33 ms·

America has a somewhat similar problem. One family right now has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. http://articles.latimes.c

by selmnoo 13y ago

America has a somewhat similar problem. One family right now has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/18/business/la-fi-mo-walmart-heirs-20120718 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/18/business/la-fi-mo-wa...

Shivetya 13y ago
it was a stupid study done to score points with specific groups, basically another bash Wal-Mart to appeal to those bobble heads who rally around that sort of stuff. It takes a lot to ignore all the other wealthy individuals and groups to zero in on that family. Throw out the negative equity people and the numbers were not as bad, use median income and the numbers are better. I doubt the comparisons made in China and Russia are the same as this study you cite was. Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends. Still, when it comes to China and even Russia, what has really changed? The same people ruling and having control of the wealth when they were not "open" markets are basically the same now.
- yodsanklai 13y ago
  "Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends." The distinction here is arbitrary. When we talk about such amount of wealth, I think the verb "to earn" lose some his significance. As a society, I don't believe we should accept that a few persons own such a huge proportion of the wealth (regardless whether they "earned" it, stole it, found it...).
rayiner 13y ago
It's not quite that similar. The 400 richest Americans control $2 trillion, or about 3-4% of total U.S. wealth. That means wealth in the U.S. is a lot less concentrated at the top than in Russia. To match Russia (accounting for population), the 200 richest Americans would have to own $19 trillion in assets, the average wealth would have to be about $100 billion and you'd see some trillionaires. Looking at the net worth of the bottom 40% of the American population doesn't tell you much about the level of oligarchy in American society. You would expect a big chunk of the population to not have much in the way of assets, simply because the trajectory of peoples' lives is to build up assets as they age over time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Sta.... Indeed, things that are ostensibly good, say more people getting higher education or more job mobility, can push out the time when people settle down, buy a house, and start saving, thus increasing the number of people who don't have substantial assets. The median family net worth of a household headed by someone under 35 is $10k, while it's over $230k for a household headed by someone aged 55-65. The "bottom 40%" category is also heavily skewed by education, with households headed by non-high school graduates having a median net worth of $30k versus $250k for households headed by college graduates. The statistics indicate that the "bottom 40%" starts around $40k. How many people under 30 do you know that have a net $40k? With student loans and sky-high rents, I bet lots of silicon valley engineers are in that "bottom 40%" for reasons that have nothing to do with oligarchy.
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  Wealth statistics are tricky. As a thought experiment, I have always wondered what the numbers would be if everyone in the country had identical incomes of $50k/year. I have a feeling that 25% would accumulate debts and have zero total wealth. Even with perfectly identical incomes, the "wealthiest" person would have more wealth than the bottom 25% combined.
  - anovikov 13y ago
    That's why i think if we want to debate if the society is 'fair' or not, we should think about income distribution, not wealth distibution. Even for the majority of the people considered 'rich' (top 1% by income), most of the income is not derived from assets/wealth, but from work. So wealth does not play a big role in living standards of vast majority of Americans, even most rich ones.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Something missing from these discussions is velocity of money. Big income may not mean much if you're burning thru it fast with little to show; reversed, I've known people to amass small fortunes from paltry incomes because they were frugal. I haven't thought thru it much nor come to conclusions, but do think one's "velocity of money" needs far more consideration.
      - saalweachter 13y ago
        What if you considered the income : outflow (non-investment) ratio? How many years of living expenses do you earn each year?
      - anovikov 13y ago
        But this is behavioral difference, it has nothing to do with oligarchy or social order. Also, if there is little you can do to get sizable income form assets, why accumulating assets? Burning through big income is fun.
      - 13y ago
nimble 13y ago
> more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. Sounds like a statistic designed to rile people who don't understand the difference between wealth and income. You can be living quite comfortably but with no wealth accumulation (no savings or property). If you're also in debt, your wealth is negative. That bottom 40% probably includes a good number of people making over $100K per year.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
30%, not 40%, according to your article. In the same year (2007), I had just finished my Ph.D. and finished grad school. My income went from about $18k to $50k. In that year, I had more wealth than the bottom 25% of the American population combined. You probably did too. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/13/how-alice-walton-has-improved-america/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/13/how-alice-w...
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  combined?
  - pathy 13y ago
    From the article: "According to the latest data we have, 24.8% of American households had zero or negative net worth" So basically if you have a net worth of more than $1 you are wealthier than ~25% of America.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      When the music stops, yes. The confusion over this stems from people living comfortable lives, despite negative net worth, because their cash flow satisfies creditors and their expected lifetime net worth (after the debts are finally paid off) is positive. The statistics are misleading because they view the data as "game over right now", when the matter is ongoing. Someone might have negative worth right now, but that's not taking into account the fact they'll earn a million dollars over the next decade.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Yes, combined. 25% of the US population has 0 or negative net worth. Combine those and the sum is well south of 0, so if you have a positive net worth, you're worth more than the bottom 25% combined (and then some, because the people with negative net worth would average out some of those positive net worth).
zackmorris 13y ago
It actually went up to 60% because most of the gains since the great recession began in 2008 have gone to the top 1%: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6b27nnmdGg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6b27nnmdGg
malandrew 13y ago
If I controlled that much money and was determined to be charitable after accounting for my own personal comfort, I'd love to perform the following experiment, give away $833 to every person in that 41.5% each month for the next 12.5 or so years. IANATL, but at $833 per month you stay just under the $10000 per person you can give each year. The economic impact of such an act would be a huge direct stimulus to the economy and would change the lives of everyone for the better.

