I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Anyone know income or asset percentiles in Canada, the US, and the rest of the world?
How many of Languishites are in the 1%?
Almost everyone is.
I would imagine many millionaires are in the 99%. At least in U.S.
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Nah. Assuming your wife makes the same salary as you, you hit about the 4% mark in the U.S.
There's a calculator here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/?mod=wsj_share_twitter
You have to hit about $500K as a household to be in the hated 1%.
Is the 99% shit based on household income? Wow.
What counts as a household income? Your salary, the total value of your compensation package, or the AGI on your 1040?
Quote from: ulmont on October 20, 2011, 02:55:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Nah. Assuming your wife makes the same salary as you, you hit about the 4% mark in the U.S.
There's a calculator here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/?mod=wsj_share_twitter
You have to hit about $500K as a household to be in the hated 1%.
That's not what CNN is saying. CNN says that in 2009 - you just had to have 343k.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
My wife's income is significantly less than mine, actually.
But I suspect that the stats are different for Canada. Thanks for the link though ulmont. In the US I'm at the 94th percentile.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2011, 02:52:48 PM
Almost everyone is.
That said I think it is pretty presumptuous of the protestors to claim to speak for everyone but the top 1%.
Wait, when did Martinus get married to a girl?
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Anyone know income or asset percentiles in Canada, the US, and the rest of the world?
How many of Languishites are in the 1%?
I think it is supposed to reflect the people whose wealth give them a disproportionate access to power and so forth not just having bags of cash. Especially not for those us who, you know, work for wages.
Quote from: garbon on October 20, 2011, 03:03:20 PM
That said I think it is pretty presumptuous of the protestors to claim to speak for everyone but the top 1%.
They do not even really speak for each other. Like any protest there are lots of people with different issues but with a general dissatisfaction with how things are run, just like the early Tea Party. At least that will be the case until the Democrats co-opt them, just like the Tea Party, which is already in progress.
Quote from: Valmy on October 20, 2011, 03:12:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Anyone know income or asset percentiles in Canada, the US, and the rest of the world?
How many of Languishites are in the 1%?
I think it is supposed to reflect the people whose wealth give them a disproportionate access to power and so forth not just having bags of cash. Especially not for those us who, you know, work for wages.
I know what it is supposed to reflect.
But they picked a real number to act as that symbol. Which got me to wondering... I found a few old figures for Canada that would put me in the top 1%, but how much have things chaged in the last 10 years?
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 03:16:22 PM
But they picked a real number to act as that symbol.
Well there is not like a central committee of the Wall Street protests so their catchy slogans do not necessarily represent careful political and statistical studies.
But I do think things have changed alot in the past 10 years. Ten years of inflation for one.
I probably don't know anybody in the 1%. Which is good when it comes to being mad at them. Easier that way.
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Anyone know income or asset percentiles in Canada, the US, and the rest of the world?
How many of Languishites are in the 1%?
If you make over 500,000 USD per year you are in the 1%.
I sincerely doubt anyone on Languish is in the 1%.
60 Animals in Ohio used to be in the 99%. Until bad people murdered them.
To seriously answer the question, Joan, Martinus and Peter probably are, but I doubt anyone else. Maybe Malthus, but it's hard to have substantial net assets when you spend money like that.
Joan has proper economic views, though, so he's honorary.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 20, 2011, 03:22:34 PM
I probably don't know anybody in the 1%. Which is good when it comes to being mad at them. Easier that way.
I think their anger at the rich is pretty misplaced (well it is for most of them, I am sure there are plenty of powerful people who deserve anger being directed their way). The problems lay in the system in general.
Also 99% of what. If the world population is considered the number would drop a lot. My guess is that most here would be in the 1%
Quote from: garbon on October 20, 2011, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 20, 2011, 02:55:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
I got to wondering. I make a pretty decent income these days, and now that my wife is working our household income is pretty healthy. But does that make us the hated 1%?
Nah. Assuming your wife makes the same salary as you, you hit about the 4% mark in the U.S.
There's a calculator here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/?mod=wsj_share_twitter
You have to hit about $500K as a household to be in the hated 1%.
That's not what CNN is saying. CNN says that in 2009 - you just had to have 343k.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
Also I don't know about trusting a financial samurai but that site has a similar figure for 2010:
Based on the Internal Revenue Service's 2010 database below, here's how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
Hmmm, Bloomberg reported 500K.
Is that household or individual, garb?
