The 99% Declaration

[Camikaze]

You didn't prove that, either in actual dollars or percentages. Check your math.

There are a whole lot of variables that could impact on the wealth of Person A and Person B, but the intuitive conclusion is that the gap between them widens. You're going to have to explain to me how that's not the case, because I'm not seeing it. The opposite conclusion that the rich person has somehow not got richer (used to describe relative wealth), despite firstly earning $1.4 million more, and secondly increasing the gap between them and the other person, simply doesn't not follow. I don't believe my maths in that regard {($2,155,365 - $32,879) < [($2,155,365 + $1,432,890) - ($32,879 + $32,396)]} is incorrect. Maybe a graph will help (and I've extrapolated the trend linearly to make it clearer; if anything this should show a further decrease in 'richness' if that's what you're saying the trend is):

Spoiler :

I should've labelled the 'this' line as the one on the right and the 'that' line as the one on the left, obviously.

The gradient of the top line is decreasing at a greater rate than the gradient of the bottom line, but what is relevant to 'richness' is that nevertheless, the gradient of the top line remains greater than that of the bottom line.

 

[luiz]

Well no, as I demonstrated, the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. The rich continue to get richer, even if they are not continuing to get richer at an increasing rate. That their incomes may be more susceptible to fluctuations is window-dressing really when you consider that they're still well beyond that of the average worker. And still enough, again, to continue making them richer. Your statement 'the notion that rich keep getting richer even during recessions is a lie' is simply completely false, because the numbers you provide tell precisely the opposite story; that the gap in wealth between Person A and Person B would have widened.

Being 'rich' has much more to do with wealth than salary, so a decrease in salary is not at all necessarily contradictory with an increase in wealth, as would be the case here.

Maybe some rich people haven't gotten richer. Of course that's the case. But that's not at all what your numbers say.

Your comparisson is meaningless. Rich people always make more than average people (or they would not be rich). So the fact that in absolute terms the ammount they manage to save is always bigger than that of the average person is equally meaningless. This is the case in Denmark as it is the case in Botswana. When we talk about inequality we usually talk about income inequality. That's how the Gini Index, the most widely used metric for inequality, is calculated.

And income inequality in the USA has fallen since 2007. That's where the OWS folks are dead wrong, and this is what matters. Income inequality has fallen, not increased, during the crisis.

Now you may have your own measure of inequality, but that's not how the whole world measures it. The measure you suggest is completely meaningless.

 

[Camikaze]

'The rich are not getting richer' is a bit of a misleading statement, then, don't you think, when you're talking about income inequality? There is less disparity between the incomes in the individual years, but that's not what being rich is about. The '99%' (don't worry, I feel ridiculous using that term) are not going to be soothed by such claims, whilst the gap is continuing to widen ("but now their incomes are only $1.4 million greater than ours!"). Because what you have demonstrated is not that the rich aren't getting richer. It's the opposite. I'm no hipster with a narrow domestic focus who thinks that I should start a revolution to maintain my middle class lifestyle; I'm just saying that what you posted (that the rich are not getting richer) is simply not supported by the data you posted.

 

[katipunero]

Income of top 1 percent far outgrew others: report

WASHINGTON — Incomes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans nearly tripled from 1979 to 2007, far outpacing income growth for all other groups, said a new report that underscored sharply increased U.S. income disparity.

As demonstrators nationwide protest the power of Wall Street and the wealthy, the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday gave further evidence that, in the last three decades, the United States has become a far more unequal nation

For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007," said the report from the CBO, a nonpartisan budget and tax analysis arm of Congress.

The next-highest 19 percent of earners saw their income grow by 65 percent over the same period. Income grew by just under 40 percent for the 60 percent of the population in the middle, while the 20 percent at the bottom of the scale saw income growth of only about 18 percent, the report said.

The CBO's conclusions will likely figure in the debate over whether tax increases on the rich should play a role in cutting budget deficits and reducing the U.S. national debt.

"This report confirms what the American people already know," said Representative Sander Levin.
"The rules have been changed by the unfair tax policies of the last decade and our tax code is doing less to level the playing field than it was in the past."

Levin is the top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives' tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

As a result of this uneven shift, income was substantially more skewed toward the very top of the income scale in 2007 than it was in 1979, CBO said.

So much so, it said, that in 2005-2007, just before the financial crisis, the top 20 percent of the population received more after-tax income than the entire bottom 80 percent.

CBO said it measured the period between 1979 and 2007 because those years both immediately preceded recessions, making for similar endpoints in the study.

 

[luiz]

'The rich are not getting richer' is a bit of a misleading statement, then, don't you think, when you're talking about income inequality? There is less disparity between the incomes in the individual years, but that's not what being rich is about. The '99%' (don't worry, I feel ridiculous using that term) are not going to be soothed by such claims, whilst the gap is continuing to widen ("but now their incomes are only $1.4 million greater than ours!"). Because what you have demonstrated is not that the rich aren't getting richer. It's the opposite. I'm no hipster with a narrow domestic focus who thinks that I should start a revolution to maintain my middle class lifestyle; I'm just saying that what you posted (that the rich are not getting richer) is simply not supported by the data you posted.

The rich are not getting richer because their incomes are falling.

Based on your logic, someone who used to make 50k, now is making 40k, but still manages to save 10k per year is also gettin richer because his total net worth increases year after year.

When we talk about inequality we talk about income inequality. Even in the most equitable country in the world, Denmark, the rich can still save more money than the average person, and thus their total net wealth increases more in absolute terms. This is a truism, a mathematical consequence of making more money and is not worth discussing.

What matters is that income inequality has fallen in the last few years, as a result of the crisis, and thus in relative terms the total wealth of the rich increased at a lower pace (or fell at a faster pace) than that of average citizens.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm no hipster with a narrow domestic focus who thinks that I should start a revolution to maintain my middle class lifestyle

Maybe you should be! Viva la Revolution! C'est assez, languir en tutelle, L'égalité veut d'autres lois! Nous sommes les 99%! C'est la lutte finale...

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm fundamentally against most of it. One of the basic points that is overlooked by the whole anti-corporation movement is that most of the stock in those corporations is owned by retirement plans. Destroy the ability of the corporations to make a profit and their stock value falls. Stock value falls, retirement plans are wiped out. Retirement plans are wiped out, and it results in negative feedback through the economy. Great Depression II.

The retirement plans are already gone. Scratch that complaint.

 

[Camikaze]

The rich are not getting richer because their incomes are falling.

Based on your logic, someone who used to make 50k, now is making 40k, but still manages to save 10k per year is also gettin richer because his total net worth increases year after year.

When we talk about inequality we talk about income inequality. Even in the most equitable country in the world, Denmark, the rich can still save more money than the average person, and thus their total net wealth increases more in absolute terms. This is a truism, a mathematical consequence of making more money and is not worth discussing.

What matters is that income inequality has fallen in the last few years, as a result of the crisis, and thus in relative terms the total wealth of the rich increased at a lower pace (or fell at a faster pace) than that of average citizens.

Again, I think your use of 'rich' is misleading. When talking about the difference in wealth, 'rich' and 'richer' are comparative terms. The 50k to 40k person taken on their own does not appear to be getting richer, but if the comparison is to everyone else in the neighbourhood making 2k, then they are still pretty obviously getting richer whilst others are not. If I am able to buy a new car every year, I'm getting richer, right? This doesn't necessarily mean my salary is rising or falling. It's farcical to talk about a fall in salary from $2.1m to $1.4m as somehow not getting richer, and it's certainly not something that's going to convince the protestors.

 

[Hygro]

This is one of those arguments in which you are both right.