General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 99% earns less than you might think.
I found this chart of income percentiles of the lower 99 percent interesting.
The headline news associated with the release of the new Census data was that poverty had declined. Indeed, the decline in the poverty rate was statistically significant and occurred primarily among children. Not to rain on that parade, but the poverty rate remained 2.0 percentage points higher than in 2007.
(Read: Poverty rate falls as middle incomes stall.)
Median family income in 2013 according to the Census was $51,939, compared to $56,436 in 2007. The median means that half of households had higher incomes and half had lower ones. The table above presents the thresholds for being in different parts of the income distribution. For example, a household with an income of $150,000 is at the 90th percentile point, or in the top 10% of the income distribution. Even more amazing, a household with an income of $196,000 is at the 95th percentile, or in the top 5%.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2014/10/02/incomes-are-much-lower-than-you-think/
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)the koch's and walton's and they couldnt stop laughing mocking me for confusing income and wealth
thus the depth of their brainwashed condition
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)but you can't accumulate wealth with a low income. Additionally, wealth generates income, which would be reflected on taxes and presumably in census data.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)had to look at how lopsided everything is, they would have to blow their brains out
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)is that I don't see Fox. It also means, however, that I miss some common arguments.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That is just crazy. Those percentages have to be wrong. Plus each box has a huge gap in income. For example I make 129k so I am put into the box that is 105k. What does that mean? Too many workers are in boxes not appropriate. I would say my income should be somewhere with 60 percent making more then I do a year. I am the poorest in the neighborhood by far. Hopefully someone fixes these figures to better accurately show where workers are in the country. We are all bad off.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I think popular culture and the pressure of consumption makes people think they are poorer than they really are. Your neighbors might not earn as much as you think, or you might live in an affluent neighborhood. This is based on census data.
The 1 percent begins somewhere in the 400k. Much of the nation's wealth is in the hand's of a tiny, tiny percent, closer to .001%
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)It's consistent with other sources I've read, like the one I linked to in my other post.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Will do.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)much of the nation's wealth is NOT in the hands of the 0.001%.
That would be about 1,200 households. Total wealth of the US is perhaps $55 trillion. Total wealth of the Forbes 400 is $2.3 trillion. Total wealth of the richest 1,200 is perhaps $3.5 trillion
(an overestimate since we know that only 113 billionaires did not make the list, and they had less than $1.55 billion in net worth and the other 287 of the next richest 400 have less than a billion and the 400 after that have even less. Take 113 times 1.55 and then 687 times 1 billion for a maximum estimate of $867 billion for the net worth of the next 800.)
$3.5 trillion is a big pot of money, but it's only 6.5% of the nation's wealth, which is a long, long way from most of the nation's wealth.
According to the charts the 60th-95th percentile of households have 34.1% of the nation's wealth, almost as much as the top 1%.
Thanks for figuring that out.
my income is significantly lower than yours, less than half, and I'm still in the upper 20 percent of individual incomes in the US, 56 percent in terms of household income. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-your-us-income-percentile.html#.VUqweflViko People have much less than you realize.
The thing for me is that since I grew up poor, I feel incredibly fortunate to earn what I do and have the benefits I do. Really, it's plenty for me because I don't have children. It's the people at the very bottom who are really hurting, and even Sanders talks about the middle class. No one addresses the poor, who are the real losers in our system.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Here is what he says about the poor seniors
Here is speaking on foodstamps: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/sanders-food-stamp-cuts-devastating/
Sen Sanders supports programs to help the poor more than any other politician.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)is his voting record on gun manufacturers. Now I get you are one of those people who think only in terms of individuals, but I am not. I find it tedious. I actually have concerns that go beyond a single candidate or election cycle. In fact, who the nominee is ranks pretty low on my list of priorities.
