400 americans......

[bitcon]

The 400 Richest Americans Are Now Richer Than the Bottom 50 Percent Combined. During the Economic Crisis Wealth of 400 Richest Americans Increased by $30 Billion.  ....they must have been the "early adopters"...




http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

[Anonymous]

It's not the inequality that's the problem. It's merely a symptom of a quite larger one, mainly huge government-enabled corporatism.

[realnowhereman]

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

Update:

Got my figures wrong, but the sentiment right.

"In fact, it turns out that in real terms the bottom 25% are now considerable richer than were the top 25% in 1961"

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-poor-got-richer.html

[nemo]

I'm an American with 37 cents in my bank account and zero debt. That makes me richer than at least 10s of  millions of other Americans.

[Explodicle]

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

Measured how?

[realnowhereman]

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

Measured how?

In money.

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-poor-got-richer.html

[saqwe]

bonkers

[bitcon]

"In fact, it turns out that in real terms the bottom 25% are now considerable richer than were the top 25% in 1961"

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-poor-got-richer.html

 you could also buy a coke for 2 cents in 1961.

[myrkul]

The figures were adjusted for inflation, in case you missed that.

[AyeYo]

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

You need to qualify that statement with: IN THE FIRST-WORLD or IN THE US.

[benjamindees]

I'm an American with 37 cents in my bank account and zero debt. That makes me richer than at least 10s of  millions of other Americans.

Not really, since they got real stuff in exchange for their debt and when they don't pay it off you will get to help bail them out.

[Jaime Frontero]

The figures were adjusted for inflation, in case you missed that.

that's nice.

were the numbers also adjusted for today's bottom 25% being almost twice as populous?  (in 1961 there were 180M of us - today there are over 310M.)

and for the top 25% in 1961 including less of a now-mostly-vanished middle class?  (the top 25% today would have to include the entire upper middle class - and most of the lower middle class as well.  what's left of them.)

and for the disparity in CEO vs. worker wages in 1961 coming out to around 20:1 - whereas today it's something like 800:1?

and...

and...

?

[LastBattle]

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

You need to qualify that statement with: IN THE FIRST-WORLD or IN THE US.

Anywhere in the world, depending on how you look at it.

In 1965, the richest man in the world couldn't have a cellphone, but the poorest Somalian has the potential to get cellphone service. Same thing for basic computers, etc

[AyeYo]

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

You need to qualify that statement with: IN THE FIRST-WORLD or IN THE US.

Anywhere in the world, depending on how you look at it.

In 1965, the richest man in the world couldn't have a cellphone, but the poorest Somalian has the potential to get cellphone service. Same thing for basic computers, etc

No, not even close.

Poorest 10% today:





(Ethiopia)

Richest 10% in 1965:



(Jean Paul Getty)



Yea, so much progress on a world-wide scale.  How's that fantasy world you're living in?

[myrkul]

You make a fine point, But I think you may be looking at the 99th and 1th (1st?) percentiles, there.

You may want to compare the second picture to say, upper class suburbia. Still different, but not as drastic.

[AyeYo]

You make a fine point, But I think you may be looking at the 99th and 1th (1st?) percentiles, there.

You may want to compare the second picture to say, upper class suburbia. Still different, but not as drastic.

You're so beyond stupid that I'm beginning to get the feeling you must be 12 years old.  No adult with access to the internet could possibly have such a limited worldview.

Educate yourself you moron.  The poorest 40% world-wide aren't even as well off as the top 10% of the 1960's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_inequality

[myrkul]

You make a fine point, But I think you may be looking at the 99th and 1th (1st?) percentiles, there.

You may want to compare the second picture to say, upper class suburbia. Still different, but not as drastic.

You're so beyond stupid that I'm beginning to get the feeling you must be 12 years old.  No adult with access to the internet could possibly have such a limited worldview.

Coming from you, I view that as the highest compliment. Yes, I know that outside of the first world, life is shit. But look at the kids in the second picture. Aside from the street, those three could be any three kids from '60s suburbia.

I should point out, though, that the article actually used the 25% mark. All this stuff about 10% is way off base. That said, You are right, it should be limited to the First World.

What I was saying is that the starving kids in Ethiopia and the mansion are not representative of the 10% mark, putz.

[AyeYo]

You make a fine point, But I think you may be looking at the 99th and 1th (1st?) percentiles, there.

You may want to compare the second picture to say, upper class suburbia. Still different, but not as drastic.

You're so beyond stupid that I'm beginning to get the feeling you must be 12 years old.  No adult with access to the internet could possibly have such a limited worldview.

Coming from you, I view that as the highest compliment. Yes, I know that outside of the first world, life is shit. But look at the kids in the second picture. Aside from the street, those three could be any three kids from '60s suburbia.

I should point out, though, that the article actually used the 25% mark. All this stuff about 10% is way off base. That said, You are right, it should be limited to the First World.

What I was saying is that the starving kids in Ethiopia and the mansion are not representative of the 10% mark, putz.

Then you don't really know what you're saying and you're just trying to save face.


Yea, aside from the street full of garbage that's 1960's suburbia.  Aside from the fact that my Honda isn't a Ferrari, my Honda is a Ferrari.  


You're right, they aren't representative of the 10% mark.  The starving kids in Ethiopia are more representative of the ~40% mark, which really blows your argument to pieces.

And of course it should be limited to first world like I said in the first place.  Because the rising tide DOES NOT raise all boats.  The top ~20% of the world progressed and the bottom 50% were thrown into oblivion, because the progression of the first-world was done AT THEIR EXPENSE.

[myrkul]

All of which makes you no less a putz.

[AyeYo]

All of which makes you no less a putz.

I'm lol'ing at you right now.