<p>Locked? This is nothing!</p>
<p>Anyway, I just LOVED that WSJ article. I also read through the Comments- they were very interesting. Thanks for sharing the link in #54, beawinner!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lafalum, you’re right, it does make more sense than the American system. A lot more sense. Starbright and I, if I’m not mistaken about her, both have dual citizenship and have lived extensively in both countries so perhaps we have a perspective that most Americans don’t . I, like her, have always believed that education was the key to social mobility and improving one’s lot in life. Unfortunately, with the way the public school system is set up in the U.S., this doesn’t happen as often as it should. </p>
<p>Canada is more equitable in just about every single facet of life but education may be the #1. Relatively speaking, very few people here send their children to private schools, and many of those who do, do so because of a particular issue, learning disability, etc. We have recently met three couples who have moved here from the U.S. and who automatically sought out private schools for their children. They couldn’t believe that the public system would provide a quality education. What a sad commentary on the systems from which they came. Our family is fortunate enough to be in the top percentage of that infamous 1% of earners that everyone feels so compelled to revile these days and none of our five children attended private schools. It simply wasn’t necessary. </p>
<p>I think that the U.S. public school system is one thing that has to be ‘fixed’ if there is any hope of slowing/stopping the economic disparity in the country. Universal healthcare is another. Both of which, Canada handles well. The bottom line is that most Americans don’t want to pay the piper.</p>
<p>The CBO just came out with a report on income inequality so I thought I would posts it’s findings.</p>
<p>[Congressional</a> Budget Office - Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007](<a href=“http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485]Congressional”>http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485)</p>
<p>“275 percent increase for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.”</p>
<p>[IT’S</a> OFFICIAL: The 1% Really Is Different Than Everyone Else](<a href=“http://www.businessinsider.com/its-official-the-1-really-is-different-2011-10]IT’S”>IT'S OFFICIAL: the 1% Really Are Different From Everyone Else)</p>
<p>That’s just income. You should post ASSETS.</p>
<p>mini, it would be hard to keep track of those zeros and commas, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>Mini, what am I? Your wage slave?</p>
<p>[Who</a> Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power](<a href=“http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html]Who”>Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power)</p>
<p>^ The charts in that article show that the percentage of wealth in the top 1% hasn’t changed all that much in the last 80 years. It was low in the 70’s because of a brutal long term bear stock market, but otherwise has wobbled mostly in the 30-40% range.</p>
<p>The housing crash has changed the numbers…</p>
<p>Now the top 1% has more of the wealth…</p>
<p>I think that is mentioned in the link…</p>
<p>Financial assets were bailed out to a much larger extent than housing…</p>
<p>“In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.”</p>
<p>Yup. The OWNING class.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html[/url]”>http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html</a></p>
<p>So can anyone tell me what the income level is that puts one in the top 1% for income?</p>
<p>And what is the net worth level that puts one in the top 1% for assets? </p>
<p>I see lots of percentages, but no numbers!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One thing that I have read is a recommendation to choose a primary physician of similar age and the same gender as you, since then your physician is more likely to be aware of and have personal experience with the types of health concerns that you have at each stage of life.</p>
<p>If that is a valid way to choose a primary physician, then it may be true that a physician with a similar genetic background and similar habits (both cultural and otherwise, like sports) may also increase the probability of higher awareness of health concerns that are more likely to be relevant to you.</p>
<p>But this may be theoretical for many people, as there is often a shortage of primary physicians accepting new patients.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The US government spends about as much as the Canada government in terms of percentage of GDP on health care. But the US government spending on health care covers only about a quarter of the population (though most of it is the sickest and most expensive part of the population) while the Canada government spending on health care covers the entire population. Private spending on health care in the US is much higher than it is in Canada, of course.</p>
<p>Somehow, we are paying more for less in the US.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The school in question is now about 39% Asian (not including Filipino), 21% Filipino, 33% Latino, 3% white, 3% black, and a few Native American and Two Or More Races. 18% of the total are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 38% are English learners, and 2% have disabilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean by “the suburbs”, but pretty much all of San Jose and the surrounding areas are suburbs. Some of them are poor, some are middle class, and some are wealthy, though.</p>
<p>Re: [Why</a> Companies Can’t Find the Employees They Need - WSJ.com](<a href=“Why Companies Can't Find the Employees They Need - WSJ”>Why Companies Can't Find the Employees They Need - WSJ)</p>
<p>Perhaps the desire to find employees who can jump into a job immediately with no ramp-up time or training is due to the general perception that employment relationships are no longer long term (i.e. among both employers and employees, loyalty to each other has pretty much disappeared). If a typical employment relationship lasts only a year, a month or two of ramp-up time or training is a large overhead cost. Decades ago, a month or two of ramp-up time or training was a small overhead cost for an employee who would likely stay for 10 or 20 or more years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some have occasionally gotten involved in shareholder propositions regarding corporate governance type of issues. But usually they, like individuals, tend to dump shares if they do not believe that the current management’s strategy is good.</p>
<p>On the other hand, some of them are passive indexers.</p>
<p>The US is the only industrialized country without universal health insurance. We spend far more than any other country for health care, and yet we’re near the bottom on such health indicators as life expectancy and infant mortality. Sheer coincidence, I’m sure.</p>
<p>Mathmom, </p>
<p>Blogs.wsj.com/wealth</p>
<p>There is a calculator on the right side of the page…income and then click on wealth</p>
<p>Income is over 500,000… Maybe 520,000
Wealth is over 8,000,000. 8.4 million maybe…</p>
<p>Why do I keep reading those with annual incomes in the 300,000s are top 1%?</p>
<p>Taxable incomes in the high 300,000s get you in the top 1%.</p>
<p>Items like muni bond interest…and income or capital gains in tax deferred pension plans or Roths are not included in those 300,000+ numbers.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see the regional distribution of the 1% in wealth and income, as $300,000 goes much further in some areas than others.</p>