Foodstamps is not income redistribution. Income redistribution would make foodstamps unnecessary. Clinton also supports foodstamps, as I'm sure does O'Malley. It's hardly a radical or socialist position. It's a mainstream liberal position. As to who does more for the poor, I'll look into that issue myself. I'm hardly going to take the opinion of someone who referred to Marx as a centrist. If you want me to consider supporting Sanders, I suggest you back off.
To claim Sanders doesn't address the middle class is patently false. His entire discussion of corporate excess is explicitly directed toward the middle class, which is a weak term Americans and politicians in particular rely on. Those bankers consider themselves middle class too. It is a term that means nothing, which is why it is safe.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Nope, no one trying to create a false impression here one bit. It is part of a meme being pushed and not really all that hard to see.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)If he has spoken about addressing poverty--other than foodstamps which Rhett seems to think qualifies as radical income redistribution--provide a video clip, policy paper, or some source on the subject.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you live in NYC, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley, etc. the cost of living is incredibly high especially the rents. You need more money and people earn more but spend so much on housing that it isn't funny.
We have a house down the street from us that has two apartments with six rooms in each apartment. Each room is rented to a different couple. It's the only way the people can get by and have a roof over their heads on their incomes. Those incomes might be considered a living wage in the Midwest somewhere.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)You would be considered very rich where I live.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)This is a real eye opener,the real laugher is the so called Mom and Pop retail stock investors,yah right.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)HRC's close ties with the big banksters like Goldman-Sachs will allow her to push for solutions to the wealth gap.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)but people will excuse or ignore than since the millions killed are largely poor and unimportant rather than the upper middle class whose investment portfolios were eroded by Wall Street. Actually it does sort of solve the problem since they die: fewer poor people for the bourgeoisie to serve soup to, only to then turn around and insult them as being allied with Goldman Sachs.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you resent the help the middle class gives to the poor? Goldman-Sachs and the banksters are sucking up all the wealth. It's the Oligarchs and their "Free Trade" disasters that are putting Americans out of work. If you think that doesn't affect the poor you are badly mistaken. If those with jobs lose their jobs, there is less tax for safety nets. Would you be happy if the middle class all became poor? Sen Sanders is fighting harder for the poor than any other politician. We need wealth redistribution and H. Clinton isn't about doing that. She may fight for safety nets, but she will expect the middle class to pay for them. She won't regulate the banks and won't tax the wealthy. How many hundreds of billions did Goldman-Sachs walk away with from the last great bankster heist of 2008. They got away with it and they will do it again. The trillion dollars that the bankster extorted will be paid by those in the 99% and will be that much less for the safety nets.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)for insulting ordinary people who diverge from your orthodoxy, people often less fortunate than yourself, people who have been subject to bigotry their entire lives. You claim to resent oligarchs but spent your time insulting people here simply because they don't share your hatred for Hillary Clinton, a single person, and you have been on a relentless crusade against her for years now. You can count yourself successful for getting me to even consider supporting her, something I never did before reading the crap on this site.
It's not the issues I disagree with you. It's the way I've seen you insult people as allied with Goldman Sachs. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if someone makes billions or a hundred thousand. If they don't acknowledge my basic rights and insult me for refusing to prioritize theirs, they are all the same.
Goldman Sachs is one corporation among many. Gloch and Smith and Wesson are others, every bit as bad if not worse. Some make money off usury and the others make money off murder. The gun industry are corporate interests, and they make billions from killing people in communities like mine. They ONLY do harm. They do no good. Their sole purpose is to profit from murder and fear. In that they are the embodiment of evil and Sanders votes with them. You have no trouble supporting someone who votes for immunity from torte liability for gun manufacturers, but it gives me serious concern. That's not fighting for the poor. That is killing poor people in my community.
I haven't yet heard Sanders address poverty. I have head him talk about the middle class, which is the usual stuff we get from politicians. I see opposition to TPP, which is good. I see support for gun manufacturers over human life, and that is very bad.
