<p><a href=“File:U.S. Distribution of Wealth, 2007.jpg - Wikipedia”>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth,_2007.jpg</a></p>
<p>This is old but a snapshot of wealth in 2007 if you want to believe it.</p>
<p>Sax… Nice pie chart. </p>
<p>Wealth distribution has become more skewed since 2007. </p>
<p>Just keep in mind, please, when weath is distributed somewhat equally, it is distributed at such a low levels, that it would be much lower than what is considered poor in this country, and people actually work for their share. Be careful what you wish for… </p>
<p>Nobody here is advocating for wealth distribution that is somewhat equal. It is pretty well known that people respond to incentives.</p>
<p>However, as S&P and many others have noted, too much unequal wealth distributionleads to lower economic growth.
The poor and lower middle class spend their money. They arent hoarding their money. Poor people’s money is spent and businesses benefit. Wealthy people benefit. </p>
<p>If we have an economic system where enough people dont benefit, why should those people support the system?</p>
<p>At some point, they won’t. Then we are are going to get an economic system you loathe, MiamiDap.</p>
<p>
Well, I think it’s a pointless discussion if you exclude the rest of the globe. It’s like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet arguing whether they are both Mega Rich, or whether one of them is merely Ultra Rich.</p>
<p>People are too smart to get into the economic system like Russia or China. Nothing changed much except a different set of people are the top 1%. Different set of crooks and thugs as usual.</p>
<p>Plenty of people work very hard for extremely low wages. Sure some just take what they can get, but many, many do not. There isn’t much incentive to work very hard if you can’t pay the rent and feed your family.</p>
<p>This chart may make it easier to comprehend the disproportion.
US has highest percentage of people living below median income.
<a href=“http://internationalcomparisons.org/intl_comp_files/sheet006.htm”>http://internationalcomparisons.org/intl_comp_files/sheet006.htm</a></p>
<p>That chart is interesting, but I don’t see how you can compare countries based on the national median income, at least without saying what it is.</p>
<p>Uh, by definition, wouldn’t half the people in each country be below the median?</p>
<p>That chart shows, for example, that in the US 23% of children live in families earning less than half of the median. I don’t think that necessarily means that all of those children are living in poverty. It depends on what the median is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not that they won’t as much as they can’t. If the mass can’t buy, companies will have to turn into boutique shops. I don’t know if any economy can be vibrant mainly serving 1%ers.</p>
<p>But igloo, will the 1% suffer in that scenario? As long as they remain the 1% they’ll retain financial and political power. What difference will it make to them if the economy is vibrant or not?</p>
<p>Here’s a nice discussion about 1% and the average American by Alan Dunn in a Forbes article.</p>
<p>It addresses how money basically lands in the hands of the top but does not trickle down as is preached by many. It’s a good, short read. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/</a></p>
<p>Good article, Sax. Thanks for posting it. </p>
<p>I am constantly amazed that people still believe trickle down works. In fact, it is shocking to me how many people do. </p>
<p>Hayden, good point. I think they’d suffer since progress and innovation will be limited but they may not mind. Did astrocrats years ago suffer?</p>
<p>sax, nice article clear and simple.</p>
<p>Igloo, first they can’t. Then they won’t. </p>
<p>Sax, great article. </p>
<p>Sax, that was an excellent article. Thanks for sharing. The discussion of the American concept of hard work = financial success was so true. </p>
<p>He doesn’t’ go into this, but it seems to me the concept of hard work resulting in success stems from an obsolete time when if you got up early, tilled the fields diligently, then you could succeed because you reaped what you sowed. In modern, largely corporate culture, that is no longer the case. </p>
<p>It doesn’t seem to me that it should matter to the discussion how “rich” poor and middle class Americans are when measures on a global standard. I think most people would agree that we don’t want to live in a country where most people are in deep poverty. Certainly the standard of what it takes to even be in the lower middle has risen. How can a family hope to tread water in the US let alone advance without some measure of internet connectivity, transportation and health care? Even poor people in Africa who have next to nothing by our standards have mobile phones because modern connectivity is one avenue to economic advancement. They just happen to be way more expensive here than other places.</p>
<p>On another topic . . . I am constantly surprised but kind of not at the open hostility towards people who make or want to make a living wage through skilled labor and education. There seems to be resentment out there that actual “makers” who build things and add real value to the economy might earn the same or more than someone who works a desk job. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TOP QUINTILE is not synonymous with RICH. </p>
<p>If you have 5 people earning:<br>
19k—20k—20k—20k—21k
The lifestyle of top quintile person in this group is not markedly different than the middle quintile</p>