4 ms·
"The 1%" was never a literal number. It's the idea that the top whatever percent of people have disproportionate wealth compared to the rest. I appreciate that
by personjerry 5y ago
"The 1%" was never a literal number. It's the idea that the top whatever percent of people have disproportionate wealth compared to the rest. I appreciate that this article wants to draw the line somewhere more precise, but for most purposes I don't think this changes anything.
- elliekelly 5y agoThis article is literally from “the Chicago School” famed for their free-markets solve-all economic philosophy. They have a long history of pushing economic theory and policy that disproportionately benefits the 1% and this article is no different. If anything I’m somewhat pleased to see the Chicago School has passed the denial stage and moved on to bargaining vis-à-vis inequality.
- burkaman 5y agoSeriously, this is so shameless. "Never mind the 1%" feels on par with "these aren't the droids you're looking for". "Sure the 1% make a lot, but if we make the graph go to FORTY MILLION, look how tiny it seems!"
- eloisant 5y agoI think the interesting point that the article is doing is that contrary to the common assumption the revenue of the 1% didn't grew that much in past decades, however the revenue of the 0.01% really exploded in the same period of time.
- Applejinx 5y agoThe interesting point is how fractal it is. You can keep going and the 0.00001% will be clobbering the rest of the 0.001%. It's a structural thing we're seeing. That means it'a a fair question, to ask 'is that useful in any sense?'. It's not 'points' we are awarding or measuring, this is the means by which humans interact and survive. It is more of a zero sum game when it's captured by individuals as a way of keeping score. That's non-optimal.
- ip26 5y agoI don’t know, perhaps this is how alliances form. Both the 99% and the 1% are getting screwed by the 0.01% - team up.
- B-Con 5y agoI interpret the article's tone as more of: > Let's be precise. The actual 1% are not the ultra-wealthy, they're doctors, senior SV engineers, and regional Vice Presidents. That's not who people are protesting wall street about.
- burkaman 5y agoAre doctors and senior engineers making 1.4 million per year? I know Google pays well but I don't think it's quite that much. I don't know anything about regional vice presidents, but I think you need to be a really unusually successful doctor or engineer to make this kind of money. Like, top 1%.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- alasdair_ 5y agoTwo of them in a household? Yes, quite likely. Also, why are you talking about 1.4 million? The article claims “The threshold for membership in the 1 percent in 2014 was an annual household income of $386,000, excluding any capital gains,” $386k total comp is definitely Google-engineer range.
- muro 5y agoWhy is it always Google-engineer? Does Google pay better than FB, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft? Apple and Microsoft do better as companies, IIRC, do they still pay less? Or do Google engineers brag more?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- burkaman 5y ago1.4 million is the average income of the 1% (according to the article), not the threshold.
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoThe media has always been talking about the 1%, and showed statistics in that regard as well. If you were part of the mega-rich elite, isn't that a convenient narrative you'd want to push? "Watch out regular wealthy folks, they're coming for your cash!" Just like how rich people are always very concerned about how tax rises will affect the working population.
- pentae 5y agoYes, sort of like the old chestnut "Women earn 70% of what men do" It's ideological marketing