Also, the author is a cunt. LOL $20,000 AT MCD'S HUZZAH!
Quote from: garbon on October 20, 2011, 03:44:19 PM
Also I don't know about trusting a financial samurai but that site has a similar figure for 2010:
Based on the Internal Revenue Service's 2010 database below, here's how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
This goes back to my earlier question: how is income defined? These numbers are AGIs, which can be different from gross income. My AGI is significantly less than my gross income, which itself it less than my total compensation package. The smallest number is 2/3 of the largest number, although I think the absolute value of the difference can only go so high.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Also 99% of what. If the world population is considered the number would drop a lot. My guess is that most here would be in the 1%
I think the Occupy Wall Street thing is based mostly on the wealth of Americans. The notion that one percent of the poulation holds the majority of the wealth.
I don't even think that this is true even in Canada---yet.
Do you get to enjoy the privileges of unlimited power because you are so filthy rich that you are nigh-on untouchable and you have access to the movers and shakers of this world?
If not, you are in the 99%. It has nothing to do with income ratio, but power, influence, and almost unaccountability to the law associated to immense wealth. It's like asking who's the many in the expression "the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 03:41:17 PM
Also 99% of what. If the world population is considered the number would drop a lot. My guess is that most here would be in the 1%
My overwhelming political power resulting from my wealth has enabled me to control Cameroon. They dance at my word.
Quote from: Drakken on October 20, 2011, 04:06:24 PM
Do you get to enjoy the privileges of unlimited power because you are so filthy rich that you are nigh-on untouchable and you have access to the movers and shakers of this world?
:shifty:
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 20, 2011, 04:06:24 PM
Do you get to enjoy the privileges of unlimited power because you are so filthy rich that you are nigh-on untouchable and you have access to the movers and shakers of this world?
:shifty:
Never underestimate the might of Machiavellan prosecutors.
Individuals or married couples (the tax statistic doesn't distinguish) that make more than 172,000 Euro (~$235,000) a year are among the top 1% of German incomes according to the latest statistics. If that's the criterion, I belong to the 99%.
I'm pretty sure that it comes out of that stat that 1% of the US population controls more than 50% of the wealth.
So it's not about income, it's about assets, and it's not about poor people in other countries.
Crap. 98%. Also the thing called me Adolf Hitler.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2011, 03:23:48 PM
To seriously answer the question, Joan, Martinus and Peter probably are, but I doubt anyone else. Maybe Malthus, but it's hard to have substantial net assets when you spend money like that.
Joan has proper economic views, though, so he's honorary.
Uhm no. There was a thread in the back room about it. I definitely do not make $500k per year (I wish I did). :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Crap. 98%. Also the thing called me Adolf Hitler.
Are you going to be joining the protests now? They could use a charismatic leader to lead them.
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2011, 04:42:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2011, 03:23:48 PM
To seriously answer the question, Joan, Martinus and Peter probably are, but I doubt anyone else. Maybe Malthus, but it's hard to have substantial net assets when you spend money like that.
Joan has proper economic views, though, so he's honorary.
Uhm no. There was a thread in the back room about it. I definitely do not make $500k per year (I wish I did). :lol:
But is your income in the top 1% for Poland? :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on October 20, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Crap. 98%. Also the thing called me Adolf Hitler.
Are you going to be joining the protests now? They could use a charismatic leader to lead them.
Only if they shower and join my compound.
Based on the WSJ thing you need an income of about $550,000 or assets worth $8.4 million to belong to the 1%.
Incidentally, it's rather retarded that these figures are given per household and not per capita. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 04:43:41 PM
But is your income in the top 1% for Poland? :ph34r:
Unclogging 20 British toilets in a year would put you in the top 1% in Poland.
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2011, 04:42:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2011, 03:23:48 PM
To seriously answer the question, Joan, Martinus and Peter probably are, but I doubt anyone else. Maybe Malthus, but it's hard to have substantial net assets when you spend money like that.
Joan has proper economic views, though, so he's honorary.
Uhm no. There was a thread in the back room about it. I definitely do not make $500k per year (I wish I did). :lol:
But is your income in the top 1% for Poland? :ph34r:
Well, let's see. Apparently, there are about 25 million production-age Poles (i.e. not counting retirees and children). The top 50,000 are considered top earners. To get into that group you need to earn 40% of what I earn.
