This message was self-deleted by its author

[Recursion]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Recursion) on Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:44 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. How can 75% be 1%?

[Recursion]

2. 75% of 350 million can easily be 1% of 7 billion

The world doesn't stop at the US's borders.

The global 1% income cutoff is about $25.5 thousand / year.

[TBF]

7. Here we go again ...

The old "leveling the playing field". Bring down those wages!

[Recursion]

8. Yes, we pretty much all agree the 1% need to give up something to help out the 99%, right?

Is that no longer true?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

194. Well, no. 1% is easy to say and remember, but the reality is that the vast majority of the

damage is done by and for the 0.1% or even the 0.01%. Those just don't make for easy slogans.

[Recursion]

196. Well, hell: welcome to the club, then

It's a simplistic meme that doesn't describe the actual problem. We agree.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

208. I'm still not in that club.

My income for the last half decade has been well below the US poverty line. I'm probably not even in the top 10% worldwide. maybe not the top 20%.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. I get that, but when we discuss US politics

the relevant comparisons relate to US finances. Tell a family of five trying to live on $25K in Chicago that they'd be rich if they lived in Bangladesh or Somalia.

[Recursion]

13. How do you react when a person in Beverly Hills says "$500K isn't much here"?

Seriously. Be honest. How do you react?

The family living in Chicago is in exactly that relationship to the Bangladeshis.

Should the 1% give up something to help the 99%, or not?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. The difference is that the person in Beverly Hills is living in the US,

where the 99% - 1% is being made. $500K puts you in the 1% in the US, and $25K puts you toward the bottom of the 99% in the US. When we talk about inequality of income and wealth we are talking about it in the context of US politics. And yes, the 1% of Americans should give something up in the form of higher taxes to help the American 99%. I realize that the world doesn't end at our borders but our tax policy kind of does. Any aid we might offer other countries is a separate discussion.

[Recursion]

26. You may be; I never was

Why were you limiting your talk to the US?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. Because the discussion on DU is mainly about US politics, and whether

the Americans comprising the 1% should be taxed more so that the less affluent among the 99% can be offered the benefits they need. We don't have much influence over the government or tax policies of Bangladesh but we can influence ours.

[SheilaT]

27. My reaction is that they've chosen to live in a very expensive place,

and they are probably very caught up with keeping up with other, far wealthier residents there.

[cali]

109. that's simply false.

[Recursion]

113. What is? (nt)

[tkmorris]

40. Actually it can't

The minimum it could be would be 3.75%. In the real world of course that percentage is much higher. Not that it matters.

[whatchamacallit]

42. Hey, if we factor potential extraterrestrial beings we might even be it the 0.01 or 0.001%

[DanTex]

187. 1% of 7B is 70M. 75% of 350M is 262.5M. You can't fit 262.5M into 70M.

[Recursion]

190. It's 312 and 7.2, first off

And this is calculated by household, secondly.

At any rate, I don't care: let's say "only" 60% of the US is in the global 1%, while the rest are in the global 5%. Why do you care?

[DanTex]

198. 60% of the US cannot possibly be in the global 1%. It's a mathematical impossibility.

60% of 312M is 187.2M. 1% of 7.2M is 72M. So the top 60% of the US simply doesn't fit.

Whether it's calculated by household or not is irrelevant. At best, if household sizes in the US are drastically different from the rest of the world, then it leads to a horribly misleading statistic. But I doubt that even differences in household sizes could make this remotely close to accurate.

And it's also not true that the Americans who aren't in the top 1% are in the top 5%. It's true that all Americans could fit in the top 5% globally, but that would require almost all Americans to be richer than almost all non-Americans, which is obviously false.

I'm not sure where you got the data from that led to the conclusion that most Americans are in the top 1%, but it's obvious, based on simple arithmetic, that something went wrong somewhere in the calculation. I don't doubt that most Americans are in the top, say, 20% globally but this is entirely different from saying that we're all or even most of us in the top 1%.

Moreover, the top 1% globally has seen disproportionate gains in income, as well as the top 1% domestically. So the top 1% meme is entirely relevant. The only thing wrong with it is that it spreads the gains at the top out too equitably. In fact it is more like the top 0.1% or even 0.01% that has taken a huge part of the wealth and income gains in recent decades.

[Recursion]

207. The entire US population fits in about the top 12% of the world income distribution

Again, your special pleading sounds like the Beverly Hills lawyer talking about how $500K isn't really that much.

[DanTex]

212. I'm not doing any special pleading, I'm just doing simple math.

Like I said, I have no idea where your numbers came from. But they're obviously wrong, and not just by a little.

Sure, the entire US population fits in the top 7% (actually a little under 5%) of the world wealth distribution, but the question is whether that's where they actually are. Just because they fit, doesn't mean they are there. If they don't fit, it implies they are not there, but not the other way around.

I agree that working class Americans are doing well by global standards, but to say that "we are all the 1%" or "most of us are the 1%" just isn't true. And it's also wrong to insist that the top 1% or 0.01% taking huge portions of wealth and income gains isn't a problem.

[Recursion]

216. So take your numbers, which sound like the IMF's

By the $34k accounting, 75% of Americans are in the top 5% rather than the top 1%.

Why are people so angry at being reminded how crazy rich Americans are?

[Rex]

219. Don't worry, one day you will learn how to admit to being wrong and making mistakes.

It is all a part of growing up and becoming an adult.

[muriel_volestrangler]

233. 75% of Americans are in the top *14%*; the global top 1% holds the top 12% of the USA

See the graph in #176.

Your numbers are very wrong. You can't do the math. Why can't you accept that? Leave it to someone who can.

[DanTex]

234. I don't have numbers, but I highly doubt that 75% of Americans are in the top 5%.

Western Europe has a larger population than the US, and combined we make up about 10% of the World. Even if we accepted that the top 10% of the world income-wise is exclusively the US and Europe (which it is not), it would be difficult to believe that the US is so much wealthier than Europe that 75% of Americans would make it into the top 50% of the joint US/Europe distribution.

[Rex]

214. LOL! Do you expect some kind of epiphany from the OP?

Seriously, your obvious facts fly in the face of the OPs cruedly crafted lie about America. That won't do.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. Are you suggesting that it's only valid to look at global figures?

If so, I'd have to strongly disagree. There are times when a global approach is called for and there are times when it is not.

[Recursion]

5. Are Nigerians and Bangladeshis somehow not people?

As long as they are I can't think of a reason to look non-globally here.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. Wow. Where on EARTH did you get that from my post?

Don't be ridiculous.

There are situations in which looking at global economic conditions is appropriate and useful. There are situations in which looking at national-level economics makes more sense (just like there are times when looking even more locally is appropriate). It's not a "one size fits all" matter.

For example, when I'm advocating raising the minimum wage here in the US, incorporating economic data from Bangladesh would be bizarre and pointless. The people at whom my advocacy is directed, the US Congress, can't pass laws about Bangladeshi wages.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. "There are times when a global approach is called for and there are times when it is not."

