Occupy Wall Street

[barfo]

The latest Time poll finds the Occupy Wall Street movement has a 54% favorable rating. In contrast, the Tea Party's favorable rating is just 27%.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

If nothing else this movement (and the Tea Party) has gotten people more interested in politics.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If nothing else this movement (and the Tea Party) has gotten people more interested in politics.

And that is a good thing. People need to be more aware and vote their conscious.

 

[Denny Crane]

If nothing else this movement (and the Tea Party) has gotten people more interested in politics.

This movement should be called the Flea Party.

 

[bluefrog]

This movement should be called the Flea Party.

You got that from Ann Coulter.

 

[Denny Crane]

You got that from Ann Coulter.

I got it from a headline/link on one of the sites I read. Realclearpolitics.com or AP or Yahoo!

 

[ABM]

This movement should be called the Flea Party.

I wish they would become the Flee Party.

 

[Ed O]

The "what people want" is all-but-impossible to achieve. We might as well ask people which superheroes people want to exist.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

The "what people want" is all-but-impossible to achieve. We might as well ask people which superheroes people want to exist.

Ed O.

I'd agree with you there. I think the interesting part of that graph is the middle one.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

The "what people want" is all-but-impossible to achieve. We might as well ask people which superheroes people want to exist.

Ed O.

Sweden's wealth distribution is pretty close to "what people want". http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think it's indicative of definitions, though.

I make a pretty good salary, have been putting away toward retirement, have an "emergency" cash fund, and yet my net worth is negative because my house is upside down by almost 100k. So even though I'm ok check-to-check, I'm in the "no wealth" category, right?

I think it's a relatively misleading graph, but I can understand what happens when the populace at large answers questions they know nothing about.

 

[barfo]

I think it's indicative of definitions, though.

I make a pretty good salary, have been putting away toward retirement, have an "emergency" cash fund, and yet my net worth is negative because my house is upside down by almost 100k. So even though I'm ok check-to-check, I'm in the "no wealth" category, right?

I think it's a relatively misleading graph, but I can understand what happens when the populace at large answers questions they know nothing about.

Why do you think it is misleading? Because you think you are better off than your wealth would indicate?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Someone in their 20's and 30's with a car payment, the average US savings, and who rents a home probably has a negative net worth...without even going into credit cards and student debt. But I'm pretty sure that if you asked someone fitting those attributes about where they fall in the "wealth" category, I don't think they'd say they fall into the worst 20% and have negative wealth.

Edit: It reminds me of a slogan I saw from a missionary, who probably stole it from some rabid neo-conservative:
"in the US, you are part of the 99%. To the rest of the world, you are the 1%."
World Bank stats back that up...80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day ($3650 a year), and 50% live on less than 2.50 a day ($912 a year).

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Of course, we're all assuming the graphs are correct.

 

[barfo]

Someone in their 20's and 30's with a car payment, the average US savings, and who rents a home probably has a negative net worth...without even going into credit cards and student debt. But I'm pretty sure that if you asked someone fitting those attributes about where they fall in the "wealth" category, I don't think they'd say they fall into the worst 20% and have negative wealth.

Well, that's kind of the point of the graph. Those on the bottom of the scale *think* they are better off than they are. Which is really very interesting.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

After 30 years, his mortgage will be paid off. The chart doesn't reflect that. Nor does it reflect the vast amount of wealth lost by the bottom 80% from the stock market and housing bubbles. Nor does it reflect the value of social security as an annuity. Nor does it account for the govt.'s wealth, considering all the raw land it owns as well as office buildings, airports, etc.

 

[PapaG]

Of course, we're all assuming the graphs are correct.

Of course they're accurate. They're from Michael Norton at i.i.com, and they know exactly what people think!

 

[barfo]

After 30 years, his mortgage will be paid off. The chart doesn't reflect that.

Why should it?

Nor does it reflect the vast amount of wealth lost by the bottom 80% from the stock market and housing bubbles.

Actually, I think it does show the results of that, unless it is an old graph.

Nor does it reflect the value of social security as an annuity.

That's a good point.

Nor does it account for the govt.'s wealth, considering all the raw land it owns as well as office buildings, airports, etc.