:ph34r:
:huh: :hmm: Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2011, 04:42:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 20, 2011, 03:23:48 PM
To seriously answer the question, Joan, Martinus and Peter probably are, but I doubt anyone else. Maybe Malthus, but it's hard to have substantial net assets when you spend money like that.
Joan has proper economic views, though, so he's honorary.
Uhm no. There was a thread in the back room about it. I definitely do not make $500k per year (I wish I did). :lol:
Hey, I was only complimenting you using the metric you seem to be most fond of. :P
The bar seems to be set at an oddly low level.
Over here, if you main source of income is a *salary*, then you're not part of the 1%, period.
I don't know much about the Occupy Wall Street group(s), but I see no reason why the 99% figure should be assumed to be about income rather than total wealth. :huh: Unless some spokesperson has said as much...
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 20, 2011, 05:44:10 PM
The bar seems to be set at an oddly low level.
Over here, if you main source of income is a *salary*, then you're not part of the 1%, period.
Indeed. I hear welfare is great in Portugal.
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
I'm pretty sure that it comes out of that stat that 1% of the US population controls more than 50% of the wealth.
So it's not about income, it's about assets, and it's not about poor people in other countries.
and 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
I'm pretty sure that it comes out of that stat that 1% of the US population controls more than 50% of the wealth.
So it's not about income, it's about assets, and it's not about poor people in other countries.
and 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
Most people want that.
Quote from: garbon on October 20, 2011, 03:44:19 PM
Also I don't know about trusting a financial samurai but that site has a similar figure for 2010:
I think that's individual versus household.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
and 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
What are you suggesting? That everytime somebody has a problem with the powers that be they have to be in support of aid for Sub-Saharan Africa or they do not pass your hypocrisy test?
Quote from: Martinus on October 20, 2011, 04:42:48 PM
Uhm no. There was a thread in the back room about it.
:huh: No there wasn't.
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
How many of Languishites are in the 1%?
Sure as hell isn't me. Don't worry; if I ever hit the big time, I'll give liberally to charity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
took you a while to figure this out :P
Quote from: Tamas on October 21, 2011, 03:35:57 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
took you a while to figure this out :P
I don't think it's a fair way of looking at it.
The protestors - mostly young people - want for themselves what the older/richer generations got, admittedly and apparently while getting us all into the huge debt in the process. The older/richer generations now tell the protestors (rightly) that they can't have it since we are deep in shit and you can't run deficits like this anymore, but the protestors (also rightly) tell the older/richer generations then fine, but since it's the older/richer generations that got us into this, they should share some of their wealth (gotten by getting us all into debt) with the protestors.
I think the latter demand is fair, and presenting is as class warfare is simply dishonest.
But it is.
Those feel being outside of the establishment wants to become part of the establishment. Those who would lose their place in the establishment are trying to stop them from doing so.
That's like history in a nutshell, ever since we were a bunch of monkey in the jungle. It is the various ideologies which support this constant struggle for a higher spot on the pack's ladder, the struggle giving birth to ideologies supporting it, not the other way around.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2011, 12:07:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
and 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
What are you suggesting? That everytime somebody has a problem with the powers that be they have to be in support of aid for Sub-Saharan Africa or they do not pass your hypocrisy test?
No, what I am suggesting is that they stop pretending they are something they are not. A large number of protestors I see here in Vancouver are kids in university who come from affluent homes. ie they can afford to be faux protestors. On my way to work each morning I see actual homeless people going about their usual work of looking in dumpsters for returnables.
If they want to take the political advantages of portraying themselves as the downtrodden 99% then it seems to me they also have to take risk of the hypocrisy of that statement.
Quote from: Tamas on October 21, 2011, 04:31:21 AM
But it is.
Those feel being outside of the establishment wants to become part of the establishment. Those who would lose their place in the establishment are trying to stop them from doing so.
That's like history in a nutshell, ever since we were a bunch of monkey in the jungle. It is the various ideologies which support this constant struggle for a higher spot on the pack's ladder, the struggle giving birth to ideologies supporting it, not the other way around.
Dialectic Materialism non-sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 09:45:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2011, 12:07:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
and 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
What are you suggesting? That everytime somebody has a problem with the powers that be they have to be in support of aid for Sub-Saharan Africa or they do not pass your hypocrisy test?
No, what I am suggesting is that they stop pretending they are something they are not. A large number of protestors I see here in Vancouver are kids in university who come from affluent homes. ie they can afford to be faux protestors. On my way to work each morning I see actual homeless people going about their usual work of looking in dumpsters for returnables.
If they want to take the political advantages of portraying themselves as the downtrodden 99% then it seems to me they also have to take risk of the hypocrisy of that statement.
I disagree. Being in the top 30% still makes you likely to belong to the bottom 99%.
And I don't buy that argument that unless you are homeless/really poor you have no right to protest. The middle class is the backbone of any society and the middle class has been hit most hard by this recession. They have every right to protest, but more importantly, the rulers better listen to them - any succesful revolution involved a revolt by the middle class.
Also, I'm highly allergic to any pro-system rhetoric portraying the protesters as "spoiled youth" - because this is exactly, almost word-for-word, the rhetoric that was used in communist Poland against the student revolt of 1968 (which was sparked by antisemitic and illiberal actions of the government).
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2011, 10:36:41 AM
Also, I'm highly allergic to any pro-system rhetoric portraying the protesters as "spoiled youth" - because this is exactly, almost word-for-word, the rhetoric that was used in communist Poland against the student revolt of 1968 (which was sparked by antisemitic and illiberal actions of the government).
So you are using emotion rather than logic?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 09:45:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2011, 12:07:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
and 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
What are you suggesting? That everytime somebody has a problem with the powers that be they have to be in support of aid for Sub-Saharan Africa or they do not pass your hypocrisy test?
No, what I am suggesting is that they stop pretending they are something they are not. A large number of protestors I see here in Vancouver are kids in university who come from affluent homes. ie they can afford to be faux protestors. On my way to work each morning I see actual homeless people going about their usual work of looking in dumpsters for returnables.
If they want to take the political advantages of portraying themselves as the downtrodden 99% then it seems to me they also have to take risk of the hypocrisy of that statement.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
University students should not be allowed to protest?
Universtiy studetns are not part of the 99 per cent?
Please clarify.
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2011, 10:34:05 AM
I disagree. Being in the top 30% still makes you likely to belong to the bottom 99%.
Excellent Marti, you are able to do math. But of course you missed the real point which is that most of the so called 99% are themselves relatively very affluent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2011, 10:34:05 AM
I disagree. Being in the top 30% still makes you likely to belong to the bottom 99%.
Excellent Marti, you are able to do math. But of course you missed the real point which is that most of the so called 99% are themselves relatively very affluent.
Which is addressed in the rest of my post, which you didn't quote. Seriously, you seem unable to carry any form of discussion in this thread (and judging from puzzled responses to your posts from others, I am not the only one thinking so).
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 10:40:46 AM
I'm not sure what you're saying.
University students should not be allowed to protest?
Universtiy studetns are not part of the 99 per cent?
Please clarify.
University student protests are fine. Its a kind of rite of passage. But they are claiming to be something they are not. As stated before this protest has more the feel, at least in Canada, of a faux protest. Most university students are well off and largely come from the elite of society. Further, in Canada, University education is largely paid for by government through direct funding to the Universities.
That is probably the reason the Canadian protests are not being taken very seriously. The day I see middle class folks taking to the street to demand changes is the day I will take it all much more seriously.
To put it in perspective during the early 80s in this province there was general labour unrest and the Unions were able to moblize tens of thousands to protest. There were so many protestors in fact that their meetings had to be held at a sports arena.
This is nothing compared to that and I find it difficult to understand why some say that we should consider a protest by a handful of students in a handful of cities across Canada as being meaningful.
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2011, 04:17:24 AM
I don't think it's a fair way of looking at it.
The protestors - mostly young people - want for themselves what the older/richer generations got, admittedly and apparently while getting us all into the huge debt in the process. The older/richer generations now tell the protestors (rightly) that they can't have it since we are deep in shit and you can't run deficits like this anymore, but the protestors (also rightly) tell the older/richer generations then fine, but since it's the older/richer generations that got us into this, they should share some of their wealth (gotten by getting us all into debt) with the protestors.
I think the latter demand is fair, and presenting is as class warfare is simply dishonest.
I approve of this reasoning.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2011, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2011, 04:17:24 AM
I don't think it's a fair way of looking at it.
The protestors - mostly young people - want for themselves what the older/richer generations got, admittedly and apparently while getting us all into the huge debt in the process. The older/richer generations now tell the protestors (rightly) that they can't have it since we are deep in shit and you can't run deficits like this anymore, but the protestors (also rightly) tell the older/richer generations then fine, but since it's the older/richer generations that got us into this, they should share some of their wealth (gotten by getting us all into debt) with the protestors.