Honest question --

What would be the line for that distinction? Some could simply denounce not wanting to discuss income equality on a global level as mere nationalism.

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. As I mention is my Reply to Recursion...

...one could be discussing steps to redress income inequality and be specifically discussing, say, the Federal minimum wage. Since legislation on that point would have no significant effect on wages in Bangladesh, why would one incorporate that data in one's analysis?

Basically, it's a matter of the context of the discussion taking place. There are a lot of very important economic discussions that simply don't take place at theglobal level.

[Recursion]

66. An increase in the Federal minimum wage would increase global inequality

As it pushes even more Americans over the global 1% line.

Does that bother you?

[Lizzie Poppet]

119. "global 1% line"

Actually, unless incomes are meticulously adjusted for purchasing power, living expenses, quality of life expectations, etc. (an incredibly complex undertaking that I've never seen done in a comprehensive manner), I consider the entire concept of a "global 1% line" to be of dubious utility. National economies are so grossly asymmetric that comparisons are inevitably apples-to-oranges.

More to the point, since raising the federam minimum wage would in the large part simply redistribute capital within the US economy (more than it would represent a shift in funds across borders), no, I'd not be bothered by such a result. The good it would do would vastly outweigh the very, very minor effect it would have in crippled economies like those of the nations you cite.

[Recursion]

122. Well, welcome aboard: "The 1%" is a nearly meaningless concept

That's kind of been my point.

[Lizzie Poppet]

125. Not when comparing apples to apples, it isn't. (nt)

[cascadiance]

137. So we should only look at wages globally and not the cost of living globally that people face?

If you look at the cost of living faced by people to survive in different areas, they are also quite different, and without those extra wages, many would DIE on the "global wage", where they could live off the land in other areas without those barriers!

I know you love outsourcing and H-1B programs, etc. as past posts indicate, but the race to the bottom where we all need to globally earn low wages isn't the right way to look at things. It is simplistic, and exacerbates the problems the 99% of the world faces today.

[Yavin4]

166. Honest answer. Americans can only control U.S. policy regarding income.

Well, at least in theory. We have NO control over how wealth is distributed in a foreign nation.

[jberryhill]

183. Yes, but it takes a certain amount of effort to maintain our national position

It is no secret that the US consumes an inordinate share of world resources.

Going forward, we either accept that as the way things should be, and do what is necessary to maintain that imbalance, or not.

[Yavin4]

188. Our consumption of resources does not equate to impoverishing populations overseas.

We consume oil. Norway produces oil. Norway decided to retain revenues from oil production and distribute them to their citizens. Thus, the average Norwegian is middle class.

The average American does not control what foreign governments do with the revenue from our consumption.

[Recursion]

211. How does it not?

They are finite.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I suppose next you'll be telling us we should be satisfied with frozen tortellini. nt

[Bettie]

16. LOL

Can we heat it up, or does it have to be eaten in the frozen state?

[WillowTree]

52. Now THAT'S really funny!

Thanks for the Monday morning belly laugh!

[angel823]

83. Heh

I see what you did there.

Angel in Texasperated.

[Recursion]

102. *snort*

OK, that was funny

[6chars]

229. I like tortellini

[lunatica]

9. Well it's all relative

If we're the 1% then maybe we should share the wealth.

[Recursion]

14. You know how we tell rich Americans that sharing the wealth is ultimately to their advantage?

We're right.

But the Nigerians and Bangladeshis are also right when they say that to us.

[lunatica]

35. That was what I'm trying to say.

I'm a union member, so I understand the concept of what it means to share the wealth. Translating into international activity can be done.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

205. You know how we share the wealth with countries with poorer people?

We demand that when our companies go over there, they pay their workers more. And that we pay more for items they sell to us.

[Recursion]

210. Yeah, that's been the history so far

Chinese wages have doubled over the last ten years, for instance.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

217. So what's their average wage compared to ours? nt

[Recursion]

220. Last I saw roughly a quarter nominally, or a half by PPP

I have to add that China is a special case because they manipulate their currency exchange so exchange is much farther off from PPP than with any other country.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

223. So they need to double again still.

But good for them for heading in the right direction.

[Recursion]

227. They do; they probably will

As China sheds more manufacturing job their service economy will pick up, and service economies are how all advanced economies raise wages.

[merrily]

10. The vast majority of Americans comprise America's 1%. Fuzzy math?

[Recursion]

12. No. The vast majority of Americans comprise *the 1%*. The global 1%.

Should the 1% give up some wealth to help the 99%? I think so.

If it's true nationally, why not globally?

[merrily]

17. Yet, you know most references on DU to the 99% are to America's 99%.

So, how much did you send to Bangladesh last week?

[Recursion]

20. Why should they do that? Beverly Hills people only compare themselves to other Beverly Hills people

How do you react to a Beverly Hills lawyer who complains about $500K "not being much really"?

[merrily]

168. Same way I reacted when a poster said $250K a year was not really that much.

I had a discussion. What should I have done? Shoot her or him? What the hell is your point?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

209. I tell him to move out here to Ohio.

Where his costs would drop so dramatically, while he'd still have all the same first world amenities available to him.

[ohheckyeah]

172. We do give up wealth

to help others - it's called foreign aid.

[Bettie]

15. So, what is your point?

We should all make the same wages as people in, say, Bangladesh (or whichever country has the lowest wages these days)?

I'm not sure what your issue is here.

When people talk about the 1%, it is about percentages within our national economy, not a worldwide economy and usually in the context of our national socioeconomic scale.

So, our national per capita is more than it is in some counties, it is less than others. Most people realize this, so what is the point? Why are you so angry about this?

[Recursion]

18. Why not the worldwide economy?

Are Bangladeshis and Nigerians not people?

The basis of "the 1%" rhetoric is that the 1% should give up something to help the 99%, right? Or does that only apply within the US's borders?

How do you react when a Beverly Hills lawyer whines that $500K isn't "really rich" there?

Can you see that you're doing that too?

[merrily]

22. "Can you see that you're doing that too?" Bullshit. You have no idea what I am doing.

AGAIN, how much did YOU send to poor nations last week?

[Recursion]

24. Most of my income, in this week's case, but that's not important

This happened to be the pledge drive for the two NGO's I try to support here, so it was essentially all of my income. But that's not important.

Do you believe the 1% should give up some wealth to support the 99%, or not?

[merrily]

31. " Do you believe the 1% should give up some wealth to support the 99%, or not?"

Who died and left you attorney for the prosecution?


BTW, anyone who reads my posts honestly can answer that question. You apparently answered for yourself in Reply 18, but apparently not based on anything I've ever actually posted.

[Bettie]

32. So, every discussion must

be about the worldwide economy?

What is your solution?

We are not currently in a one-world economy.

We live in a world of various national economies, thus discussions, for example, during elections are about national economies, because that is the point.

So, are you suggesting that those who make more than some arbitrary threshold you'd like to set per year send any income above that to some other nation to be distributed to those poorer than they are? Would you assign countries to various states to ensure equitable distribution of cash?

Or are you actually a person who believes that we should just leave the rich people alone and accept that they are smarter and better than the rest of us and shouldn't have to pay their taxes?

[jeff47]

63. No solution. The goal is to just get people to shut up and support free trade.

Recursion is a fan of the TPP and other free trade agreements.

The utter and complete failure of these agreements to actually improve the lives he claims to be concerned about is apparently not important.

[Bettie]

74. OK.

Thanks for the information.

IT does help me understand what is going on there.

[Recursion]

115. Well, no, I'm pretty pessimistic about the TPP

Seems like just a re-ratification of our existing bilaterals. Not worth the trouble.

[jeff47]

145. Except you've spent months arguing the TPP is needed to help the world's poor. (nt)

[Recursion]

150. Nope

Not sure whom you are thinking of, but I certainly haven't argued that.

[jeff47]

155. You know, memory loss is a serious medical condition. You should get that looked at. (nt)

[Recursion]

160. Indeed you should. I've never once said I support the TPP

And I still don't. Reading. You might try it.

[Arugula Latte]

200. Ahhh. It all makes sense now.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

215. Free trade is what keeps the third world mired in poverty.

The way to raise other countries out of poverty (rather than drag us down into poverty) is to demand that our companies pay workers the same wherever they locate their manufacturing facilities, and to tariff companies that don't pay their workers at least our minimum wage. To 'deglobalize' in the sense of limiting our trade with countries unless they're making set, progressive goals in terms of raising the standards of pay for workers to match American levels.

[merrily]

19. The poster seems to be angriest with US populists.

[Bettie]

36. I'm honestly confused here

I have no idea why this person should be so angry about this.

[Recursion]

60. About what?

(I'm "this person" and I'm not sure what you're confused about.)

[Bettie]

88. No longer confused

and you are "this person" as in the person who wrote the OP.

I wasn't familiar with your posting history, but someone kindly let me know.

[jeff47]

69. The poster is a major fan of free trade agreements. So US populists are a problem.

The poster has also never quite addressed why every free trade agreement has failed to lift up the people the poster claims to want to uplift.

[merrily]

80. I read recently on DU that referring to someone as a Third Wayer is name calling, much

like calling liberals racists is name calling. Until then, I was not aware that accurately labeling someone according to their political philosophy, as one might label me a New Deal Democrat, was name-calling, akin to calling all white liberals racists. IMO, that comment was a highly cynical false equivalency. However, I don't want to engage in name calling.

But, I digress. What were you saying about free trade agreements? That opposing them doesn't actually mean that I callously want to see people in Third World countries starve? I agree.

[pampango]

226. What has lifted them up? Most of the global income gains have gone to the poorest 75%

in the last 25 years.

[tkmorris]

21. Semantics

The injustices. inequality, and the excesses of the group commonly referred to as the "one percent" are the same regardless of the actual ratio to the rest of the United States, or to the larger world. Arguments such as the one you are making not only add nothing useful to the conversation, they are liable to make most objective listeners question your motivation in making them.

[Recursion]

29. No, no, no, 1000 times no. You are 100% wrong there.

The actions of middle class Americans are exactly as callous and exploitative and cruel towards the world 99% as the actions of the US 1% are towards the US 99%.

People need to grow up and deal with this.

[tkmorris]

44. No they really aren't

If you wish to claim that they are it would behoove you to make some sort of argument to that effect. Simply stating it as if it were a Universal Truth is not very compelling.

[cascadiance]

144. So the FAR HIGHER cost of living we face that REQUIRES higher wages to live where we live...

... is "callous"?!

Think again! That attitude saying that not wanting to die starving with "global wages" in OUR LOCAL economies, is a damn insult in my book.

I'm all for looking at things globally, but instead of advocating that we should all accept lower wages like you appear to be commissioned to ask us to do, we should be looking at ways of ORGANIZING LABOR, ENViRONMENT, and other movements globally to RAISE people's wealth and wages, and ask those real CALLOUS individuals that are the fraction of 1% at the top to start giving back the wages they've been STEALING from all of us for so many decades with this kind of attitude that we should all just work for lower wages "equally".

[jonno99]

173. "The actions of middle class Americans are exactly as callous and exploitative..." - here is where

you are wrong, and have lost the argument.

The disposable income of the "middle-class" in the US is nowhere near the disposable income of the (US's) 1%.

Consider:
1. the cost of living in the US as low as in Bangladesh.
2. someone in the US making around $25K is still most likely living paycheck to paycheck. Do you consider them callous & exploitive to?

[merrily]

104. "liable to make most objective listeners question your motivation" His posting history

makes his motivation clear.

[Facility Inspector]

25. Sounds like you are trying to diminish the injustice perpetrated against the many in this country

by the oligarchs.

Why do you want to see oligarchs and elites cast in the best possible light?

What good does that for the working poor and the diminishing middle class?

[Recursion]

30. We are *ALL OLIGARCHS*

We are the damn world's oligarchy.

I'm trying to get provincial myopic Americans to get that.

We are to the world what Beverly Hills is to the rest of the US.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. OK. So What's your solution?

[Recursion]

45. The solution is for the 1% to give up some wealth to the 99% (nt)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. And how would suggest this be done?

When I was a kid my mom told me I had to eat my peas because there were hungry children in Africa. I never understood how eating my peas would help the hungry children in Africa. This discussion kind of reminds me of how some people complain that poor Americans aren't really poor because they have televisions and phones.

[Recursion]

57. Well taxation and redistribution is a pretty time-honored way

If you know of another one I'm happy to hear it.

[jeff47]

64. And you'd like to start at the bottom of that 1%. (nt)

[Recursion]

71. Me? No. I'd rather start way the hell up at the top

Just like the 1-percenter making $700K is pissed that he's included in "The one percent" who's asked to pay more.

[jeff47]

73. Except the policies you explicitly support start at the bottom of that 1%, and

pay massive dividends to the top of that 1%.

[Recursion]

97. Which policies are those?

Is it the $25/hour minimum wage? The guaranteed minimum income? The 60% highest tax rate?

I'm seriously curious which of the policies I support do what you claim.

[jeff47]

142. The ones you actually argue for over and over again, instead of the ones you make up now

You like free trade agreements. You have argued many times that free trade agreements are needed to uplift the world's poor.

You've yet to address the failure of every free trade agreement to do so.

[randys1]

170. I am confused, this person said he has NEVER supported TPP or spoken in favor of free

trade agreements.

I cant do a search, I would like to know if that is true, or a big fat untruth, could someone post his stuff from the past so we could know?

Is that OK to do here?

[merrily]

182. Why can't you do a search?

[randys1]

218. I thought you had to be a paid member to search

i can do a google search of a users name

but advanced search, which is what i would want i think is available only to star members

and I would GLADLY to pay to post here if the jury system wasnt in place...

