Sign up FAST! Login

Wealth Inequality in America is worse than we thought, especially for the top 0.1%, by Jordan Weissmann of Slate

Stashed in: Economics!, Winner take all., Awesome, Best Videos, inequality, America!, economics, Poverty, Charts!, Charts, Wealth, Freakonomics, Rich people get richer., Cognitive Bias

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Jordan Weissmann of Slate explains:

Economists Emmanuel Saez, of the University of California–Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman, of the London School of Economics, are out with a new set of findings on American wealth inequality, and their numbers are startling. Wealth, for reference, is the value of what you own—assets like housing, stocks, and bonds, minus your debts. And while it certainly comes up from time to time, it has tended to play second fiddle to income in conversations about America’s widening class divide. In part, that’s because it’s a trickier conversation subject. Wealth has always been far more concentrated than income in the United States. Plus, research suggested that the top 1 percent of households had actually lost some of its share since the 1980s.

That might not really have been the case.

Forget the 1 percent. The winners of this race, according to Zucman and Saez, have been the 0.1 percent. Since the 1960s, the richest one-thousandth of U.S. households, with a minimum net worth today above $20 million, have more than doubled their share of U.S. wealth, from around 10 percent to more than 20 percent. Take a moment to process that. One-thousandth of the country owns one-fifth of the wealth. By comparison, the entire top 1 percent of households takes in about 22 percent of U.S. income, counting capital gains.

Read more:

Some charts from the article that illustrate that it really is the top 0.1% that own so much:

The Shocking Rise of Wealth Inequality Business Insider

The Shocking Rise of Wealth Inequality Business Insider

The Shocking Rise of Wealth Inequality Business Insider

Thank you "supply side economics" I.e create huge debt, transfer it to the .1%, don't tax it, and blame the bottom for being lazy and taking handouts creating the problem that you are creating. 

The endless circular logic creating this parabolic disaster is so clear, there is only one answer and for some reason it is not allowed to be discussed. 

We are now near three generations of social welfare decline. It is paper wealth, fairy dust, so over a long enough time horizon it will evaporate or be redistributed through taxation. 

If it is not redistributed and collapses, the wealth goes away but what of the debt? It would not be a lost generation but a lost century. 

USA is not Greece but how long for them to recover? Afghanistan a once mighty region has been dead for 100s of years with no hope now 

We spent 1trillion on Afganistan and Miltary producers thank you. 

Yeah, none of those are good things.

The $1 trillion we spent in Afghanistan and Iraq is something to cry about.

You May Also Like: