5 ms·
>I wonder if "1%" is just a number that is repeated when talking about this subject. I'm inclined to think it is. Often times I'll see 1% discussed in articles
by trutannus 6y ago
>I wonder if "1%" is just a number that is repeated when talking about this subject.
I'm inclined to think it is. Often times I'll see 1% discussed in articles and the threshold is different each time. At this point, I'm certain that 1% is just a rhetorical device used to mean "bad people with money".
- andrepd 6y agoI'm pretty sure you are projecting. The "1%" became a slogan around the time of the Occupy movement, coming frkm the fact that 1% of the world's population owns 50% of its wealth, which is such a hilariously skewed proportion.
- trutannus 6y ago> The "1%" became a slogan around the time of the Occupy movement This is correct. Since then it's become more of a slogan like "power to the people" than a useful statistic. In some countries, 1% would include a couple who are both mid level engineers -- that's well off, but not "ultra rich" by any rational standard. The main reason is that the 1% figure often refers to households, rather than single individuals. It's more a short hand for "ultra rich", rather than an actual measurement of what portion is actually "ultra rich".
- andrepd 6y agoDid you read what I said? The top 1% of income is ~750,000$ individual, hardly mid-level engineers... As for top 1% net worth, it's ~11 mil$, again hardly "upper-middle class".
- maxerickson 6y agoYou are mixing global and US comparisons.
- trutannus 6y agoIn the USA, sure, where I'm from it's $300,000 gross household. The United States isn't the representative of the entire world. That's why I specified in some countries.