[Recursion]

232. No, just search my username and TPP

Or any other combination you want. I'm pretty pessimistic about it, though I want to see the thing before I make a judgment.

[randys1]

239. Free trade is bullshit, it ALWAYS means more money for those at the top and less for

everyone else, ALWAYS.

I actually believe your position is a righteous one, but I am not sure of your motive.

Problem with your position is the Koch Bros use it to lecture poor Americans how they are not poor.

I wish I knew how to make every single human alive equal, because I am a socialist at heart, but tell me how and I will do it.

[merrily]

237. I was not aware of that. Advanced search never worked for me anyway.

Still, I can do a site search.

[Recursion]

240. Oh.. if randys1 is on mobile he won't see the search box

That just struck me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

92. I am all in favor of offering more foreign aid to poorer countries.

I am not in favor of making poor Americans even poorer.

[Recursion]

95. Me too. That's one great way for the 1% to give up some money for the 99%

It's also an example of why I think the "1%" meme is broken: most of the money will come from only a tiny fraction of the 1%.

[Facility Inspector]

48. wow

uh, ok.

[jeepers]

76. The oligarch and wealth inequality

are international problems. Unfortunately we are still too nationalistic to realize the true extent and depth of the problem and the need for change.. I think sooner than later we will realize that we cannot end exploitation of the poor in this country by the Oligarchs without tackling exploitive wealth worldwide. Things are moving faster but I fear it will be a while before we can overcome our nationalist prejudices.

[Recursion]

99. ^^ That

Bingo

[PowerToThePeople]

138. No, we are still slaves of the oligarchs

We just happen to reside in the main plantation house instead of the shack in the fields.

People that have no wealth are NOT oligarchs.

[merrily]

175. Such bullshit to equate Gates and a fast food worker or a WalMart checker on SNAP and Medicaid.

"'We; are all the 1%" is so dishonest. So is "'they' are all the 99%."

[Starry Messenger]

231. Seriously?

"I'm trying to get provincial myopic Americans to get that."

I'm losing four teeth this year from adult dental neglect from my own personal lack of money to take care of that part of my health. And you ask why people get angry with you. SHAME on you. You don't even live here and don't know anything about poverty in America. You are a man with a job in India. Give away YOUR money and live on the sidewalks there and then you can wallow in your sanctimony. I am so upset with you right now, I think I need to just put you on ignore.

[Rex]

133. That is exactly what the poster is doing, but that is their entire act and show all in one.

The OP is a one trick pony and you desribed it to a T.

[KittyWampus]

28. IN AMERICA- a significant number of the "1%" are people who work hard and EARN their paychecks...

doctors and lawyers, for instance. They are also almost all liberal Democrats.

The people we should be concerned, the ones who own obscene amounts of wealth and work to disenfranchise voters and decimate the middle class and government for the Common Good, are a tiny fraction of that 1%.

[stillwaiting]

38. And I am sick of disingenuous arguments. $25,000 is WORTH a lot more in some places and

a lot less in others.

In OUR country (I really question if you give a damn about average AMERICANS based on your posting history), $25,000 can be near or at poverty levels.

$25,000 in the country you reside (India isn't it?), might provide a MUCH better lifestyle.

Certainly in many countries around the world $25,000 can provide a MUCH better life than $25,000 in the United States.

When will you reassess your absolute disdain for average Americans that are struggling?

$25,000 in America is a very tough life in many places in this country (especially if you have a family). We have no universal health care, and our social safety net is incredibly weak compared to other countries. I have never seen a post from you that is sympathetic to that reality. On the contrary, you lobby for trade deals and Fast Track authorities that will allow the TRUE oligarchy in the U.S. to take advantage of people in all countries around the world (including the U.S.).

Your concern for Americans making a poverty wage is truly appreciated. You're a mensch.

[Recursion]

47. No, that's $25K by purchasing power parity

So, no: it's $25K in identical purchasing power.

[stillwaiting]

51. I'm going to need a link for that claim.

And, it still doesn't change the fact that $25,000 in the U.S. is poverty wages for many people and families in the U.S. Your care and concern for those that struggle more and more with every passing year is overwhelming.

Now, let's get TPP passed, amirite?

[Recursion]

53. Meh, the TPP is at best a band-aid

It doesn't address China or India which are the real drivers of economic change right now.

What claim do you want a link for?

[stillwaiting]

55. Purchasing power parity, $25,000 = the top 1%. I've never seen anything regarding that. nt

[Recursion]

58. World Bank is probably the best source for that

http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-6259

Though you'll see it repeated endlessly in development circles, I'm pretty sure that number comes from the World Bank.

[stillwaiting]

62. Your link requires a subscription. I can't access it.

If it's repeated endlessly in development circles it should be fairly easy to source though.

[Recursion]

65. It is. Just google "global 1% income level" (nt)

[stillwaiting]

85. I'm not finding information that breaks it down by cost of living.

I've read 4 or 5 links.

One, from 2012, said that $34,000 per person was the global 1%, and that for a family of four it would be $136,000 for the global 1%. That's a far cry from a blanket statement of $25,000 with no context embedded in a diary that is telling Americans basically to shut up because they have it so good compared to others.

I'll keep looking, but if you come across a link that CLEARLY takes in to account cost of living (our health care, education, housing, etc. are MULTITUDES higher than in third world countries) I'd love to see it. Send it my way.

[Recursion]

108. Add "PPP" to your search term

World Bank, IMF, CIA, and various banks all keep different versions of that information, and they are all measured different ways, and they come up with numbers ranging from $17,000 to $36,000 as the demarcation.

Let's even grant the highest one: $36K. that means about half of Americans are in the literal 1%, but nearly all of the other Americans are in the 5%.

[uponit7771]

222. Unnnnn, I'm not seeing where US PPP is way above all othes at 25k, there are few places a SINGLE...

... person can live on 25k in the US adding in health care.

And no, I don't think top 30 economies (Which includes India) should be compared with lower 30 in PPP... there are way to many factors that attribute PPP

[Recursion]

225. Well I agree PPP also has problems

That's why in most cases I prefer flat exchange rates. But both miss some aspects of the truth.

That said, I can't think of an honest way to suggest that a poor American is worse off than a middle class Nigerian.

[Rex]

139. I don't think the OP has the ability of typing anything but disingenous OPs.

They seem to like the chain and to yank it almost every other day in GD. Personally, I've never seen someone so mad at the America public. You would think they would talk more about the injustices in India since they live there. Never a PEEP.

Concern troll got to concern doncha know.

[Octafish]

41. ''Sanctimonious.'' Project much?

When "money trumps peace," and money is speech, the undemocratic distribution of wealth in the USA is a major concern -- for the United States and the planet.

For a better explanation of income inequality in the United States:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

PS: Who cares about per-capita GDP when most of the wealth goes to line the pockets of 0.01%?

[Recursion]

59. Oh, hey, we are in agreement on something. Tell Satan to order a space heater.

PS: Who cares about per-capita GDP when most of the wealth goes to line the pockets of 0.01%?

