Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
77 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No one becomes one of the 1% (Original Post) PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 OP
The most pathetic group of people are the ones with the willfulness to stay ignorant to Rex Dec 2015 #1
Not 100% true 99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #2
I will agree with you here. PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #3
Winning the lottery does not get you in the 1% LakeVermilion Dec 2015 #7
Actually, it can, but just barely. I like that video too. Thanks for sharing. 99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #16
"household income is at least $521,411" is misleading. Yavin4 Dec 2015 #23
You say apples, I say oranges 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #34
Does $52 Million qualify as 1% in your book? 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #62
Only LakeVermilion Jan 2016 #75
Who's lives did the Google guys destroy? Egnever Dec 2015 #4
Tech workers PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #5
Except Egnever Dec 2015 #15
Wage suppression collusion PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #17
Pretty biased article that one Egnever Dec 2015 #21
That doesn't refute the previous argument, they still have very high wages. Nt stevenleser Jan 2016 #38
"Gentrification" of neighborhoods destroys communities. hunter Dec 2015 #30
So people shouldn't be paid more because then other people will have less? Egnever Dec 2015 #32
I try to respect religious beliefs... but not that one. hunter Dec 2015 #33
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime... Human101948 Dec 2015 #6
Who has Warren Buffett destroyed? SCantiGOP Dec 2015 #8
Insurance mogul. PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #9
He's not an "insurance mogul" so your problem analyzing him starts there stevenleser Jan 2016 #37
How many lives has JK Rowling destroyed? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2015 #10
Or George Soros? SCantiGOP Dec 2015 #11
Soros? Plenty cali Dec 2015 #19
Jury is still out tazkcmo Dec 2015 #26
Or, Tom Brady? ... Or, LeBron? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #53
Please explain to me.... philosslayer Dec 2015 #12
There may be cases PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #14
Well that was a load of hyperbolic bloviating baloney rhetoric. eom MohRokTah Dec 2015 #13
JK Rowling? Stephen King? mainer Dec 2015 #18
Most are not billionaires, but PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #20
I don't think you have to be a billionaire to be in the 1% Beaverhausen Dec 2015 #22
Upthread PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #24
$400,000 gets you in the 1%. You think that puts people in the life destroying category? Waldorf Dec 2015 #25
That is income, not wealth PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #28
$500,000 a year put's you near the top. Dawson Leery Dec 2015 #27
Silly OP Yallow Dec 2015 #29
Yep, it's these kinds of silly, superficial pronouncements that make the entire left look bad stevenleser Jan 2016 #36
It's these motherfuckers! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Dec 2015 #31
So Alan Grayson and Michael Moore are destroyers of lives? FrodosPet Jan 2016 #35
"The 1%" ronnie624 Jan 2016 #39
Spot on! PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #41
Thanks. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #47
my family lancer78 Jan 2016 #40
Try not to personalize the issue. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #45
In this case, personalizing the issue is appropriate.The family of the person to whom you responded stevenleser Jan 2016 #49
Personalizing is a diversion. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #54
Nope, not if the experience directly confirms or contradicts an assertion and stevenleser Jan 2016 #60
How bout Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? NobodyHere Jan 2016 #42
As long as they aren't making money from or by Wall St. raouldukelives Jan 2016 #43
Many if not most people are making money on Wall Street via 401ks and other retirement accounts stevenleser Jan 2016 #51
That is a false meme PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #56
401k is a wealth-transfer scheme, anyway. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #57
You have had several gems in this thread PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #58
Agree with you and the poster you are replying to laundry_queen Jan 2016 #61
False. former9thward Jan 2016 #64
Lol. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #65
If you don't know how to access your own 401k account former9thward Jan 2016 #66
I knew you couldn't. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #67
Your own link shows the nonsense of your statements. former9thward Jan 2016 #68
Some people will actually read the article. ronnie624 Jan 2016 #69
Thanks for the link brentspeak Jan 2016 #72
The Retirement Gamble ronnie624 Jan 2016 #73
Sorry, that's nonsense. Adrahil Jan 2016 #70
A good article here: ronnie624 Jan 2016 #71
As I said, many if not most do have this and I stand by it. Nt stevenleser Jan 2016 #59
Not any that are serious about leaving a better world with the one life they have. raouldukelives Jan 2016 #74
Couldn't you say the same thing about all Americans FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #44
There are enough available resources ronnie624 Jan 2016 #46
Damn you Oprah Winfrey, destroyer of untold hughee99 Jan 2016 #48
Sorry, this is categorically untrue. nt clarice Jan 2016 #50
Untrue and unproductive Taitertots Jan 2016 #52
and the environment... handmade34 Jan 2016 #55
Broad brush crap. Sorry. Bonx Jan 2016 #63
I saw a great tidbit in Harper's Index waaaay back in 2001. Maedhros Jan 2016 #76
I wonder what that number would be today? PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #77
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
1. The most pathetic group of people are the ones with the willfulness to stay ignorant to
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:08 PM
Dec 2015

how much damage the ownership society does to the economy and the nation. Thankfully most of them are republicans.

Yavin4

(35,399 posts)
23. "household income is at least $521,411" is misleading.
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:51 PM
Dec 2015

That's income, not net asset value. The term top 1% is used to describe asset value, not income. The value of what you own.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
34. You say apples, I say oranges
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 12:29 AM
Jan 2016

One can measure "The 1%" either way, but in this case (and in keeping with your video) you
are technically correct.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
62. Does $52 Million qualify as 1% in your book?
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 06:47 PM
Jan 2016
Unluckiest Couple Celebrates $52 Million Lottery Win, Then Weeps
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/couple-celebrates-52-million-lottery-win-then-weeps_5686a127e4b06fa688826fec?cps=gravity_2425_-7263245814073882212

I never did hear from you where you think -- based on net worth -- how much someone
needs to have to qualify as part of "The 1%".

Sadly in this case it appears this couple is being cheated out of their winnings, but still ...
 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
4. Who's lives did the Google guys destroy?
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:15 PM
Dec 2015

From where I stand they have done a lot of life building for many many people their employees included.

I agree that many one Percenter's get there on the backs of others but it is not absolute by any means. These days because of the internet there are people becoming 1% ers based on good ideas and the ability to get those ideas developed into actual products for consumers much easier than ever before.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
21. Pretty biased article that one
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:34 PM
Dec 2015

And still doesn't dispute the fact that google has the highest pay of all the tech giants.

hunter

(38,294 posts)
30. "Gentrification" of neighborhoods destroys communities.
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 11:01 PM
Dec 2015

So does extreme poverty.

But it's not either/or.

Truth be told, I wouldn't piss on most affluent people if their faces were on fire and I AM MYSELF a somewhat affluent asshole who is creating this post on a table my wife and I bought at the East Palo Alto Ikea.

My great grandfather lived in San Francisco, building a big house there, before the Great Earthquake. The house still stands, now owned as an investment property, subdivided, each of it's rooms now housing entire families. Nobody among my great grandfather's descendants could afford to purchase the home now. We probably couldn't purchase the home if we pooled all our resources. The rent on my grandmother's childhood bedroom is greater than any of our mortgage payments, and some of us live in big houses. Just not in San Francisco.

A few years ago I was chatting with one of the tenants of my great grandfather's house who couldn't believe the entire home once housed a small family; mom, dad, kids, and an Irish cook/houskeeper Sundays her own who had her very own big bedroom and bath, which is now the most expensive "suite" in the house. I like to think there's some pompous tech executive living in that room, thinking he's hot stuff. The room of a maid. And she probably had a much more pleasant life than a guy attached 24/7 to a smartphone shock collar.



My great grandfather was a big dreamer who, in the 1920's, bet everything including that house on aeronautics, motion pictures, and mass market dairy products. Unfortunately he bet on the wrong horses. To a sickening extent the game was rigged in favor of bigger players.

Still is.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
32. So people shouldn't be paid more because then other people will have less?
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 11:08 PM
Dec 2015

That is nonsense.

Higher incomes should be taxed more but the idea that peoples lives are being destroyed because others are making better wages is just ridiculous.

Money will move to the more desirable places you cant avoid that short of communism.

tazkcmo

(7,297 posts)
26. Jury is still out
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:08 PM
Dec 2015

The adults who have read her books are already formed and if they were drooling idiots after reading them they were probably the same before. Children though may take years to exhibit symptoms of the permanent damage they may have suffered.








Just joshing.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
53. Or, Tom Brady? ... Or, LeBron? ...
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:52 PM
Jan 2016

I'm sure that they have embarrassed a bunch of folks, over the course of their careers; but, I suspect most have gotten over it.

