4 ms·

Should the 1% Protest the .01%?

51 points by PythonicAlpha 13y ago

fiatmoney 13y ago
"The 1%" is catchy, but it falls well within Dunbar's number. Even people on the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum run into people in the top 1% of lifetime earners on a regular basis, many of whom are doing notable good. Once you get into more rarified sectors of the income distribution, they are more or less invisible on a personal basis.
pyrrhotech 13y ago
top 1% is a fucking joke. A cop and a firefighter in SF are top 0.5%. A teacher in Palo Alto and a software engineer are too. They are for the most part, normal people that aren't even financially independent. The sick wealth is all concentrated at the very, very top.
- pedrosorio 13y ago
  "The top 1 percent of American households had pretax income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000."
- knodi123 13y ago
  That's a misconception. I earn six figures, and I'm in the 71st percentile, because I'm the sole breadwinner in my family.
- nilkn 13y ago
  > A cop and a firefighter in SF are top 0.5%. A teacher in Palo Alto and a software engineer are too. No, not even close. If the top 1% makes nearly $400k/year, then the top 0.5% is probably at least double that.
  - United857 13y ago
    I read somewhere (forgot exactly where) that top 1% threshold in the SF Bay Area is around the $900K mark, not the $370K national figure.
    - pyrrhotech 13y ago
      who refers to local top 1%? That completely changes the picture. Most people in the so-called top 1% live in high cost areas. Changing the context invalidates any discussion.
  - pyrrhotech 13y ago
    There are cops and firefighters who alone make more than 400k+. An average one in SF of each makes 185k a year. Thus combined they are over the 1% threshold.
    - rosser 13y ago
      [citation needed]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
djKianoosh 13y ago
Are there enough people in the 1%, concentrated enough to form a critical mass, to protest the .01? I would imagine it would take a lot more sheer numbers. Plus, they're doing relatively well already no? So how many are pissed enough to risk what they already have?....
- fiatmoney 13y ago
  Historically most coups and revolutions are led by lower-upper sections of the population in question (colonels & young lawyers being the most stereotypical). They are the ones who have enough social capital to do something effective, haven't been quite co-opted or selected for obedience, and see their ambitions thwarted by the people directly above them.
joelrunyon 13y ago
Can someone explain to me how this data doesn't simply reflect the 80/20 rule to the nth degree and or why it is unexpected??
- tunesmith 13y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted. It's a good question. I think the main reasoning is that if that were true, then we'd see that magnitude of inequality across much longer periods of time (rather than only growing over the last 40-50 years). But that assumption might be false, also. I know that the inequality is accompanied by all sorts of bad acting that has helped "cause" it, but I think that's beside the point. I wonder more if there's some reasonable policy we could have put in place that would have actually kept things consistent with where they were in the 60's and 70's, or if larger system elements were already in play that would have overwhelmed things even if our various bits of deregulation hadn't happened.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    Not sure why the downvotes either. Was an honest question...
kirk21 13y ago
Interesting. Recently I made a distribution of the wealth of the top 250: http://checkthis.com/2gw4 http://checkthis.com/2gw4 Even within the 0.01% you see a lot of differences.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
It's not the exact percentiles that matter, but one's relation to the means of production. If you work and earn a wage or salary for your living, without which you would become destitute or dependent, you are a proletarian. If you earn your living largely from capital assets, as capital-gains or dividends, and can choose to work or not, you are a capitalist. The precise matter underlying income inequality is that the income distribution between labor and capital has become tilted strongly towards capital.
jgalt212 13y ago
It's time to take down the oligarchs. Let's start with the carried interest tax loophole.

51 points by PythonicAlpha 13y ago

"The 1%" is catchy, but it falls well within Dunbar's number. Even people on the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum run into people in the top 1% of lifetime earners on a regular basis, many of whom are doing notable good. Once you get into more rarified sectors of the income distribution, they are more or less invisible on a personal basis.

pyrrhotech 13y ago

top 1% is a fucking joke. A cop and a firefighter in SF are top 0.5%. A teacher in Palo Alto and a software engineer are too. They are for the most part, normal people that aren't even financially independent. The sick wealth is all concentrated at the very, very top.

pedrosorio 13y ago
"The top 1 percent of American households had pretax income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000."
knodi123 13y ago
That's a misconception. I earn six figures, and I'm in the 71st percentile, because I'm the sole breadwinner in my family.
nilkn 13y ago
> A cop and a firefighter in SF are top 0.5%. A teacher in Palo Alto and a software engineer are too. No, not even close. If the top 1% makes nearly $400k/year, then the top 0.5% is probably at least double that.
- United857 13y ago
  I read somewhere (forgot exactly where) that top 1% threshold in the SF Bay Area is around the $900K mark, not the $370K national figure.
  - pyrrhotech 13y ago
    who refers to local top 1%? That completely changes the picture. Most people in the so-called top 1% live in high cost areas. Changing the context invalidates any discussion.
- pyrrhotech 13y ago
  There are cops and firefighters who alone make more than 400k+. An average one in SF of each makes 185k a year. Thus combined they are over the 1% threshold.
  - rosser 13y ago
    [citation needed]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

djKianoosh 13y ago

Are there enough people in the 1%, concentrated enough to form a critical mass, to protest the .01? I would imagine it would take a lot more sheer numbers. Plus, they're doing relatively well already no? So how many are pissed enough to risk what they already have?....

fiatmoney 13y ago
Historically most coups and revolutions are led by lower-upper sections of the population in question (colonels & young lawyers being the most stereotypical). They are the ones who have enough social capital to do something effective, haven't been quite co-opted or selected for obedience, and see their ambitions thwarted by the people directly above them.

joelrunyon 13y ago

Can someone explain to me how this data doesn't simply reflect the 80/20 rule to the nth degree and or why it is unexpected??

tunesmith 13y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted. It's a good question. I think the main reasoning is that if that were true, then we'd see that magnitude of inequality across much longer periods of time (rather than only growing over the last 40-50 years). But that assumption might be false, also. I know that the inequality is accompanied by all sorts of bad acting that has helped "cause" it, but I think that's beside the point. I wonder more if there's some reasonable policy we could have put in place that would have actually kept things consistent with where they were in the 60's and 70's, or if larger system elements were already in play that would have overwhelmed things even if our various bits of deregulation hadn't happened.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  Not sure why the downvotes either. Was an honest question...

kirk21 13y ago

Interesting. Recently I made a distribution of the wealth of the top 250: http://checkthis.com/2gw4 http://checkthis.com/2gw4 Even within the 0.01% you see a lot of differences.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

It's not the exact percentiles that matter, but one's relation to the means of production. If you work and earn a wage or salary for your living, without which you would become destitute or dependent, you are a proletarian. If you earn your living largely from capital assets, as capital-gains or dividends, and can choose to work or not, you are a capitalist. The precise matter underlying income inequality is that the income distribution between labor and capital has become tilted strongly towards capital.

jgalt212 13y ago

It's time to take down the oligarchs. Let's start with the carried interest tax loophole.