Now we're talking.

The 0.01% is a much different animal than the 1%.

[Rex]

118. Funny thing, the OP is in India and never talks about how bad the caste system is.

I bet they LOVE it there! It is sad to see so many fall for the OPs tired concern trolling tactics, but should be expected since that is all the OP can do.

[Recursion]

197. Do you just lie for fun?

Search "Recursion caste" and apologize. Now.

[Rex]

199. You do it all the time, your OP is a lie and you had to edit just to make it look less like one.

You should apologize for concern trolling GD. I'll wait.

[Recursion]

204. Last response to you without apologizing for that lie

You don't know shit about the caste system and you don't know shit about how much I hate it or what I've given up opposing it. Goodbye.

[Rex]

206. So you won't apologize for lying in your OP?

I have a degree in history and you have a degree in nothing. You are a UNIX script kiddie. Yawn. Get back with me when you develop some kind of understanding of the world.

[mythology]

43. In general, people don't like to put their life in too much perspective

It's easy to point to others and say they aren't doing enough. It's difficult to turn that same spotlight on ourselves.

We instinctively want to see ourselves as the hero of our own life's narrative, but the world is bigger than any one of us (no matter how big Trump's ego is, the world is bigger than he is too).

It's obviously not especially viable to immediately bring Bangladesh up to modern U.S. economic standards, but we clearly should be doing more to encourage that. The question becomes do we find a way to lift them up, or do we have to bring ourselves down to meet them?

[Bluenorthwest]

46. And yet you live in India while drawing US salaries one for you and a larger one for your wife.

I think that you, as an American of more than average income living in Mumbai might feel a bit on the 1% side.
Why don't you and Mrs Recursion work at local pay rates?

[Recursion]

50. I do

I get paid in rupees.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you still just pissed that I posted an Advocate article you didn't like years ago? (Along with another article arguing against it)

[Bluenorthwest]

70. What a nasty response. And I did not speak of local currency but of local pay rates. Your household

is paid by US government standards. Not sure why you are talking about currency when I am speaking about amounts and rates of pay which is the alleged subject of your OP. 'I get paid in Rupees' has absolutely nothing to do with how much you get paid.
So you do not live at local rates of pay at all. Nor does your wife. You live in one economy and are paid according to the standards of another. This is a beneficial set up for you and Mrs Recusion. Your OP makes that benefit a tad hypocritical.

[Recursion]

77. What a nasty three years you've spent stalking every post I made

Ever since I posted the Advocate's review of Jimenez's book, along with a scathing counter-review, you have stalked every post I made and reminded me what an awful person I must be for having done that, quoting that post multiple times. Never, apparently, taking the time to notice that I posted the Advocate's review and a pretty scathing counter-review.

So you do not live at local rates of pay at all.

I get paid at the current exchange rate $14,200 / year. For doing UNIX administration and embedded programming. Which is very, very rich by Mumbai standards.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. And yet you are married to your wife who gets paid by US rates. You keep spewing shit at me

while pretending that is not the case. But it is the case. Your household is of two incomes and your wife is paid US rates of pay. You keep claiming that is not the case, but it is the case. You live in the Indian economy while your household has US pay rates, income and affluence. What a great deal for you. You guys must be saving tons of money. Which you will have when you return.

[Recursion]

93. I *never* "spew shit" at you

Find me a single example where I did before today. I've put up with your bringing up a single Advocate book review I posted for years and I only stood up (or indeed responded to it) now.

Find me an example before today where I have been even a fraction as rude to you as you have consistently been to me.

[GummyBearz]

147. You never "spew shit"?

You are so full of shit I am certain feces falls from your mouth every time it opens.

[Bluenorthwest]

163. A. I did not mention that fucking article, you did. B. You keep claiming your household is not paid

at American rates, and that is false. You keep dancing around your own economic realities in an OP where you shout at people making 25K that they need to be honest about how rich they are.

You live in India, your household is making US pay rates, you live very well because of this. I could link to your 'Our caviar shopping jaunt to Dubai'. It's just not cricket to both brag about what one has and then tell others they are smug for having much. It's just not.

[demmiblue]

185. +1

[Recursion]

201. That shopping trip was $70 total

Now, do you want me to find every time you'very linked that book review I posted, or will you admit to doing that a lot?

[demmiblue]

228. How far would $70 go in a poor household in India? n/t

[Recursion]

230. It's about two weeks salary at the median wage here, why? (nt)

You seem to think that I don't know I'm rich. I am, like nearly all Americans are.

[merrily]

136. The rupee thing didn't fake you out?

Changing the subject from him and his wife to just him didn't work, either?

[Scootaloo]

49. I have to admit, Recursion, one doesn't often see your argument on liberal message boards.

Poverty in America is not invalidated by worse poverty somewhere else.

[Recursion]

56. So, as I keep asking, how do you respond when a person in Beverly Hills says $500K isn't "rich"?

And tell me why an American making $30K is immune to that same criticism from a Nigerian.

[virtualobserver]

78. Until you resolve the income inequality in this country.....

that person making $25,000 (who can't even afford to pay for shelter and food without government assistance) is a foolish target for criticism.

[Scootaloo]

79. Reading this thread shows me this question has been ably answered multiple times

You don't seem to be paying those answers much mind, though. It looks like you're more interested in pushing an argument than engaging a discussion.

[merrily]

158. The only argument in the OP seems to be that US populists are sanctimonious.

Or something. Because, heaven knows, if only those in the US making $20K a year made even less, people all over the world would be better off. "An ebbing tide in the Us lifts all boats everywhere" type thesis. The problem isn't about the greed of the world's 5-10%. The problem is about the greed of America's sanctimonious 99%.

Got it?

[Orrex]

61. All we need to do is find the person who's the worst-off in the world

And the rest of us can simply shut our lucky mouths.


What a bunch of phony baloney bullshit. This foolish mode of thinking has been debunked for centuries.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

100. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, this discussion reminds me

of the right-wing complaint that poor Americans aren't really poor because they have televisions (or running water, or phones, or some such). So unless you are living in a mud hut and eating lichens and berries you aren't poor at all and should stop whining. Similarly an American family in Chicago trying to get by on $25K are really 1%-ers compared to many people elsewhere in the world so that family need to STFU and recognize that they are actually oligarchs.

[demmiblue]

112. Totally right-wing.

But they have theirs... so fuck everyone else.

Good post.

[GeorgeGist]

67. I'm tired of sanctimonious people pretending the US is a third world country.

[Recursion]

68. Well we definitely have the population of one

It's why we face social issues Germany and Denmark never will.

[PowerToThePeople]

72. What a crock of shit

Subtract a years worth of food, clothing, heat/electric, and basic housing. what is left? Or is it less than zero?

[Recursion]

81. That comparison is by purchasing power parity

So, no. People outside of the US are poor in ways that people in the US and western Europe seem (as this thread shows) absolutely incapable of understanding.