 

philosslayer

(3,076 posts)
12. Please explain to me....
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:55 PM
Dec 2015

The lives that Lebron James has destroyed. Or Jeff Gordon. Or the guy who invented Twitter. Or the guy who invented YouTube.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
14. There may be cases
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:01 PM
Dec 2015

In which the individual themselves did not do the deed, but those that finance and support the individual. Nevertheless, the wealth is subsidized through harm of other human beings.

The system is not a simple one degree of seperation.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
20. Most are not billionaires, but
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:30 PM
Dec 2015

Even though the artist does not do harm, the industries funding the artist do.

Dirty money.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
24. Upthread
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:53 PM
Dec 2015

The number is stated at 521,000/year, so If you have been there for more than a couple years, you should be a millionaire.

Edit- if we are talking about a 1%er considering wealth, I am fairly confident the number is well over 1 million.

 

Yallow

(1,926 posts)
29. Silly OP
Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:25 PM
Dec 2015

I mean c'mon....

The greatest crime is us letting them keep it all without paying their fair share in taxes.

We protect them with our tax dollars.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
36. Yep, it's these kinds of silly, superficial pronouncements that make the entire left look bad
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 01:33 AM
Jan 2016

Occupy had it right and it bears repeating often:

"We are not against the 1%, we are against policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%"

As long as we keep that focus we won't go terribly off track as the OP has done.

FrodosPet

(5,169 posts)
35. So Alan Grayson and Michael Moore are destroyers of lives?
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 12:59 AM
Jan 2016

So what is an acceptable maximum income and savings amount?

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
39. "The 1%"
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:02 AM
Jan 2016

is a euphemism for the word, 'capitalism', and a lot of people just don't realize it, in my opinion. The foundational premise for capitalist ideology, is that the earth's resources belong to the elite class, which is what enables "the 1%" to steal and horde them for their own enrichment.

There are two sources of energy for 'wealth'. They are the earth's resources and the human labor that extracts and processes the raw materials into usable energy. There are no others, and they both, rightfully, belong to everyone. We need a completely different outlook on the purpose and goal of economic activity, but the effects of a lifetime of exposure to the reinforcing propaganda, will be very difficult to reverse.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
40. my family
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:42 AM
Jan 2016

Used to own a marina and several nice, 200 a month lot rent mobile home parks worth around 10 million at one time which would have put us in the 1%. We paid our workers around $20 an hour. This is in tennessee, where comparable wages are in the $15 an hour range. Please tell me whose lives my family ruined.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
45. Try not to personalize the issue.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 01:00 PM
Jan 2016

Last edited Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:30 AM - Edit history (1)

We're talking about a wasteful and unjust economic system here, that enriches the few, at the expense of the many. No one holds you and your family, responsible. We are all captive to it, and we must do what we have to, in order to make a living. The system now poses a threat to our civilization, however, and it is past the time for revolutionary change.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
49. In this case, personalizing the issue is appropriate.The family of the person to whom you responded
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:37 PM
Jan 2016

Were 1%ers. They destroyed no ones life.

The path to fair wages does not begin with superficial and hyperbolic generalizations. The only place that gets you is not being taken seriously.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
54. Personalizing is a diversion.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 03:00 PM
Jan 2016

A rich person's hurt feelings are not a priority, when compared to the dire implications of continuing down our current economic path. A system that enables the accumulation of 'wealth' by a minority, at the expense of a vast majority, is, at its roots, illogical, unstable and unjust. Its wasteful nature poses a serious threat to the security of our civilization, and it absolutely must be abandoned, as soon as possible.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
60. Nope, not if the experience directly confirms or contradicts an assertion and
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 06:04 PM
Jan 2016

This one does. The OP made an absolute pronouncement, and it is contradicted by this person's experience.

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
43. As long as they aren't making money from or by Wall St.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 10:27 AM
Jan 2016

Or aren't profiting from expanding the use and consumption of fossil fuels. They can be as 1% as they like in my book.

Just don't make things worse for everyone else while making your small space better, is that too much too ask?

Hell yes it is!

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
51. Many if not most people are making money on Wall Street via 401ks and other retirement accounts
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:47 PM
Jan 2016

So that as a criteria is silly.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
57. 401k is a wealth-transfer scheme, anyway.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 05:00 PM
Jan 2016

Most of the savings go to the financial industry, in the form of fees, further enriching corporate executives and shareholder, at the expense of the working class. A lot of working 'investors' are in for a big surprise, when it's time to retire.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
58. You have had several gems in this thread
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 05:51 PM
Jan 2016

I especially like the "Personalization is a diversion" post. I am amazed I have not had exposure (that I recall) to your posts sometime in the last 10 years.