What is Sanders going to do about wealth redistribution and how do you imagine he could even do it with the existing congress and constitutional protections for property? In real wealth redistribution, many on DU would wind up with a lot less, and I don't for a second think they would go along with that. Redistribution of wealth looks like Cuba, with no starvation but not an extra calorie more than one needs to survive. Are you going to tell me you would give up most of what you have for that? I don't believe it for a nanosecond. So don't even pretend you want wealth redistribution because I don't believe it, and Sanders isn't proposing it. It's just empty bullshit.
You care about Wall Street, and you pretend that bank reform is the only economic issue. It's not. It may be the major concern for some who lost money in the crash, but there are other corporations that Sanders has no problem supporting. If I have to pick between Wall Street and merchants of death, I will pick the former because I value human life over money. It's particularly galling for me to see people pretend to be anti-war while supporting the domestic war of gun violence that has taken more American lives since 1968 than all wars in US history. For me to caucus for Sanders (if he is even still in the race by the time my state caucuses), he is going to have to explain his votes against gun control and in support of the merchants of death.
I'm going to listen to the candidates and see what they have to say before deciding whom to caucus for, but I also know that ultimately it doesn't make that much difference who the nominee is because the president is limited in what he can do. The more you pretend Sanders can wave his magic wand and transform America, the less credibility your opinion has. If I do end up caucusing for Sanders, it will be DESPITE the crap I have read on DU from people who treat Democratic voters, particularly from subaltern groups, like crap. I will have to block out of my consciousness all the bullshit from the keyboard warriors who are concerned with their own class interests and just assume they are so superior they have the right to tell everyone else what matters. You don't, and the more you act like you do the more it turns people off. That sort of thing is Sanders greatest liability.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)do think she should be held accountable for her part in helping George Bush kill a million people. A million people. How can we just forget and forgive that? A million people including hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. We use horrible weapons on them including phosphorous shells that burned the skin off, cluster bombs that would lay around unexploded until children picked them up, and depleted uranium shells that will give cancer to Iraqi's for generations. Five million Iraqi's lost their homes and became refugees. How many American lives were lost or destroyed. She is the same hawkish person that the neocons love.
Why would I choose her when there are Democratic candidates that have integrity?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)As Sanders should be held accountable for helping gun manufacturers kills millions here in the US. I'm not seeing a lot of integrity in helping the gun lobby erode democracy and profit from mass murder. He may be great on many other issues, but if your opposition to murder is to be consistent, it should extend to the murder for profit at home as well, a domestic war that has killed many millions.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)loses, you are way off. When Goldman-Sachs and the other big banks extorted $1,000,000,000,000 from our economy, it didn't hurt those in the Stock Market, that money could have been used to provide foodstamps, fix our infrastructure, bolster Social Security, pay for health care for our children. We have 22% of our children living in poverty thanks to the big banks and Wall Street that are not paying taxes. They buy politicians that support Free Trade agreements that move our jobs to China.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Fuck food stamps. Establish a living wage and decent jobs. Food stamps shouldn't be necessary. We shouldn't be "helping the poor." We should eliminate poverty by creating a living wage. If there is anything I would expect a socialist to address is that. Food stamps are part of an economy built around rampant inequality. Real reform would mean lessening that inequality to the extent that such subsidies wouldn't be necessary. Socialism is from each his ability to each according to his need: Karl Marx. It's not food stamps. That's mainstream liberal, more of the same, and it subsidizes corporations paying low wages.
Those assholes on Wall Street actually repaid that bailout money. The problem wasn't so much that the government lost money on them because it didn't, but that it gave them license to carry on as usual. As has often been said: it privatized profits and socialized risk. I certainly agree with him that too big to fail should be too big to exist, and I said so at the time.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)It's got to be hard getting by on that.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)And my property taxes just dropped $1000 since I'm turning 65 this summer.
My truck is paid for, and my credit card debt is under $300 and it will be paid off soon.