[Recursion]

98. I don't know but my guess is that it's kind of a visual pun on Obama's Shepard Fairey logo

I really like O'Malley, which is why I wish I had a different avatar right now because I seem to have alienated a shit-ton of people by pointing out something uncomfortable, and I'd rather O'Malley not suffer from this.

So, just to add, to any DUers: I'm almost certain O'Malley disagrees with me on this. And I'm serious about that. This is my own hobby-horse from having seen a lot of the developing world.

[HughBeaumont]

82. YOU are the damned logically challenged. ALWAYS this.

I'm not going to repeatedly point out how disingenuously trollish you're being with this non-point you keep trying to drive home, nor am I going to point out that playing the Fallacy of Relative Privation over and over and over again is getting just as goddamned tiresome as a right-wing government trying to institute wholesale austerity as a solution to economic problems that are not only long-standing and complex, but out of control of the people who would stand the greatest chance of being wiped out should such a solution come to fruition.

WHAT exactly do you want OUR 99% to do? Would it make you ecstatic and happy to see a worldwide wage levelling where our supposed high-off-the-hog batch of caviar-and-Moen sipping working classers could somehow easily do with less income in an economy that relies 2/3 on consumer spending?

OK, let's say for example, EVERYONE on the planet (besides the overlords and owners, of course, because reasons) is making a median income of $10,000 per year . . . as an arbitrary income standard that should satisfy the planet or something. This discounts the homeless, infirm, children, etc.

But wait! There's this whole pesky "cost of living" thing that would kind of make living on 10k/year a tad difficult in hyper-capitalist (and never ever lowering the cost on necessities) America.

$10,000 . . .. where in America would that shelter you? Feed you? Clothe you? Bathe you? Educate you? Transport you? Howzabout much of Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada or Scandanavia? Do we just let a couple billion people starve, so the other couple billion can barely eke out?

How does a sustainable capitalist economy continue if we're sacrificing income, health and prosperity to satisfy your bizarre Thomas Friedman (who, incidentally and just like everyone else who lurves offshoring and austerity, wouldn't at all be affected by such a fallout) fantasyland?

How exactly is the government supposed to maintain the overwhelming amount of social services volume likely to result from a worldwide wage levelling? Are you under the mistaken notion that people are simply going to just have to learn to do without necessities? There's no Guaranteed Minimum Income coming down the pike any generation soon, and if it did, you would sort of need tax dollars to fund it. Good luck getting that when everyone's making $10,000 a year.

What's happening here is that you're trying to blame already-maligned Americans that have below-average and zero understanding of their supposed crime for long-standing and complex political, societal and economic one-sidedness of other nations. The fact that you remain willfully obtuse to just plain and simple ignorant as to why instituting a worldwide economic dystopia would not even come close to helping ANYONE . . . . but the ACTUAL worldwide 0.0001 Percent . . . . it's just a comedy act at this point, worthy of dismissal as any conservative economic argument would be.

[malthaussen]

91. Not a bad rant.

I'd just like to ask one question: How does a sustainable capitalist economy continue, period?

-- Mal

[HughBeaumont]

148. As is? It doesn't.

I would think the idea of improving our economy wouldn't involve "making it worse for the middle/working/poor", right?

The general problem in this battle of profit vs humanity is that we need Euro/Scandanavian social safety nets, business acumen and infrastructure spending in an America whose private and public sectors are dominated by Euro/Scandanavia-hating, megaprofit-hungry right-wing nutjobs.

[malthaussen]

171. I think the problem is schadenfreude.

It's not an issue I see discussed much, but to me it seems pretty clear that the biggest general problem we have is how much so many of us love pissing on other people.

Greed is insufficient excuse, to me, because there is really no point in taking trillions of dollars out of circulation unless it makes one happy to see others cry. Although I suppose one could argue piling up dollars is a way of keeping score, I'd argue that the definition of status and power in present times is how many people you can make suffer, or impose your will on. I wouldn't exclude chauvinism as one manifestation of our overall arrogance -- we're number 1, after all, and American Exceptionalism has long been taken for granted by the white population. But some brand of Exceptionalism is usually found at the root of all Imperial states, so I guess I don't see America as exceptional in our exceptionalism.

-- Mal

[WDIM]

84. Net wealth not income determines if you are a 1 percenter.

Why is it so hard to understand income does not make you 1percenter. It is the net wealth that you hold.
Assets minus debts equals net wealth.

Example: An American owns a house worth 200,000 but owes 180,000 plus has 50,000 in credit card debt plus 50,000 in student loans and has $5,000 in the bank and 50,000 on his 401K.
Assets equal $255,000 debts equal $280,000 their net worth is -$25,000.

Compare that to a tribal member living in the amazon. They have no debt and no assets their net worth is 0. Therefore in actuality they are worth more than the American living in debt.

Income doesnt mean a thing if you are giving it all away every month to pay your debts.

The term 1 percenter refers to the richest 1 percent in net wealth and they own 50% of the worlds assets.

When the top 1% own 50% of the worlds wealth something is truly messed up. Greed is despicable.

[demmiblue]

86. I think you are having an episode of guilt complex.

In the country you are living in, your wife's salary alone probably puts you in the .0001%.

What are you doing about it? Shite, the money spent toward your dog could probably feed a few families for a year where you are.

Talk about sanctamonious.

[jeff47]

96. No, he's having an episode of "I want more free trade agreements

and need a way to derail the arguments against them".

[Throd]

87. Screw your hair shirt politics. Many of us live month to month.

Finger wagging and sanctimony is not going to get you a very sympathetic audience.

[Brickbat]

94. The "one percent" terminology rose in popularity during the Occupy movement, which of course had its

own issues but in most cases primarily focused on income inequality in the United States. And even then it wasn't meant to specifically represent a mathematical reality. Your concern is noted, however.

[Rex]

101. Recursion...

[Recursion]

103. Yes, Rex? (nt)

[Rex]

106. .

[merrily]

105. People actually rec'd this. True, not many, but still. SMH. nt

Then again, an OP hidden for anti-Semitism even got a rec. So it goes at DU these days.

[Rex]

110. Sad ain't it?

You would think people would wise up to this kind of petty disruption in GD. Oh well, some never learn.

[merrily]

116. And, of course, this post has nothing to do with the primaries.

NOTHING, I tells ya, NOTHING.

[Recursion]

120. No, it really doesn't. To my knowledge neither Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, or Chafee address

global poverty much at all.

[merrily]

128. Of course not. None of your anti-populist posts have a thing to do with the primary.

[Recursion]

131. Basically, yes: my main concerns will be equally unmet by all candidates

I prefer O'Malley, personally, but he shows no more sign of addressing my chief concerns than Sanders or Clinton or Webb or Chafee do.

[merrily]

141. Your incessant bashing of those on this board who refer to the 99% or self identify as populist is

equal opportunity. OK.

[Rex]

121. Well I would say the OP is nervous about the election

if I really believed for a mintue they are who they say they are. Personally I think it is a kid getting kicks in his mom's basement, but that is just me. The OP has proven over the years to not know a single thing about which they supposedly have a career in.