Thank you for your great contributions and I will be watching for your screenname in the future.

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
61. Agree with you and the poster you are replying to
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 06:13 PM
Jan 2016

incredible some of the responses in this thread. Really incredible.

former9thward

(31,898 posts)
64. False.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 07:38 PM
Jan 2016

Most of the savings do not go to the financial industry in the form of fees. Ridiculous. Fees are a tiny percentage of the value. 401ks are transparent and anyone can see the value online 24/7. They can also move their money to conservative investments when they wish. No one will be surprised "when its time to retire".

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
65. Lol.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 08:07 PM
Jan 2016

By all means, demonstrate this 'transparency', so everyone can see the 'ridiculous falsehood' of my claim.

former9thward

(31,898 posts)
66. If you don't know how to access your own 401k account
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 08:18 PM
Jan 2016

you are beyond any help. Fortunately everyone else who has one knows.

former9thward

(31,898 posts)
68. Your own link shows the nonsense of your statements.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 08:58 PM
Jan 2016

Even using the extreme example the link made up, only a tiny amount of the total savings are going to fees. Maybe math is not your strong point, I don't know.

As I said before if you don't like your 401k to be in stocks move the money to a conservative investment such as money markets. Then thee are no "hidden fees".

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
69. Some people will actually read the article.
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jan 2016

If they invest in a 401(k), they would be wise to seek out more information on this issue.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
72. Thanks for the link
Sat Jan 2, 2016, 02:55 AM
Jan 2016

I read the article. Anyone other than a RW apologist would understand the article's message that the average 401K holder is being ripped off.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
70. Sorry, that's nonsense.
Sat Jan 2, 2016, 02:12 AM
Jan 2016

I keep a careful eye on my 401k and what it's doing, including fees. The capital gains exceeded the principle for thfirst time last year. It's working for me.

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
74. Not any that are serious about leaving a better world with the one life they have.
Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jan 2016

Or keeping Republicans out of office or even about taking the idea of democracy itself, for all people, seriously.

Some want the government to represent the people, some corporations and some, both.

For the latter, we exist in the most honesty, the most reality, the most democracy, they cannot personally fund the blocking of.

Heck, thanks to them, corporations are now people. The most backwards, racist, misogynistic, republican, warmongering, climate denying people one could have the pleasure of assisting.

FLPanhandle

(7,107 posts)
44. Couldn't you say the same thing about all Americans
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 10:31 AM
Jan 2016

Considering our level of living compared to most of the world's population?


ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
46. There are enough available resources
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 01:26 PM
Jan 2016

for everyone to enjoy a comfortable, secure existence, if we rely primarily on energy from the sun. No one needs any more than that. 'Happiness' is something people will have to find on their own.

 

Taitertots

(7,745 posts)
52. Untrue and unproductive
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:50 PM
Jan 2016

Our system is corrupt and sociopathic, the beneficiaries of that system are not inherently corrupted by the system. Hyperbolic statements don't advance the goals of ending the corruption.

But if you want to hang your hat on the OP... How many lives did Wayne Gretsky destroy

handmade34

(22,755 posts)
55. and the environment...
Fri Jan 1, 2016, 03:02 PM
Jan 2016
The poor and the rich share at least one inescapable common fate: they live on the same planet and depend on the same natural resources for their survival. But rich and poor live in two separate worlds. The poor, who to a large extent operate outside the money-based economy, have (especially in rural areas) close ties with the environment. The rich, who “create” and use the money-based economy, exploit the resources of the environment without really being part of it. There is consequently a fundamental opposition in the approach of rich and poor to the environment, one category contributing with varying degrees of violence to the destruction of our natural habitat, the other depending on it simply to survive.
By Bakary Kanté
 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
76. I saw a great tidbit in Harper's Index waaaay back in 2001.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:52 PM
Jan 2016

Comparing 2001 to 1901, it stated that 99% of millionaires in 1901 were self-made (i.e. did not inherit their wealth), whereas in 2001 it had flipped: 99% had inherited it.


 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
77. I wonder what that number would be today?
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:57 PM
Jan 2016

Chance of achieving the american dream is only dependent upon ones ancestry.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No one becomes one of the...