I think the latter demand is fair, and presenting is as class warfare is simply dishonest.
I approve of this reasoning.
Except the protestors themselves are portraying it as class warfare. What are the 1% if not but a separate class from the rest of us? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 10:40:46 AM
I'm not sure what you're saying.
University students should not be allowed to protest?
Universtiy studetns are not part of the 99 per cent?
Please clarify.
University student protests are fine. Its a kind of rite of passage. But they are claiming to be something they are not. As stated before this protest has more the feel, at least in Canada, of a faux protest. Most university students are well off and largely come from the elite of society. Further, in Canada, University education is largely paid for by government through direct funding to the Universities.
That is probably the reason the Canadian protests are not being taken very seriously. The day I see middle class folks taking to the street to demand changes is the day I will take it all much more seriously.
To put it in perspective during the early 80s in this province there was general labour unrest and the Unions were able to moblize tens of thousands to protest. There were so many protestors in fact that their meetings had to be held at a sports arena.
This is nothing compared to that and I find it difficult to understand why some say that we should consider a protest by a handful of students in a handful of cities across Canada as being meaningful.
Most of the people I know going to the protests are in their 30-s to 50's, mostly with far better jobs than I have: Teachers, social workers, small business owners, and the like. But maybe that's just my peer group? I don't know what the young 'uns are up to with it all other than providing the youthful idealism. Which as you say is what they are there for.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 21, 2011, 12:57:23 PM
Most of the people I know going to the protests are in their 30-s to 50's, mostly with far better jobs than I have: Teachers, social workers, small business owners, and the like. But maybe that's just my peer group? I don't know what the young 'uns are up to with it all other than providing the youthful idealism. Which as you say is what they are there for.
I saw not one person matching that description on my walk by the protest camp. You are likely referring to the march on Saturday. Saturday indeed seemed to be made up of your peer group - ie the usual crowd of hard core NDP/Union supporters who will get together to protest pretty much anything on a nice sunny day which was in effect what that was - a protest against anything and everything.
Also, keep in mind that the numbers of protestors was small by Vancouver standards and the "occupiers" are far less than 100.
Quote from: ulmont on October 20, 2011, 02:55:23 PM
You have to hit about $500K as a household to be in the hated 1%.
that means nearly all professional sport players are in the hated 1%. I wonder if they all realized that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 10:40:46 AM
I'm not sure what you're saying.
University students should not be allowed to protest?
Universtiy studetns are not part of the 99 per cent?
Please clarify.
Most university students are well off and largely come from the elite of society.
See, right there I think you're exaggerating. Seriously. I don't necessarily disagree with most of your premise, but then you throw an over-generalization statment like that.
Quote from: viper37 on October 21, 2011, 03:13:20 PM
that means nearly all professional sport players are in the hated 1%. I wonder if they all realized that.
Oh they realize it. At least they act like they do.
But still the 99% slogan just sucks since it is not people sitting on money they are upset with but rather how the system bails out the corporations at the expense of the little guy and things like that. At least it seems to me. It is not simply 'oh that freaking Lebron James makes so much money! Gimme some!' At least I presume not.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2011, 03:24:58 PM
But still the 99% slogan just sucks since it is not people sitting on money they are upset with but rather how the system bails out the corporations at the expense of the little guy and things like that. At least it seems to me. It is not simply 'oh that freaking Lebron James makes so much money! Gimme some!' At least I presume not.
depends where. While it makes sense to complain about bailout in New York, there was actually no bailout in Canada... so what are they protesting about? That the socialist dude they all loved 3 years ago is doing exactly what we expect from a socialist, i.e. to give government subsidies to private corporations for anything? The same people complain the governments doesn't do enough to promote "green energy", but when a corporation gets a tax break for that it's no longer ok?
They are a hard bunch to follow. And during media interviews, they always look as completely stoned.
Quote from: viper37 on October 21, 2011, 03:54:09 PM
While it makes sense to complain about bailout in New York, there was actually no bailout in Canada... so what are they protesting about? That the socialist dude they all loved 3 years ago is doing exactly what we expect from a socialist, i.e. to give government subsidies to private corporations for anything? The same people complain the governments doesn't do enough to promote "green energy", but when a corporation gets a tax break for that it's no longer ok?