Ok, I guess you could argue that we are all wealthier because we own a share of the government holdings. Does that change the relative wealth distribution shown? I guess if the government's wealth is much larger than the total private wealth, then the differences among citizens would be washed out by the government contribution to each person's wealth.

barfo

 

[Ed O]

Ok, I guess you could argue that we are all wealthier because we own a share of the government holdings. Does that change the relative wealth distribution shown? I guess if the government's wealth is much larger than the total private wealth, then the differences among citizens would be washed out by the government contribution to each person's wealth.

It is an interesting thing to ponder... the distribution of wealth between individuals is something we're looking at, but how much is that distribution of wealth between individuals as compared to the wealth owned by the federal and state governments? I don't know, but it would definitely have some moderating effect on the distribution of wealth.

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why should it?

Because it's a form of wealth not captured by your chart. Pride of ownership, at least. Payments that are going toward equity, even if that equity is reduced. It's a lot like the value of SS as an annuity in that respect.

Actually, I think it does show the results of that, unless it is an old graph.

You and I go to vegas with $500 each. You lose $400 of yours, and I win $5. How is the distribution before and after? It doesn't reflect that we both had $500 (the chart).

That's a good point.

You have a point, too, but we'll keep the shape of your head out of this.

Ok, I guess you could argue that we are all wealthier because we own a share of the government holdings. Does that change the relative wealth distribution shown? I guess if the government's wealth is much larger than the total private wealth, then the differences among citizens would be washed out by the government contribution to each person's wealth.

barfo

Add govt. to your charts and they are 99.99% of it, and we the people would be a tiny sliver of color.

 

[barfo]

Because it's a form of wealth not captured by your chart. Pride of ownership, at least. Payments that are going toward equity, even if that equity is reduced. It's a lot like the value of SS as an annuity in that respect.

No, sorry, pride of ownership is not a recognized form of weath. If you are going to admit that, then regular sex might be a form of wealth.
What you don't own now, but might in the future, is not counted toward your present wealth. You might also go bankrupt in the future, or win the lottery.

You and I go to vegas with $500 each. You lose $400 of yours, and I win $5. How is the distribution before and after? It doesn't reflect that we both had $500 (the chart).

Why is what came before relevant? The chart isn't about what was true 10 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 1 million years ago. It's a current snapshot. Whether I used to be a pauper or I used to be a Rockefeller, what I have today is my wealth.

Add govt. to your charts and they are 99.99% of it, and we the people would be a tiny sliver of color.

Link? I'm not sure that's true. If it were true, we could sell a tiny, tiny fraction of our common assets and pay off the national debt completely. How tiny? Well, the people own around $50 trillion. So if that's 0.01%, then the government owns 10,000 times as much, or 500,000 trillion dollars. Our national debt is 14 trillion.
I'm not sure you can run around saying 'the government is broke, the debt is crushing' and then claim 99.99% of the wealth is owned by the government.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, sorry, pride of ownership is not a recognized form of weath. If you are going to admit that, then regular sex might be a form of wealth.
What you don't own now, but might in the future, is not counted toward your present wealth. You might also go bankrupt in the future, or win the lottery.

You did put a down payment on the home, and just like your FICA withholding "guarantees" you some return (monthly retirement benefits), your mortgage payments pays down the principle. It's not like the home is going to be worthless in the end.

Your "wealth" graphics measure unrealized gains.

Why is what came before relevant? The chart isn't about what was true 10 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 1 million years ago. It's a current snapshot. Whether I used to be a pauper or I used to be a Rockefeller, what I have today is my wealth.

The "rich" bet and won $5, everyone else lost $400.

Link? I'm not sure that's true. If it were true, we could sell a tiny, tiny fraction of our common assets and pay off the national debt completely. How tiny? Well, the people own around $50 trillion. So if that's 0.01%, then the government owns 10,000 times as much, or 500,000 trillion dollars. Our national debt is 14 trillion.
I'm not sure you can run around saying 'the government is broke, the debt is crushing' and then claim 99.99% of the wealth is owned by the government.

barfo

The government isn't selling national parks, mount rushmore, or the white house, but they're surely worth quite a bit of money. The government deliberately doesn't put a dollar value on such "stewardship and heritage assets." They don't capitalize the collections of rare items in the museums, etc., either.

