humans worry a lot about how society probably gets run by a little group of rich elites.
but when longstanding gatopal™ econ professor mark perry came to lecture at kittengarten, he showed us some graphs that make this seem maybe sort of specious.
more people than ever are rich! (though it took a little whoopsy-doo last year for covid)
and it seems like most people get a turn at some point! it’s not even always the same people in these buckets!
but i think that still many humans really have sense they are being treated unfairly and like some sort of underclass.
do you think that maybe it’s stuff like this that does it?
(because i can kind of see how this would make people mad…)
I bring in 125k to 150k as a software developer (without having to go into management) with 4 kids and one of them is T1D (really expensive). We still save half our income. Yes, I would consider myself rich. Having grown up with two parents working and always pinching pennies I feel like I'm at the top of the world. Also, I'm very grateful that my wife can stay home with the kids and teach them at home so they don't turn into communists like so many people do now days.
Soon-to-be Tweeted and cited. One of the things that I find most troubling about the whole "eat the rich" point-of-view, is that it is so often held by people who are, pretty much objectively, rich in comparison to almost the entire freaking world! Then again, a central tenet of Marxism would seem to be jealousy of those who have more, no matter how much you have yourself, no?
This is so silly. First of all AEI is a far-right "think-tank" funded by billionaires in order to sell supply-side economics to the American public, thus their data and methodology should be viewed with a skeptical eye. Secondly, being rich is not the same as having a high income (and $100k is not necessarily a high income for reasons mentioned by others.) One can hypothetically have an income of $0 a year or even a negative income over a prolonged period of time and be in the top 0.00001% of wealth. A high income for a given period of time represents the potentiality of accumulating wealth (and thus becoming rich) but it is not the same as being rich. If one had to go heavily into debt in order to attain high-income job this is certainly a mitigating factor in that regard. When one looks at wealth inequality as represented by net-worth I think the picture will be much more stark than income inequality. As for the 70% spending a year as "high-income" earners this is most likely due to one-off events like selling a home: it seems highly dubious that people are constantly zig-zagging from income bracket to income bracket as implied. Furthermore this data pertains only to the USA even though the capitalist economy is globalized. Why should I only care about poverty within the borders controlled by the federal government of the United States? There are also numerous other problems with this white-washing of income and wealth inequality in America, as mentioned by other commenters.
It isn't income--freedom and power. Most of the upper income group are celestial bodies being sucked into the black holes or power that are comprised of a few thousand people. Only a few private jet accidents would suffice to re-jigger the balance.
It looks like the middle income is disappearing. With current conditions, I think eventually those numbers will end up in the lower income. The people in the upper income, should enjoy it while they have it.
My only issue on the top chart is that 35K to 100K seems too big a range, or perhaps the wrong range. US Median household income is somewhere around 60-65K, so I get that that places it in the middle of this range. But 35K hardly seems like middle class (it's about 17.50/hour wage). Other than that nitpick, it's great data to refute the typical narrative.
One of the primary drivers here is that too many people are 'wealthy'. This makes it hard for the people who view themselves as special to feel suitably distanced from those who they view as not special. Money used to be enough to do this, now it's all about establishing new rituals only shared by the 'in' group.
Forcing masks on the underclass makes it clear who is special, and who is not.
I bring in 125k to 150k as a software developer (without having to go into management) with 4 kids and one of them is T1D (really expensive). We still save half our income. Yes, I would consider myself rich. Having grown up with two parents working and always pinching pennies I feel like I'm at the top of the world. Also, I'm very grateful that my wife can stay home with the kids and teach them at home so they don't turn into communists like so many people do now days.
Soon-to-be Tweeted and cited. One of the things that I find most troubling about the whole "eat the rich" point-of-view, is that it is so often held by people who are, pretty much objectively, rich in comparison to almost the entire freaking world! Then again, a central tenet of Marxism would seem to be jealousy of those who have more, no matter how much you have yourself, no?
And this only occurs in free-market economies.
Capitalism = share the wealth
Socialism = share the misery
$100,000 is not a high income. Please redo it for $500,000.
AEI …. giggle snort. 35k is almost just the same as 100k. Sure. Sure. And those partying at the Emmys only earn 100k … giggle snort
This is so silly. First of all AEI is a far-right "think-tank" funded by billionaires in order to sell supply-side economics to the American public, thus their data and methodology should be viewed with a skeptical eye. Secondly, being rich is not the same as having a high income (and $100k is not necessarily a high income for reasons mentioned by others.) One can hypothetically have an income of $0 a year or even a negative income over a prolonged period of time and be in the top 0.00001% of wealth. A high income for a given period of time represents the potentiality of accumulating wealth (and thus becoming rich) but it is not the same as being rich. If one had to go heavily into debt in order to attain high-income job this is certainly a mitigating factor in that regard. When one looks at wealth inequality as represented by net-worth I think the picture will be much more stark than income inequality. As for the 70% spending a year as "high-income" earners this is most likely due to one-off events like selling a home: it seems highly dubious that people are constantly zig-zagging from income bracket to income bracket as implied. Furthermore this data pertains only to the USA even though the capitalist economy is globalized. Why should I only care about poverty within the borders controlled by the federal government of the United States? There are also numerous other problems with this white-washing of income and wealth inequality in America, as mentioned by other commenters.
It isn't income--freedom and power. Most of the upper income group are celestial bodies being sucked into the black holes or power that are comprised of a few thousand people. Only a few private jet accidents would suffice to re-jigger the balance.
It looks like the middle income is disappearing. With current conditions, I think eventually those numbers will end up in the lower income. The people in the upper income, should enjoy it while they have it.
Class war has intensified with covid, but been ongoing since forever in the West....
My husband and I always comment on this class spirit which scorts Covid
My only issue on the top chart is that 35K to 100K seems too big a range, or perhaps the wrong range. US Median household income is somewhere around 60-65K, so I get that that places it in the middle of this range. But 35K hardly seems like middle class (it's about 17.50/hour wage). Other than that nitpick, it's great data to refute the typical narrative.
Your final meme there could have had a dozen different examples incl. The Emmys.
One of the primary drivers here is that too many people are 'wealthy'. This makes it hard for the people who view themselves as special to feel suitably distanced from those who they view as not special. Money used to be enough to do this, now it's all about establishing new rituals only shared by the 'in' group.
Forcing masks on the underclass makes it clear who is special, and who is not.
Well, the problem is the 2% of that 31% on the top tier which also stays there for 70years or more. Those are the ones that are really problematic.
Is the one year thing due to inheritance?
I suspect we have a LOT more two-income families today than we did back in 1970 too.
Where do the retirees fit on these curves?