by selmnoo 13y ago

Shivetya 13y ago

it was a stupid study done to score points with specific groups, basically another bash Wal-Mart to appeal to those bobble heads who rally around that sort of stuff. It takes a lot to ignore all the other wealthy individuals and groups to zero in on that family. Throw out the negative equity people and the numbers were not as bad, use median income and the numbers are better. I doubt the comparisons made in China and Russia are the same as this study you cite was. Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends. Still, when it comes to China and even Russia, what has really changed? The same people ruling and having control of the wealth when they were not "open" markets are basically the same now.

yodsanklai 13y ago
"Besides, most importantly, the Waltons earned it, most of the wealth locked in China and Russia are either ex political power players or their friends." The distinction here is arbitrary. When we talk about such amount of wealth, I think the verb "to earn" lose some his significance. As a society, I don't believe we should accept that a few persons own such a huge proportion of the wealth (regardless whether they "earned" it, stole it, found it...).

rayiner 13y ago

It's not quite that similar. The 400 richest Americans control $2 trillion, or about 3-4% of total U.S. wealth. That means wealth in the U.S. is a lot less concentrated at the top than in Russia. To match Russia (accounting for population), the 200 richest Americans would have to own $19 trillion in assets, the average wealth would have to be about $100 billion and you'd see some trillionaires. Looking at the net worth of the bottom 40% of the American population doesn't tell you much about the level of oligarchy in American society. You would expect a big chunk of the population to not have much in the way of assets, simply because the trajectory of peoples' lives is to build up assets as they age over time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Sta.... Indeed, things that are ostensibly good, say more people getting higher education or more job mobility, can push out the time when people settle down, buy a house, and start saving, thus increasing the number of people who don't have substantial assets. The median family net worth of a household headed by someone under 35 is $10k, while it's over $230k for a household headed by someone aged 55-65. The "bottom 40%" category is also heavily skewed by education, with households headed by non-high school graduates having a median net worth of $30k versus $250k for households headed by college graduates. The statistics indicate that the "bottom 40%" starts around $40k. How many people under 30 do you know that have a net $40k? With student loans and sky-high rents, I bet lots of silicon valley engineers are in that "bottom 40%" for reasons that have nothing to do with oligarchy.

jcampbell1 13y ago
Wealth statistics are tricky. As a thought experiment, I have always wondered what the numbers would be if everyone in the country had identical incomes of $50k/year. I have a feeling that 25% would accumulate debts and have zero total wealth. Even with perfectly identical incomes, the "wealthiest" person would have more wealth than the bottom 25% combined.
- anovikov 13y ago
  That's why i think if we want to debate if the society is 'fair' or not, we should think about income distribution, not wealth distibution. Even for the majority of the people considered 'rich' (top 1% by income), most of the income is not derived from assets/wealth, but from work. So wealth does not play a big role in living standards of vast majority of Americans, even most rich ones.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Something missing from these discussions is velocity of money. Big income may not mean much if you're burning thru it fast with little to show; reversed, I've known people to amass small fortunes from paltry incomes because they were frugal. I haven't thought thru it much nor come to conclusions, but do think one's "velocity of money" needs far more consideration.
    - saalweachter 13y ago
      What if you considered the income : outflow (non-investment) ratio? How many years of living expenses do you earn each year?
    - anovikov 13y ago
      But this is behavioral difference, it has nothing to do with oligarchy or social order. Also, if there is little you can do to get sizable income form assets, why accumulating assets? Burning through big income is fun.
    - 13y ago

nimble 13y ago

> more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. Sounds like a statistic designed to rile people who don't understand the difference between wealth and income. You can be living quite comfortably but with no wealth accumulation (no savings or property). If you're also in debt, your wealth is negative. That bottom 40% probably includes a good number of people making over $100K per year.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

30%, not 40%, according to your article. In the same year (2007), I had just finished my Ph.D. and finished grad school. My income went from about $18k to $50k. In that year, I had more wealth than the bottom 25% of the American population combined. You probably did too. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/13/how-alice-walton-has-improved-america/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/12/13/how-alice-w...

dreamfactory 13y ago
combined?
- pathy 13y ago
  From the article: "According to the latest data we have, 24.8% of American households had zero or negative net worth" So basically if you have a net worth of more than $1 you are wealthier than ~25% of America.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    When the music stops, yes. The confusion over this stems from people living comfortable lives, despite negative net worth, because their cash flow satisfies creditors and their expected lifetime net worth (after the debts are finally paid off) is positive. The statistics are misleading because they view the data as "game over right now", when the matter is ongoing. Someone might have negative worth right now, but that's not taking into account the fact they'll earn a million dollars over the next decade.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Yes, combined. 25% of the US population has 0 or negative net worth. Combine those and the sum is well south of 0, so if you have a positive net worth, you're worth more than the bottom 25% combined (and then some, because the people with negative net worth would average out some of those positive net worth).

zackmorris 13y ago

It actually went up to 60% because most of the gains since the great recession began in 2008 have gone to the top 1%: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6b27nnmdGg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6b27nnmdGg

malandrew 13y ago

If I controlled that much money and was determined to be charitable after accounting for my own personal comfort, I'd love to perform the following experiment, give away $833 to every person in that 41.5% each month for the next 12.5 or so years. IANATL, but at $833 per month you stay just under the $10000 per person you can give each year. The economic impact of such an act would be a huge direct stimulus to the economy and would change the lives of everyone for the better.