 

[barfo]

You did put a down payment on the home, and just like your FICA withholding "guarantees" you some return (monthly retirement benefits), your mortgage payments pays down the principle. It's not like the home is going to be worthless in the end.

Your "wealth" graphics measure unrealized gains.

Right, so your equity in your house is included in your wealth. It's not missing. The banks equity in your house doesn't belong to you and shouldn't be included.

The "rich" bet $5 and won $5,000,000,000, everyone else lost $400.

FTFY

The government isn't selling national parks, mount rushmore, or the white house, but they're surely worth quite a bit of money. The government deliberately doesn't put a dollar value on such "stewardship and heritage assets." They don't capitalize the collections of rare items in the museums, etc., either.

So, translation: you pulled that 99.99% number out of, uh, thin air.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

While there are certainly greedy people causing plenty of problems, I don't think they're the sole persons responsible. Moochers and lay-abouts contribute some as well. Or are you just saying that the ultimate demise is caused by the rich and that the non-contributors to society play only a small part of the problem?

You confuse the relationship between wealth and effort. There seldom is one.

Most rich people are born rich and no effort is required of them to remain so.

Most poor people exert more effort each and every day than any rich person you will ever meet.

Many rich people are not greedy, but quite obviously the richest of the rich are greedy as can be.

The only moochers and layabouts I have personally met were born rich.

 

[MARIS61]

I think it's indicative of definitions, though.

I make a pretty good salary, have been putting away toward retirement, have an "emergency" cash fund, and yet my net worth is negative because my house is upside down by almost 100k. So even though I'm ok check-to-check, I'm in the "no wealth" category, right?

I think it's a relatively misleading graph, but I can understand what happens when the populace at large answers questions they know nothing about.

According to the graph, most people don't have a clue how really badly they are being reamed by the uberwealthy. I'd say that's obvious.

 

[MARIS61]

After 30 years, his mortgage will be paid off. The chart doesn't reflect that. Nor does it reflect the vast amount of wealth lost by the bottom 80% from the stock market and housing bubbles. Nor does it reflect the value of social security as an annuity. Nor does it account for the govt.'s wealth, considering all the raw land it owns as well as office buildings, airports, etc.

Nor does it show how many apples grow per tree in the State of Washington...

Can't you ever just address the thread topic without rambling off on some unrelated tangent?

 

[D-Rock]

You confuse the relationship between wealth and effort. There seldom is one.

Most rich people are born rich and no effort is required of them to remain so.

Most poor people exert more effort each and every day than any rich person you will ever meet.

Many rich people are not greedy, but quite obviously the richest of the rich are greedy as can be.

The only moochers and layabouts I have personally met were born rich.

I agree there isn't a direct correlation to wealth and effort, but there is some in some circumstances; at least at first anyway. Once you've made your millions, then yeah, there's not much need to work. Assuming of course you don't just give it all away and continue to have to work. I recognize that poverty isn't exclusive to those with no desire to provide for themselves. I worked in a bankruptcy law firm and saw plenty of people who were in trouble because they lost their job or from medical expenses or what have you. But I also saw plenty of people that were straight up reckless in their spending and couldn't wait for the next time they could have all their debt wiped clean. Anyway, I agree, effort does not necessarily correspond to wealth. I also don't see too much of a problem with millionaires paying higher taxes to help those who really are in need. However, while I have no direct reference to prove this, I think a lot of the money needed to help these programs is already in the possession of the gov't and there's not much need to pull more if there was some kind of audit of government spending. I don't know. It's a big mess. Seems like a slippery slope to jack up taxes right now, regardless of who ends up being the one to pay them.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

According to the graph, most people don't have a clue how really badly they are being reamed by the uberwealthy. I'd say that's obvious.

So the 40+% who make a decision to not graduate high school, hang out rather than work, get pregnant, live off welfare and/or the government, take drugs, turn to crime... are all just pawns of the uberwealthy. I maintain the majority of those people are lazy pieces of human debris who get counted as those so abused...

 

[ABM]

So the 40+% who make a decision to not graduate high school, hang out rather than work, get pregnant, live off welfare and/or the government, take drugs, turn to crime... are all just pawns of the uberwealthy. I maintain the majority of those people are lazy pieces of human debris who get counted as those so abused...

Please, sir, leave me out of this.