They are a hard bunch to follow. And during media interviews, they always look as completely stoned.
Oh heck I have no idea what the copycat demonstrations in other countries are about.
As for the other part...well I have no idea what these people think about green energy or other specific government intervention but yeah I think the sorts of people you are describing fail to realize government intervention into the economy is going to produce stuff like bailouts inevitably. Populism is rarely ideologically consistent anyway which is why people from every political background can use it when convenient.
Wait socailists are in favor of the government giving breaks to big business? Then I guess the US has been leading the Socialist revolution long before it became cool.
They are not particularly unified, and probably will not until the Democrats finish co-opting them, so trying to follow them is a challenge and, like I said, the media will want to sensationalize it so picking the stoned dudes to interview is job one.
I'm stockpiling gold, guns and canned goods.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
I'm stockpiling gold, guns and canned goods.
Always a good plan...well except the gold.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
I'm stockpiling gold, guns and canned goods.
Always a good plan...well except the gold.
I've done pretty good with gold lately.
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
See, right there I think you're exaggerating.
Really? You dont think most (ie at least 51%) come from well off families. You definitely went to a different university then I did.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 21, 2011, 04:04:19 PM
I'm stockpiling gold, guns and canned goods.
So business as usual for you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
See, right there I think you're exaggerating.
Really? You dont think most (ie at least 51%) come from well off families. You definitely went to a different university then I did.
You said
elite CC
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
See, right there I think you're exaggerating.
Really? You dont think most (ie at least 51%) come from well off families. You definitely went to a different university then I did.
You said elite CC
The elite 51%.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 20, 2011, 08:13:38 PMand 1% of the planet controls more than 50% of its wealth - and you and I are part of that 1%.
So is it hypocrisy - the protestors want a better deal for themselves and the rest be damned?
So your response is that since there is global inequality, we shouldn't worry about more local inequality? That's not particularly convincing.
If someone points out a problem, saying "well there are other problems and you're not trying to fix those" isn't really much of a counter argument, it's more of a diversion technique.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 09:45:27 AMNo, what I am suggesting is that they stop pretending they are something they are not. A large number of protestors I see here in Vancouver are kids in university who come from affluent homes. ie they can afford to be faux protestors. On my way to work each morning I see actual homeless people going about their usual work of looking in dumpsters for returnables.
If they want to take the political advantages of portraying themselves as the downtrodden 99% then it seems to me they also have to take risk of the hypocrisy of that statement.
I keep forgetting you're talking about the protests in Vancouver, not the US.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2011, 07:05:20 PM
I keep forgetting you're talking about the protests in Vancouver, not the US.
Yeah, I had to watch myself, too. It's a very different thing here in the US than CC is talking about, it seems. First of all, the college students aren't usually trust fund babies at these protests. Rather, they're state school kids with thousands in debt and very few job prospects on graduation. (At least, this is how they are portraying themselves. I haven't done any hard-hitting research on it.) A large-ish number of protesters being interviewed in New York, Boston, and Seattle have been unemployed 30- to 50-year-old folks who haven't much else to do with their time. (Journalists could be picking and choosing their victims so it seems that way, but given the way the media initially down-played this movement, it seems odd that they would now start trying to bolster it in such a way.)
Ultimately, it seems to me that what CC is talking about is a very different thing than what is being seen here. And like Valmy, I kind of get the feeling that this is more of a "Hey, stop pulling the strings, you assholes!" kind of protest than a "I want more money!" kind of protest. But I'm willing to be proven incorrect.
The kids protesting in Canada are not trust-fund kids either. Maybe in Vancouver, though I doubt it. And even if they were...so what. There would be nothing wrong if the bankers on Wall Street joined the protesting kids in a show of support saying, "yeah, this whole cleavage between us and them needs to stop."
I saw a stat yesterday that something like 80 per cent of college grads in America move back with mom and dad after school, cause they can't even afford rent.
So CC is talking out of his ass? Why am I not surprised.
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 05:33:10 PM
You said elite CC
Yep, the few that get into university are in fact the elite.
Quote from: citizen k on October 21, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 21, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
See, right there I think you're exaggerating.
Really? You dont think most (ie at least 51%) come from well off families. You definitely went to a different university then I did.
You said elite CC
The elite 51%.
Dont be stupid. The majority of kids who get into university are from well off families. And by and large the kids that make it into unversity are the elite of society - however you want to measure it - wealth, intelligence, potential etc etc etc.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 08:15:47 AM
So CC is talking out of his ass? Why am I not surprised.
