No one becomes one of the 1%

[PowerToThePeople]

without destroying untold numbers of lives of other human beings. Our systems are designed to obscure and shelter people from this basic truth.

Our system is corrupt and sociapathic to the core.

[Rex]

1. The most pathetic group of people are the ones with the willfulness to stay ignorant to

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

[99th_Monkey]

2. Not 100% true

Some nice person might win the lottery.

But probably true 99% of the time.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. I will agree with you here.

*Nice lottery winners not included.

[LakeVermilion]

7. Winning the lottery does not get you in the 1%

[99th_Monkey]

16. Actually, it can, but just barely. I like that video too. Thanks for sharing.

$587.5 million, Powerball, won Nov. 28, 2012, by two tickets, sold in Missouri and Arizona. Cash (2)
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Hillary+Clinton+and+the+Military+Industrial+Complex&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=how+much+money+did+biggest+lottery+winner+get%3F


the top 1 percent, household income is at least $521,411.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Hillary+Clinton+and+the+Military+Industrial+Complex&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=how+much+money+to+be+in+the+1+percent

[Yavin4]

23. "household income is at least $521,411" is misleading.

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]

34. You say apples, I say oranges

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

[99th_Monkey]

62. Does $52 Million qualify as 1% in your book?

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 ...

[LakeVermilion]

75. Only

if you made that every year, I would agree.

[Egnever]

4. Who's lives did the Google guys destroy?

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.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Tech workers

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

[Egnever]

15. Except

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-really-is-the-best-tech-company-to-work-for-2011-6

Google Has The Highest Average Salaries In The Tech Industry: $141,000

[PowerToThePeople]

17. Wage suppression collusion

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/04/apple-google-settle-wage-fixing-hiring-case

[Egnever]

21. Pretty biased article that one

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

[stevenleser]

38. That doesn't refute the previous argument, they still have very high wages. Nt

[hunter]

30. "Gentrification" of neighborhoods destroys communities.

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]

32. So people shouldn't be paid more because then other people will have less?

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.

[hunter]

33. I try to respect religious beliefs... but not that one.

Money is a fucking strange cult.

[Human101948]

6. Behind every great fortune lies a great crime...

Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.

Honore de Balzac


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/honoredeba197735.html#2wzK1gxKP5bmRPAV.99

[SCantiGOP]

8. Who has Warren Buffett destroyed?

Just asking. I think your broad brush is a tad indiscriminate.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. Insurance mogul.

Who hasn't he is easier.

[stevenleser]

37. He's not an "insurance mogul" so your problem analyzing him starts there

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

[Nye Bevan]

10. How many lives has JK Rowling destroyed? (nt)

[SCantiGOP]

11. Or George Soros?

[cali]

19. Soros? Plenty

[tazkcmo]

26. Jury is still out

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]

53. Or, Tom Brady? ... Or, LeBron? ...

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]

12. Please explain to me....

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

[PowerToThePeople]

14. There may be cases

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.

[MohRokTah]

13. Well that was a load of hyperbolic bloviating baloney rhetoric. eom

[mainer]

18. JK Rowling? Stephen King?

Authors, actors, musicians?

[PowerToThePeople]

20. Most are not billionaires, but

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

Dirty money.

[Beaverhausen]

22. I don't think you have to be a billionaire to be in the 1%

Or a millionaire.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Upthread

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.

[Waldorf]

25. $400,000 gets you in the 1%. You think that puts people in the life destroying category?

[PowerToThePeople]

28. That is income, not wealth

My answer is yes, the wealthiest 1% live off the suffering of others.

[Dawson Leery]

27. $500,000 a year put's you near the top.

That does not make one life destroying.

[Yallow]

29. Silly OP

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]

36. Yep, it's these kinds of silly, superficial pronouncements that make the entire left look bad

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.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

31. It's these motherfuckers!

There are 8 episodes

&list=PLVZjwSt4FoCHM0aXrrn6GA8AxItq5dxFO

[FrodosPet]

35. So Alan Grayson and Michael Moore are destroyers of lives?

So what is an acceptable maximum income and savings amount?

[ronnie624]

39. "The 1%"

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.

[PowerToThePeople]

41. Spot on!

Happy new year to you.

[ronnie624]

47. Thanks.

I'm healthy and comfortable, so the new year is starting off well. I hope the same for you.

[lancer78]

40. my family

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]

45. Try not to personalize the issue.

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]

49. In this case, personalizing the issue is appropriate.The family of the person to whom you responded

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]

54. Personalizing is a diversion.

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]

60. Nope, not if the experience directly confirms or contradicts an assertion and

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

[NobodyHere]

42. How bout Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert?

Never mind they destroyed Republicans night after night

[raouldukelives]

43. As long as they aren't making money from or by Wall St.

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]

51. Many if not most people are making money on Wall Street via 401ks and other retirement accounts

So that as a criteria is silly.

[PowerToThePeople]

56. That is a false meme

The majority of citizens have no savings of any substance.

[ronnie624]

57. 401k is a wealth-transfer scheme, anyway.

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]

58. You have had several gems in this thread

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]

61. Agree with you and the poster you are replying to

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

[former9thward]

64. False.

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]

65. Lol.

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

[former9thward]

66. If you don't know how to access your own 401k account

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

[ronnie624]

67. I knew you couldn't.

It isn't possible.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/05/hidden-401k-fees-retirement-plan-ripoff/

[former9thward]

68. Your own link shows the nonsense of your statements.

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]

69. Some people will actually read the article.

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

[brentspeak]

72. Thanks for the link

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.

[ronnie624]

73. The Retirement Gamble

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/retirement-gamble/

[Adrahil]

70. Sorry, that's nonsense.

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.

[ronnie624]

71. A good article here:

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/10/wall-street-journal-wealth-inequality-is-your-own-dumb-fault/

Also, see Robert Reich' s film, Inequality for All.

[stevenleser]

59. As I said, many if not most do have this and I stand by it. Nt

[raouldukelives]

74. Not any that are serious about leaving a better world with the one life they have.

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]

44. Couldn't you say the same thing about all Americans

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

[ronnie624]

46. There are enough available resources

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.

[hughee99]

48. Damn you Oprah Winfrey, destroyer of untold

Numbers of lives!

[clarice]

50. Sorry, this is categorically untrue. nt

[Taitertots]

52. Untrue and unproductive

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]

55. and the environment...

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

[Bonx]

63. Broad brush crap. Sorry.

[Maedhros]

76. I saw a great tidbit in Harper's Index waaaay back in 2001.

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]

77. I wonder what that number would be today?

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