Strange right?

[Recursion]

124. "Nervous"? I am pretty confident my preferred candidate is going to lose

Is that nervousness?

[demmiblue]

129. They probably never had any true hardship in their lives.

Nor the compassion or empathy to see that others do on a daily basis. Especially women and people of color.

I wonder who they will vote for in the primaries?

[Recursion]

152. Yeah, that must be it (nt)

[demmiblue]

157. +1

[merrily]

203. I'd guess that who they plan to vote for in the primaries has

more to do with the rec than whether they've known hardship in their lives.

Everything on DU seems to be seen through that prism now, including anti-Semitism.

[malthaussen]

107. I feel your pain.

Unfortunately, of course, the rich in power use a similar point to try to shove austerity down everyone else's throats. The arguments in favor of the TPP, for example, include the assertion that offshoring jobs to poorer counties helps everyone by raising the overall standard of living worldwide. There is enough truth in this that they hope it will suffice to obfuscate the fact that the TPP is about engrossing more profits and removing more money from circulation, not about giving people better lives. Austerity to aid other, less fortunate humans is quite a different kettle of fish from austerity to enrich the fat cats even more.

Since the RW like to use factoids like "98% of people in the US have a refrigerator" to justify telling everyone to sit down and shut up and eat their peas, it is perhaps not so unsurprising that your point would be viewed with a touch of hostility.

In any event, while one might agree that there is a certain callousness to those at the top of the food chain arguing about the relative distribution of wealth while continuing to facilitate the oppression of the mass of the rest of the world's population, it seems manifest that unless and until we are able to force our own 1% -- the miniscule number in this country who control the majority of the world's financial capital -- to disgorge, the few pennies the rest of us can send to Bangladesh aren't going to make all that great a difference.

-- Mal

[Recursion]

111. Explain the paradox then

the few pennies the rest of us can send to Bangladesh aren't going to make all that great a difference.

Well, first off, yes they can.

Second off, as I keep pointing out, we are normally ruthless here to a Beverly Hills lawyer making $500K and complaining that's not "really rich" where he lives.

Explain to me why a journeyman electrician making $40K in Richmond VA is different.

[malthaussen]

146. Careful, now, I have never taken a position on Beverly Hills lawyers.

$500k doesn't go very far in Beverly Hills.

As someone pointed out above, though, the real problem is that the truly rich -- the top percentage of the top percentage -- are not sharing the wealth. To the contrary, I think the real problem is that they are removing money from circulation and crippling everyone. Our interest should lie in forcing them to disgorge, and then finding some means to rationally redistribute it. You mention upthread that you support a 60% marginal tax rate, why stop there? Although the 95% we had until JFK lowered it was based on different levels of income, it didn't seem to hinder us too poorly (depending on which economists you choose to believe). The difficulty, I have suggested, lies in the fact that the wealthy use the "world economy" argument to justify squeezing even more blood from the stone. That they squeeze other stones even more than they squeeze us does not eliminate the fact that stones are being squeezed more and more in an incredible test-to-destruction of the human race.

-- Mal

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. As tkmorris points out in #40, your numbers can't work out

It's more like the top 10% of the USA is in the top 1% of the world:

Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%

It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That's for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 -- the most recent data available -- about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.
Another four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries. Statistically speaking, none live in Africa, China or India despite those being some of the most populous areas of the world.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/

[Recursion]

117. There's a lot of different ways to count it; I'm using the World Bank

I think the $34K comes from the IMF, but that doesn't take into account purchasing power parity.

[RiverLover]

130. I've never used "the 1%" or heard anyone else say it in the context of anything BUT within the US

That is what we use the term for, to depict how it is in the US. We don't use the term for the world....You're making yourself crazy over something that doesn't exist. Which is, well, crazy.

There are certainly more troubling things to fret over.

[Recursion]

132. I agree, you chose to hear that phrase very selectively, and the branding of the movement

encouraged that.

It still doesn't make it right.

[merrily]

167. "Chose to hear that phrase very selectively" my ass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. And CNN was quoting a World Bank economist

Still, you admit that 75% of the USA's current 320 million is 240 million, and even if there were no rich people anywhere else, that would be 3.3% of the world's 7.25 billion - yes?

If you're mixing World Bank and IMF definitions and not taking into account PPP, your figures would end up pretty ropey. anyway. But the 75% is wrong. We know that.

[pampango]

126. Our 1% lives in gated, walled communities. Trump's vision is America behind walls, gates & tariffs

to protect us from the global 95%. The 1% believe in keeping poor people out of sight, out of mind and away from their stuff.

[Recursion]

127. America is a gated, walled community (nt)

[pampango]

180. Not nearly to the degree it was before FDR opened trade and JFK/LBJ opened immigration.

It was much more 'gated and walled' (high tariffs/strict immigration laws) under the republicans who preceded FDR.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

134. When a centrist claims to want to redistribute the US's wealth to the world...

...take it with a big grain of (nonserious) salt.

[Marr]

189. They're deeply concerned about issues of poverty... in lucrative outsourcing locations. /nt

[DustyJoe]

140. globalists

Recursions globalist 'your so rich give me your money' view which is equal to the 'haves and have nots' view inside the US is exactly why so many turn to isolationist doctrines. I work at a job I like at a pay rate I am can live with and have my 15-25 % federal, state, local taxes taken out, plus pay my sales tax, property tax, exise tax on every remaining penny spent and people like recursion seem to think they are owed any leftovers. I call bullshit, my federal taxes pay a lot of foreign aid, your country 'india' has a large percentage of jobs that used to be in the US because YOUR economy paying pennies for labor that costs dollars here allowed you to entice business to outsource there. I am rapidly turning isolationist when I see more 'me me me' drivel like yours.

[hunter]

142. I agree.

It's not the family living in a shack in Valle de Chalco (Mexico), Cairo (Egypt), etc., and living on a diet of mostly bulk grain and legumes, who is doing most of the damage to our planet's natural environment.

It's the people with money, and that includes any American who can pay for a big house with central air and heat, a nice car in the driveway,
or anyone who has a nice condo or apartment in a big city in a nice neighborhood with good shops, restaurants, parks, and public transportation, or anyone who flies about the world on vacation.

[DustyJoe]

164. money

So you agree with 'recursion' that stingy Americans who make $12 an hour / $25k a year are the evil 1%ers
and need to send their earning to some family in Valle de Calco or to him in mumbai ?

I doubt you'll se big houses or cars with that income. Just a small rental and an old clunker is the norm.
Even if you had a house or car and are making payments, the income/debt ratio reduces net worth accordingly.

What is a 'nice' neighborhood in your estimation ? Obviously probably not Ferguson MO. even though
they have shops, restaurants, parks and public transport.

[hunter]

213. Did I say that?

I object to the evil uber-wealthy class. Them I would tax out of existence.