I have a housemate so my utility bills are cut in half.
And I make between $200-250 a month doing part time computer work.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I know better than to fault him for what some of his supporters engage in. That class project is the doing of some sections of that ten percent, not him. I hold him accountable for his voting record and his own statements, not what his supporters on DU say. If I judged candidates according to DU, I couldn't vote for anyone.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)nt
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I never accused Sanders of advancing that position. It has become clear to me that is what some of his suppoerters here advance, and some have gone so far to call the rest of us "minor issues," mere "social issues," and "distractions." I'm not havng it.
No, you will see the last of it when people here quit promoting their class project and working to dismiss any concern that falls outside of that. The problem is they won't because they are so determined that the only existence that matters is their own, and anyone who says what about this is the enemy. So I'm the enemy because I care about a hell of a lot more than the fact a few people are pissed off at Wall Street while falling over themselves to make excuses for the corporate gun lobby. Clearly there is no concern about capital or subversion of democracy, while human rights, women's rights, lgbt rights are openly dismissed as "issues of rich people," or "only effecting a very small number of people." The fact is we are the majority in the party, and we vote. You all can impose your homogeneous little world on DU, but not in real life.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)In other parts of the state, it might be median, but in my home county and in most counties around my area, anyone making $50k in one year is rich. Of course, that changes when you get closer to the bigger cities.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)There is a note on the article about how it doesn't account for differences in cost of living, etc... I'm sure 50k in NYC is very different from in your area.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)The cost of living, rent, utilities, even how utilities are handled can make analyzing the results even more complicated. Where I live, you pay for power and water separately and most anything you get, you pay for each thing. In other places, you can pay for all of it rolled into one payment and even in some cases rent places that are furnished. Here, you rent and still have to get your own furniture, pay for water and power separately. Each of those has a security deposit to go along with the security deposit for renting.
We also pay by the month for things like rent. I keep hearing about some people who pay by the week elsewhere, and some even by the day. And you are right, $50k wouldn't last a minute in NY.
Where I live, $50k would buy an older house or pay for over half the price of a newer house. $100k would literally buy a mansion where I live, but if you are buying land in my area, get ready to pay about $10k per acre, depending on the area. For this area, that is considered the highest it has ever cost.
In some areas, the land is worth more than others. It all depends on location and timing. My .684 of an acre is listed as worth $7803. The 1.0 acre behind me is listed as $3800. The only difference is a tiny 8' x 10' shed that I have built on my property. It only ups the value by $300 though. Another $100 is the deck. That's it. The property behind me is a little lower in elevation, but still well above the elevation of the pond and the dam down the road from here.
The home I live in counts as a vehicle because it is a mobile home. I have a concrete block foundation under it though and I have made lots of improvements on it. Because I did not remove the wheels and just built the foundation to replace crappy skirting that had holes all in it, looked horrible, and let too much HVAC escape, it still doesn't count as "real property." I pay a lot less in taxes because of that, but I pay separate taxes for each. I pay a lot less for HVAC bills since adding the foundation. It already wasn't very much for power per month compared to most in this area anyhow. I paid over what the "rent to own" monthly price was from the beginning and paid it off 2 years early. So, $350 a month for 10 years and it is now mine. What started out by most people's standards as a dump (I've written about my step dad's take on the place on DU before and about the neighbor up the hill, was told it was hilarious) is now a nice place and other people are painting their houses now to match the color scheme the guy at Lowes helped me choose for it. I just told him I wanted a dark forest green type trim and some wood like color. Ended up with Molera Vaquero Red and Green Gables green trim and even though the guy that painted it, who does that for a living, wasn't sure about that color combo, he now uses a picture of my place in his advertising on what he can do with a place to make it look great. It's not Better Homes and Gardens like I always joked I would be in one day, but it's still nice to know that a simple hovel can be made nicer.
