare).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PyriteGenieApr 25, 2011
"I understand economics better than you think,"
You hide it well.
TheTruth00Apr 25, 2011
"There is only a certain amount of real wealth that can be created, and all of it comes from labor"
That's wrong. It's an equation of land, labour and capital that allows for an economy to be viable. Unplug any one those variables and your economy will suffer. I'm sorry, but thats how the world works my friend. Look at hard working China of yesterday with no capital and compare it to hard working China of today with capital. World of difference! (Just imagine if they had more land)
novenatorApr 25, 2011
ah, but therein lies the problem. Where does that capital come from that has been flowing into China? It is being 'invested' there by rich countries like the US (and other developed nations) in order to exploit the cheap Chinese labor "market". In other words, people are putting it there with the agreement that the Chinese workers will work for pennies on the dollar and there will be little to no environmental protection, thus more profits. That money should be invested in countries that protect their workers and the environment imo.
You are correct about the wealth attributed to land however, that is not part of my equation. Unfortunately, we are also turning into an absentee landlord society with all of these home foreclosures, so that wealth is quickly being confiscated by the rich and powerful too!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ganjadude4391Apr 25, 2011
weath is not matter, weath can be created, matter cant. I think you mixed up science class with economics
armedrebelApr 25, 2011
No one is saying an inequality is bad. There will always be some inequality. The problem is that inequality is rising, and that always is bad for an economy. The less inequality there is, the stronger the middle class is, the more they spend, the more jobs they create (everyone creates jobs) and the stronger the economy is. These are the facts.
byogmanApr 25, 2011
Economics is not thermodynamics and we get more productive all the time.
CEOs and high dollar investors make good villians, and there's some truth to the accusation that they tilt the playing field in their favor in ways our society shouldn't tolerate.
However, the biggest factor killing middle class buying power are health care costs... and the largest part of that in most circumstances is born by your employer and totally invisible to you. More than anything else, this is what makes me not want to start a business right now.
The fundamental model is just wrong. Insurance should be to cover for circumstances that are not selectable, not known in advance, and not frequent. Otherwise you're killed by adverse selection, cost insensitive utilization, and a high multiplier on individual claim cost.
Add in insane complexity and overhead, insane educational requirements and a cartel on new doctors by the AMA (by restricting residency programs), and increased demands from an aging population, and you have a roughly factor of 5 cost multiplication in the last 3 decades, rapidly approaching 20% of GDP. Obviously not sustainable yet every policy proposed brings more of the same, including Obama's effort. GAH!!!
narachinvestMay 7, 2011
The graphics are interesting. Looking at the future and keeping the time value of money and inflation trends in perspective; to achieve a reasonable level of financial recognition, trillionaire would be a better bet.
thegeek20Apr 28, 2011
nice content.
chukaobianozieApr 25, 2011
I can't believe being a millionaire is so played out these days. lol
bijaApr 25, 2011
They need to pay more taxes.
rudegarApr 25, 2011
Cayman Islands don't charge you that much
makaroffApr 25, 2011
Memento mori
pjm2119Apr 25, 2011
http://www.creditsesame.com/blog/worlds-billionaires/
Link to the original article from which the infographic was taken, uncredited.
SmashingfunApr 24, 2011
Very informative article
dieslowfacebookApr 24, 2011
Speak for yourself.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
I've been saying for years that the word rich is greatly overused.