Why we vote for and celebrate the guys who wear the boots that are stomping us in the face is a complete mystery to me.

Narcissistic sociopath billionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to exist. No, I'm not talking guillotines (although some clearly deserve it, I oppose the death penalty) but by taxes on both wealth and income.

Of course I'd include people like the Koch brothers and Mitt Romney, but also people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and god only knows how many anonymous bankers.

Just as I believe poverty and abusive working conditions, including work that does not pay a living wage, are bad things, I believe too much wealth is a bad thing too.

I also think the U.S.A. is as corrupt as many nations we sneer at. We've simply made the greater $$$ forms of corruption legal.

The uber-wealthy want to be unmolested in their own corrupt games, but they don't want to worry that the restaurant owner is refilling international brands of bottled water in his kitchen sink, refilling bottles of expensive wine with box wine, or selling horse meat as angus steak.

[randys1]

238. +1000000000000000000000

[WDIM]

149. Having low income or no income does not always mean

The person is poor or even bad off.

Tribal members for example are living the way their ancestors lived for a millenium.

Some people chose to live a life with no income instead surviving on what nature provides.

To compare incomes does not tell you much of person's overall happiness and satifaction with their life. The tribal member is more free then the debt slave paying student loans car loans home loans etc.

What is not right is the wealth hoarders that exploit labor and exploit markets and exploit resources that belong to the world in pursuit of their own greed.

To say somebody making $25,500 per year is part of that exploiter class is really devaluing the the fight against the true exploiters of this world. The top 1% wealthiest people in the world are the true exploiters. Wealth is not defined by income as i explained above. It is the greedy corrupt murderous exploiters of the 1% that are the real enemy. They create the wars for others to fight. They create the fear that devides us. They continue policies of inequality and they pollute our earth for their own greed.

[Recursion]

156. There's a piece I now can't find

Titled "Who is poor, and who gets to decide that?"

Those are both damn good questions.

[H2O Man]

151. While some of the issues

relating to this OP/thread are worthy of our consideration, the overall tone of the discussion is unfortunately very negative. But I suppose that's why it is a popular thread -- people can hurl insults at others, instead of engaging in a meaningful conversation.

That's a shame, really.

[Recursion]

153. It's my fault

I lobbed a bomb.

[Rex]

154. Concern trolling about something that is not true is all the OP wanted.

And all the negative feedback was all the OP wanted too. I have no idea why people are hardwired like that, but they are and get the reply they want because they know it is coming before they start the thread.

IOW, this thread was never meant for discussion or real conversation.

[merrily]

165. The opening post did not raise issues, but insults.

[H2O Man]

169. Right.

Hence, my comment that the OP/thread was toxic, rather than meaningful.

[merrily]

177. Maybe it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Sometimes, people hit exactly what they aimed at.

[untrue]

159. America is spreading the wealth

Detroit used to be a great city, until the US decided to build stuff in Mexico, china, and India.

America has made India and china financial powerhouses, while the average US worker has become poorer.
All of these H1 workers, have been imported in to replace US workers, All those manufacturing plants went to China in order to give Chinese workers jobs.

US workers, are you happy you made China the largest economy on earth?

[Rex]

162. Workers? Kind a slip of the tounge yeah? You mean factory owners right?

People with money and power, is what you meant no doubt. Workers get whatever is handed to them, by the owners that write all the policies.

[untrue]

178. I get that.

I am making fun of the OP.

[Rex]

224. Oh ha!

Sorry that went right over my head!

[bullwinkle428]

174. How is this any different in nature from Fox News's "scold the poor" approach,

where they call out those in the U.S. who struggle economically by saying things like "How can you ever possibly complain when you have refrigerators and microwaves and TVs?"

[Rex]

176. IT is exactly what Foxnews does about poor people owning refrigerators.

But the OP knew that and his/her disruptive thread is a success by their standards. It made a lot of people mad, because it is an obvious lie and the OP will not even pretend to think about open discussion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. It's different because the numbers in the OP are more obviously wrong than Fox News

Fox News normally tries to muddy the waters, rather than put up numbers that are about 6 times the reality:

The graph (for year 2008) shows on the horizontal axis a person’s position in their own country’s income distribution, and on the vertical axis, a person’s position in global income distribution. Thus, the poorest Americans (points 1 or 2 on the horizontal axis have incomes that put them above the 50th percentile worldwide). Note that 12% of the richest Americans belong to the global top 1%.

http://www.demos.org/blog/11/14/14/income-inequality-interview-branko-milanovic

[davekriss]

179. So what is your point?

We should passively accept the ravages of the military-industrial-intelligence complex, owned by and serving the U.S. 0.1%, and be thankful that there is an incredibly massive reserve army of the very poor standing behind us?

[Marr]

181. lol, right. "Free trade" is about helping poor people.

Do you actually think anyone is convinced by that shit?

[Arugula Latte]

202. The holier-than-thou poutrage accompanying the OP was a nice touch though.

[DanTex]

184. That doesn't add up.

There are about 7 billion people in the world, and about 300 million in America. 7 billion means that there are only 70 million people in the top 1%, so even if all Americans were richer than everyone else, still only about 25% or so of us would be in the top 1%.

[booksandpencils]

191. I think the 1% is a confusing concept

It's meant to apply to multi-multi-millionaires and billionaires who mostly live off capital investments and don't work for a living. But it's caused people like doctors and lawyers, and people who have spent their whole life saving up for retirement, to worry that the pitchforks are coming for them. Now you've thrown American fast food workers into the line of fire. It's illogical. They don't have any wealth to share.

Billionaires. Focus on the billionaires. I'm sure India has a few. Can't THEY share?

[Recursion]

195. The richest 1% of India is about 12 million people

And they are pretty damn rich. They are only a tiny fraction of the world's richest 1%.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

192. If that's the cutoff, then no I'm not, so meh to you.

I WISH I was anywhere near that high up.

[Oneironaut]

193. While true, this argument is also used to quell criticism of wealth inequality,

and the policies that cause it. The argument is generally some shade of, "What? Compared to (3rd World Country) life is great in the U.S.!" It ignores that using starving countries as a baseline for how well off US citizens are is ridiculous. Also, it doesn't compare the income needed to make a living in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world. You might be able to fend off starvation living on $1000 per year in some countries (given low food prices), but try doing that in the U.S.

[Starry Messenger]

221. Nope.

Sorry, but your race to the bottom bit is ridiculous. No one is unaware of global poverty, we are talking about where the mass movement of wealth goes, which is UPWARDS. To a very small group of humans. To try to claim that living on $25k in the US as a fucking working adult makes you the same as a billionaire is why no one takes you seriously on economic subjects. Jesus.

[99th_Monkey]

235. So this is now the new Hillary campaign slogan? "We ARE the 1%"

[Recursion]

236. No, all the candidates fail to address this more or less equally

I'm not a fan of hers, remember.

[Hissyspit]

241. Oh good goddamn.

I don't give a damn what you're tired of.

1 percent was fucking rounded off ANYWAY.