The house up the hill next door to me is listed as worth $56k, including the house and 1 acre of land. It is two stories and one of the nicest houses in this part of the neighborhood, very old, nicely built, a money pit though as far as heating and cooling and maintenance. The guy that lived in it has moved and he only comes up here occasionally to irritate and annoy everyone in the neighborhood. It's quiet when he is down at the beach, which is most of the year nowadays.
A family member of mine had her house built custom with a panic/tornado warning room and all low sinks for handicapped accessibility and a large custom garden tub and it was right around $100k. It's the nicest house in the whole entire neighborhood by most people's standards.
I'm happy in my hovel though. $50k and most of my savings from lower utility bills (cheaper to cool and heat because it is smaller and now even cheaper because I replaced the hideous skirting) and I could buy the nicer house up the hill. I'd rather not though. I like my little hovel. It looks nicer than half the other houses in the neighborhood because I take care of it. It gets regular maintenance, paint before it really needs it, and anything else I can think of to make it more cozy. At my income, if I tried to buy a house even at the $50k price, I would be paying for years and years longer than it took to pay this place off and get it fixed up to look nice and be more energy efficient than it already was. That $56k huge named (it has had that name since the early 1900s) mansion of a house up the hill next door to me would be a nightmare to heat and cool, cost a lot more to keep up, and I would never be able to afford to maintain it.
I also wouldn't enjoy it because his backyard is a car graveyard full of rust buckets and junk, an eyesore to the rest of the neighborhood. My backyard is a rich lush jungle full of some of the most edible wild vegetation and pecan trees and amazing beautiful wildlife imaginable. Wild rabbits live here, eastern cottontails, but I won't let anyone hunt here. People who visit can look and marvel at all my mourning doves and eastern cottontails but they cannot hunt them. $350 a month for 10 years was worth it for that alone.
I've started documenting as much of the wildlife here as I can manage to ID as only an amateur and I don't think the rest of my life will be long enough to ID the rest of the species of animals, insects, arachnids, and plants and trees. I love it here. I had identified several hundred species of birds, mammals, trees, plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians, and reptiles so far and there are so many more to go. Sadly, I lost my ongoing list with the dates when I first spotted each species. It was on my old computer and that hard drive is dead. So, I am having to start over. I had wanted all of those first dates spotting each species on record for some kind of journal to leave my kids if I ever have any.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Am I supposed to think that $105,910 is shockingly low or something? Or that $150,000 is?
One "funny" thing about it is that people who make $160,000 a year seem only able to look up and see all the people who are richer, sometimes much richer than them. They cannot, or will not, see all the people below, sometimes far below, them.
Here's some calculations I did with IRS data, dividing the US pie equally. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=732414
pampango
(24,692 posts)the expense of the Western middle class.
The gains of the global poor are nice to see. But the excessive gains of the top 5% - particularly the top 1% - come at the expense of our middle class.
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)VITA is the IRS-led Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program that serves low and moderate-income taxpayers for free.
The northern Virginia effort (NVA-CASH) served over 5,000 customers this filing season.
Of course, in this area some of those in the $20-50K bracket are newer college grads who do and file their own taxes.
So my site mostly dealt with people working "Subjobs", janitors, other service workers, etc.; generally those without private internet access.
Apart from the illegals, some clients qualified for an exemption to the ACA because they earned less than 138% (about $15,800) of the federal poverty level (for singles: about $5k more for each family member).
Around here, it takes about $30K to lead a college-grad lifestyle (decent apartment, utilities, internet, gas and insurance for the paid-up car, food, SS/Medicare, taxes, etc).
So one had to ask questions to determine if those people could be claimed as dependents of others. A lot of them had roommates.
And a number of the clients were Not Happy that they had to make a shared responsibility payment. Some insurance firms sponsored "sign them up" drives to get them Marketplace coverage for 2015.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Since productive has increased while wages have not. I'm not sure how economists measure productivity, but they announce it periodically with the employment figures.