3 ms·

No - this isn't close to true. I'm saying (at least in the US) you need a net-worth of 10M to be in the top 1%. Or, in terms of income, make 500k a year househo

No - this isn't close to true. I'm saying (at least in the US) you need a net-worth of 10M to be in the top 1%. Or, in terms of income, make 500k a year household income. The Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund averages member 600k per member in assets (200B divided by 330k members). I don't know the Canadian stats but having around 1M in assets as a 60 year old places them around the top 20% or 10% cut-off - not the top 1%. https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/ Regardless, I don't care if people get rich but it is clear that occupy Wall Street was a movement against the perceived notion that billionaires were exploiting the rules - not that teacher's pensions funds were gaining 2% per year more than an index fund.

randomdata 6y ago
> it is clear that occupy Wall Street was a movement against the perceived notion that billionaires were exploiting the rules That we agree on. Just like the OTPP has been known to do. https://financialpost.com/news/fp-street/ontario-teachers-pension-plan-to-pay-sec-for-short-selling-activity https://financialpost.com/news/fp-street/ontario-teachers-pe... This isn't some teachers trying to eek out a retirement. It is one of the most prolific hedge funds in existence. They are literally what the movement was against, but the movement only served to help them. Not that I expect anyone thought that they were buying up shares from retail investors to put the movement in motion. They had to know they would help other funds to hurt the one fund being targeted. It shouldn't surprise anyone that hedge funds have made out like bandits in this.