I usually know I have made a good point if you have trouble understanding it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 21, 2011, 10:27:30 PM
Ultimately, it seems to me that what CC is talking about is a very different thing than what is being seen here. And like Valmy, I kind of get the feeling that this is more of a "Hey, stop pulling the strings, you assholes!" kind of protest than a "I want more money!" kind of protest. But I'm willing to be proven incorrect.
If you back and look at each of my posts I have been careful say I am talking about Canada. The situation here is much different.
Oh. Canada.
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2011, 07:09:43 AM
I saw a stat yesterday that something like 80 per cent of college grads in America move back with mom and dad after school, cause they can't even afford rent.
Which is quite a different situation from the Canadian situation where education is largely for by government. We had a thread here not long ago where one of the Yanks wondered at how little a doctor in Britian makes in salary. One of the big differences is that doctors here and in Britain pay significantly less for their education.
About 22% of Canadians have a university education and another 17% have a college education. That hardly strikes me as particularly elitist.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/Education/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1b&Code=0&Table=2a&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Distribution&B2=Both
What's the difference between college and university?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2011, 06:20:38 PM
What's the difference between college and university?
2yr diploma vs 4 yr degree.
But the lines have been heavily blurred in recent years, with many colleges now offering 4 year degrees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2011, 06:20:38 PM
What's the difference between college and university?
This is what I learned 20+ years ago in the US, I have no idea whether it is still relevant anywhere in the world.
A College offers a degree in a specific field: Business, Liberal Arts, etc. A University is a collection of colleges; the University of Oregon consists of the following colleges (from wiki):
* 2.1.1 School of Architecture and Allied Arts
* 2.1.2 College of Arts and Sciences
* 2.1.3 Charles H. Lundquist College of Business
* 2.1.4 College of Education
* 2.1.5 Robert D. Clark Honors College
* 2.1.6 School of Journalism and Communication
* 2.1.7 School of Law
* 2.1.8 School of Music and Dance
That's how I understand it. Not sure if it's the same in Canada. They have the regional colleges which are similar in nature to out community colleges except much more centralized. That's the impression I get anyway.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2011, 03:30:34 PM
If you back and look at each of my posts I have been careful say I am talking about Canada. The situation here is much different.
The difference, such as it is, is merely one of degree. And it's only a matter of time before we get where the US is. But of course one can't hardly expect lucidity from a profiteer of the existing system.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 22, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2011, 03:30:34 PM
If you back and look at each of my posts I have been careful say I am talking about Canada. The situation here is much different.
The difference, such as it is, is merely one of degree. And it's only a matter of time before we get where the US is. But of course one can't hardly expect lucidity from a profiteer of the existing system.
G.
You seem to be generally out of touch with reality; why should we listen to you now?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2011, 03:30:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 21, 2011, 10:27:30 PM
Ultimately, it seems to me that what CC is talking about is a very different thing than what is being seen here. And like Valmy, I kind of get the feeling that this is more of a "Hey, stop pulling the strings, you assholes!" kind of protest than a "I want more money!" kind of protest. But I'm willing to be proven incorrect.
If you back and look at each of my posts I have been careful say I am talking about Canada. The situation here is much different.
If you go back and look at my post you'll see that I was very specifically saying that I had to remember that you were not talking about the US, and then proceeded to explain the difference from what I've seen and heard. I wasn't jumping on you, CC, only saying that it helps me to remember
where you are talking about so as not to think you're an idiot. :) :hug:
Quote from: sbr on October 22, 2011, 07:00:38 PM
This is what I learned 20+ years ago in the US, I have no idea whether it is still relevant anywhere in the world.
A College offers a degree in a specific field: Business, Liberal Arts, etc. A University is a collection of colleges; the University of Oregon consists of the following colleges (from wiki):
Basically that is the US system - the "universal" education.
So to be terribly gauche as I am here at Languish, I found out today that my mother despises OWS as she has surpassed the WSJ's test line as to what constitutes the 99%.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
So to be terribly gauche as I am here at Languish, I found out today that my mother despises OWS as she has surpassed the WSJ's test line as to what constitutes the 99%.
So you're mom is part of the 1%? That makes you a future trust funder! ;)
I think it means that I have a lot to live up to, considering that I'm in the same field. -_-
Well then, we can expect great things from you! Hehe, so much pressure to achieve!