4 ms·

Hearing the "the 1%" all the time gets annoying. The proper term is "the 0.01%".

by marze 10y ago

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
The really proper term is "the owning class": those for which money is invested, to produce goods, which are then sold for a profit to make money. This contrasts with everyone else, who uses labor to produce goods, which makes wages, which are then spent to consume goods.
- blisse 10y ago
  That definition makes a lot more sense, bar someone like Gates? Do you have any links going in-depth more?
  - joe_the_user 10y ago
    Well, if you mention Bill Gates, you aren't mentioning someone who worked their up from nothing. Rumor has it family connections helped Microsoft get their deal with IBM but in any case: "He is the son of William H. Gates Sr.[b] (born 1925) and Mary Maxwell Gates (1931–1994). His ancestry includes English, German, Irish, and Scots-Irish.[17][18] His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way." Which is simply to say the group of entrepreneurs who have worked their way up from nothing is smaller than many people imagine - since people do generally think of Gates as being in this group. And lots of Billionaires like to portray themselves as coming from nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life
  - psyc 10y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?&q=das+kapital https://www.google.com/search?&q=das+kapital
  - psyc 10y ago
    I see HN does not care for the classics.
- jwatte 10y ago
  It's easier to just rent what you own. Surer way to make a profit, and you keep what you own no matter what. Hence, why the term "rentier class" is actually meaningful, even though it's from a disreputable economic tradition.
- harryh 10y ago
  The US median family income is ~$50k/yr. Most people think that you can spend 4% of capital indefinitely. So to make $50k/yr you need $1.25M. If you have $1.25M in assets you are in the 92nd percentile(1). So apparently you don't even have to be in the 1% to be in "the owning class" and get by as well as the median American household. [1] According to http://www.shnugi.com/networth-percentile-calculator/ http://www.shnugi.com/networth-percentile-calculator/ which I found via a quick Google search. I won't vouch for it's accuracy but I'm guessing it's in the ballpark.
  - TwoBit 10y ago
    That calculator doesn't support fractions, so once you go above 99% (or below 1%) then you can't use it.
- pasquinelli 10y ago
  isn't the owning class normally called capitalists or the capitalist class?
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Yes, or the "bourgeoisie", but really we ought to be evolving our language to get the meaning across. Why bother repeating 19th-century cliches that cause more heat than light?
    - pasquinelli 10y ago
      it's established terminology, and much of whatever "heat" comes from its use has more to do with simply talking about class, not because of the word. (i'm not sure i understand the meaning of the expression, "it causes more heat than light." my take is that it rankles people more than it expresses an idea.)
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        Well also, "bourgeoisie" denoted a 19th-century "middle" class who were above the proletarians (owned means of production) but below the aristocracy (did not necessarily own land or have the power to tax anyone). Nowadays we have very few aristocrats, and those who retain great power and wealth do so as burghers (owners of the means of production) and land rentiers rather than as aristocrats, per se. So the class system has actually changed to put the bourgeoisie on top, where they were once the upper-middle, while also merging them with the landowning caste of the aristocracy. So I do think it's appropriate to change terminology.
- stephen_g 10y ago
  That's a much better term, and I agree, with one caveat - more and more the owning class don't invest in production (the 'real economy') but in financial instruments that really at the heart make money by extracting value from the productive sectors. Michael Hudson has some interesting writing on the subject, such as this journal article, 'Finance is not the Economy' - http://michael-hudson.com/2016/08/finance-is-not-the-economy/ http://michael-hudson.com/2016/08/finance-is-not-the-economy...
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Yeah, I really like Michael Hudson. His work does a lot to illuminate what makes neoliberalism different from earlier kinds of capitalism (such as the Industrial Revolutions and the social-democratic period).
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  A nice word which sums it up is 'rentier'.

Hearing the "the 1%" all the time gets annoying. The proper term is "the 0.01%".

by marze 10y ago

Hearing the "the 1%" all the time gets annoying. The proper term is "the 0.01%".

The really proper term is "the owning class": those for which money is invested, to produce goods, which are then sold for a profit to make money. This contrasts with everyone else, who uses labor to produce goods, which makes wages, which are then spent to consume goods.

blisse 10y ago
That definition makes a lot more sense, bar someone like Gates? Do you have any links going in-depth more?
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  Well, if you mention Bill Gates, you aren't mentioning someone who worked their up from nothing. Rumor has it family connections helped Microsoft get their deal with IBM but in any case: "He is the son of William H. Gates Sr.[b] (born 1925) and Mary Maxwell Gates (1931–1994). His ancestry includes English, German, Irish, and Scots-Irish.[17][18] His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way." Which is simply to say the group of entrepreneurs who have worked their way up from nothing is smaller than many people imagine - since people do generally think of Gates as being in this group. And lots of Billionaires like to portray themselves as coming from nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life
- psyc 10y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?&q=das+kapital https://www.google.com/search?&q=das+kapital
- psyc 10y ago
  I see HN does not care for the classics.
jwatte 10y ago
It's easier to just rent what you own. Surer way to make a profit, and you keep what you own no matter what. Hence, why the term "rentier class" is actually meaningful, even though it's from a disreputable economic tradition.
harryh 10y ago
The US median family income is ~$50k/yr. Most people think that you can spend 4% of capital indefinitely. So to make $50k/yr you need $1.25M. If you have $1.25M in assets you are in the 92nd percentile(1). So apparently you don't even have to be in the 1% to be in "the owning class" and get by as well as the median American household. [1] According to http://www.shnugi.com/networth-percentile-calculator/ http://www.shnugi.com/networth-percentile-calculator/ which I found via a quick Google search. I won't vouch for it's accuracy but I'm guessing it's in the ballpark.
- TwoBit 10y ago
  That calculator doesn't support fractions, so once you go above 99% (or below 1%) then you can't use it.
pasquinelli 10y ago
isn't the owning class normally called capitalists or the capitalist class?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Yes, or the "bourgeoisie", but really we ought to be evolving our language to get the meaning across. Why bother repeating 19th-century cliches that cause more heat than light?
  - pasquinelli 10y ago
    it's established terminology, and much of whatever "heat" comes from its use has more to do with simply talking about class, not because of the word. (i'm not sure i understand the meaning of the expression, "it causes more heat than light." my take is that it rankles people more than it expresses an idea.)
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Well also, "bourgeoisie" denoted a 19th-century "middle" class who were above the proletarians (owned means of production) but below the aristocracy (did not necessarily own land or have the power to tax anyone). Nowadays we have very few aristocrats, and those who retain great power and wealth do so as burghers (owners of the means of production) and land rentiers rather than as aristocrats, per se. So the class system has actually changed to put the bourgeoisie on top, where they were once the upper-middle, while also merging them with the landowning caste of the aristocracy. So I do think it's appropriate to change terminology.
stephen_g 10y ago
That's a much better term, and I agree, with one caveat - more and more the owning class don't invest in production (the 'real economy') but in financial instruments that really at the heart make money by extracting value from the productive sectors. Michael Hudson has some interesting writing on the subject, such as this journal article, 'Finance is not the Economy' - http://michael-hudson.com/2016/08/finance-is-not-the-economy/ http://michael-hudson.com/2016/08/finance-is-not-the-economy...
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Yeah, I really like Michael Hudson. His work does a lot to illuminate what makes neoliberalism different from earlier kinds of capitalism (such as the Industrial Revolutions and the social-democratic period).
Mikeb85 10y ago
A nice word which sums it up is 'rentier'.