OT alternative wealth statistics

Renata wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Well, a couple of quick thoughts, without really taking any sort of position on the issue...

What is the definition of "wealth" for this statement? My guess is that it's liquid assets (stocks, bonds, money in the bank, etc), but not real estate. In general, lower income folk have a greater proportion of their money invested in their home (i.e. real estate) than higher income folk. BTW, according to Merrill Lynch (Pierce Pfenner & Psmith), the wealthiest 1% would include _all_ Americans with a wealth of $1 million or more, so that's not just the Bill Gateses.

This seems a little misleading. The bottom 20 million is ~7.5% of the population, which is roughly equal to the unemployment rate. Making a comparision between a group, any group, which has income and a group which has no income isn't terribly useful.

John

What are ya telling us? These subsistance wages are what people accept. Don't like it? Don't accept it. Don't rely on someone else to take care of you financially, especially to the point of dependance on that entity(read:welfare system).There's plenty to go around if you have the gumption. Tom Someday, it'll all be over....

Acceptable to whom? Lenin?

SNIP SOCIALIST CLAPTRAP

Ahhh! A conservative intellectual shows his knowledge with a reasoned rebuttal of the issues.

I would assume that the definition of family here is more than a single individual. Assuming family refers to two individuals, you're talking about 14% of the population. Assuming 3 people yields about 20% and a family size of 4 would be 26% of the population. Quite a bit above the unemployment level.

scott

hi tom.. like the signature line! sad but true it is correct. no one gets out alive and somday it will all be over. Think of the world as a rather large machine. fueled by greed it keeps chugging along year after year century after century milenium after............. untill such time as man changes his reasoning [ probly never ] the machine will keep going. the cavemen traded in whatever was available then. the kings and queens of long ago traded in what was available to them and the american settlers did the same. many of the things these people traded in are gone now. these days we trade in cold hard cash, oil, whatever. someday these will be gone too but something else will take the place of these things ect. ect. ect.... but greed will never run out so the machine keeps chugging along day after day year after year m.................................... so sit back and enjoy the show while it lasts! skeez

Alright socialists... listen up, because I'm only going to say this once.

"Wealth" is not a zero sum game. The fact that someone has wealth does not mean someone else is being deprived of wealth. Until you can accept that basic fact, you will be forever trapped in your theoretical construct. Wealth is CREATED. But if you still can't accept that, try this one. Those "wealthy" families you speak of would share it with people and do so gladly... as long as the people CHOOSE to provide someone of value in exchange (such as high-end custom furniture?!).

Can't get you to think, either.

YOU are "the rich" to the rest of the world.

NOW how committed are you to wealth redistribution?

Not to mention recently getting caught buying 50k life insurance policy on non-essential folks, like greeters, without the listed person's knowledge.

It's illegal, and really creepy to boot!

Barry

Even though we're just a little above the poverty rate for a family of 2, you're absolutely right. And all of my friends and acquaintances can testify that I've told them so many times.

As long as they do it to the people who can afford the loss without blinking before they get to me, I'll go along with it.

How about you? And what's your income level? BTW, I read somewhere that the resources of the world were sufficient to maintain all of its present population at the income/wealth level of a Greek farmer. Long way from rich, but not poverty-stricken either.

Of course, the catch is that "present population" - we've got to control our growth rate.

And when they do get to you, what then?

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." [Martin Niemoller]

It is un-American to shop at WalMart isn't it?

RB

Renata wrote:

I guess it's more of an incentive to hire the older, previously retired folks. Watch out for Wall-Mart's new "Hire the HIV" program.

It never ceases to amaze me how willing some people are to publicly show how readily they have substituted raw greed for ethics and integrity.

--snip--

--snip--

This makes no sense. There are a lot of people that have a million bucks which would account for far more than 1% of the population.

Renata

--snip--

I'm not really spiteful. It's annoying when the federal government makes a big issue of how EVERYONE is getting a tax break, but then: 1) you find out that the refunds are not proportional (weighted toward the affluent) AND 2) the resulting impact affects the lower strata folks (e.g. not the top 1%) much more disproprtionately (because the state's fees and taxes are flat not graduated, for example).

I do also disagree w/a lot of the government's spending, but there seems little that can be done quite yet. Everyone re-elects their favorite congresscritter 'cause, of course, they take care of the home towns (AKA pork). We all have our opinions on which social programs are good or not. e.g. I don't think the government has any business in sticking their nose into marriage, and then spending $1.5 billion (or proposing to) is absurd.

Rereading the stuff below, I can't believe some folks would actually not be greatly annoyed by some of these stats. Where is this country going? Businesses (etc.) seem to take advantage of you any way they can - you satisified in leaning over and saying, "more, more, more"?

Renata

Wow, what a Freudian slip!

Dennis Vogel

Well if you're going that route, what percentage of the population are "unemployed"-meaning that they have no jobs? This would include most children from 0 to at least 16 and a significant majority of those over 65 (don't forget to add in those "house-spouses" who choose to not be financially employed). This is in addition to those who are actually unemployed. I imagine that is well over your 26%. So back to the previous posters point.

Dave Hall

But those are not factored in to unemployment figures. There is some factoring of teenagers (16 to 18?), though I don't think there should be, unless the teenager is no longer in school. And for those drawing unemployment, 39 weeks (max) into that, job or no job, you're off the list.

One thing we can be certain of: unless the limits of any statistical analysis are included in the analysis, the result is inaccurate enough to qualify as bullshit.

Charlie Self "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

Well, DUH! The burden of *paying* taxes is not proportional *either*, falling much more heavily on the rich than on the poor. Why are you upset that the people who pay the most in taxes will receive the greatest benefit from a tax cut? This should not come as a surprise to any thinking individual.

It's not the Federal government's fault that the tax laws in your state do not conform to your ideas of what's fair or not. Take that up with your state legislature if you don't like it.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?