This is a great article that shows a key weakness in the income distribution measurements. Selling a home above $350,000 will make a person a part of the 1% for the year. I wonder what the "wealth" distribution would look like.
This is an interesting article. I don't know if I would be in the 1%. I think it would okay with me if I was. But, I wonder about the problem of having too much to spend that was posted in the article. In theory, one person having a lot of money is toxic to the economy because there is more saving than spending. If I do go into the 1%, I would want some way to lessen the effect of saving on the economy.
It is also important to point out that a wealthy person could be part of the bottom 1% if they didn't receive any significant income for a particular year.
Certainly interesting perspective. I have forgotten about the duration in which one stays in the top 1% really makes a difference. For those of us who are taking this class and make it to the top 1% for years in the future, REMEMBER TO SPEND! or do meaningful philanthropy work :)
It is indeed an interesting article. So if I make $0.011 then I am in the top[ 1% earner for that second and if I make 67 cents in a minute then I am in the top 1% earner for that minute. Similarly, if I make $40 in an hour then I am in the top 1% earner for that hour and if I make $959 then I am in the top 1% earner for that day. So, if you can make 1.2 penny every second consistently, then hey you are in the top 1%.
It is interesting that a lot of people have been reacting with "don't forget to spend" (to paraphrase a bit. However, like the pillow-factory millionaire from last class' movie said: "A millionaire doesn't need a few hundred pillows, they're still only buying a couple."
The wealthy and ultra wealthy especially have the tendency to spend less in terms of volume, and much more in terms of ticket price. There was an article in the Guardian recently about the billionaire husband of the Formula 1 heiress showing up to an art gallery in London with a fleet of cars valued at around £1M. He proceed to attempt to muscle out the National Portrait gallery for a few million pound Van Eyck portrait.
Dude spends plenty. Still doesn't do much for the economy.
This is a great article that shows a key weakness in the income distribution measurements. Selling a home above $350,000 will make a person a part of the 1% for the year. I wonder what the "wealth" distribution would look like.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article. I don't know if I would be in the 1%. I think it would okay with me if I was. But, I wonder about the problem of having too much to spend that was posted in the article. In theory, one person having a lot of money is toxic to the economy because there is more saving than spending. If I do go into the 1%, I would want some way to lessen the effect of saving on the economy.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important to point out that a wealthy person could be part of the bottom 1% if they didn't receive any significant income for a particular year.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good article.
ReplyDeleteCertainly interesting perspective. I have forgotten about the duration in which one stays in the top 1% really makes a difference. For those of us who are taking this class and make it to the top 1% for years in the future, REMEMBER TO SPEND! or do meaningful philanthropy work :)
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed an interesting article. So if I make $0.011 then I am in the top[ 1% earner for that second and if I make 67 cents in a minute then I am in the top 1% earner for that minute. Similarly, if I make $40 in an hour then I am in the top 1% earner for that hour and if I make $959 then I am in the top 1% earner for that day. So, if you can make 1.2 penny every second consistently, then hey you are in the top 1%.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that a lot of people have been reacting with "don't forget to spend" (to paraphrase a bit. However, like the pillow-factory millionaire from last class' movie said: "A millionaire doesn't need a few hundred pillows, they're still only buying a couple."
ReplyDeleteThe wealthy and ultra wealthy especially have the tendency to spend less in terms of volume, and much more in terms of ticket price. There was an article in the Guardian recently about the billionaire husband of the Formula 1 heiress showing up to an art gallery in London with a fleet of cars valued at around £1M. He proceed to attempt to muscle out the National Portrait gallery for a few million pound Van Eyck portrait.
Dude spends plenty. Still doesn't do much for the economy.