So, You Know You ARE the 1%, Right?

[Johnny Rico]

http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2012/05/23/so-you-know-you-are-the-1-right/

So with the return of spring comes the return of Occupy, which by and large, is probably a good thing. OWS deserves some props for drawing attention to inequity, for bringing radicalism back, and for showing a very complacent corporate and political leadership that the people still have bite in them. Generally speaking I approve of Occupy.

One of the things I don’t approve of, however, catchy as the framing is, is the “1% vs. 99%” rhetoric. The reason I don’t is that I think it functionally masks really deep inequities – by putting the second percentile together with the 92 percentile, it implies a fundamental symmetry between people who are truly and deeply poor and those who are more than comfortable.

........

Let’s look at the 1% – on a world scale. According to the CIA world factbook (and the IMF releases similar numbers), the top 1% of the world’s earners make 34K or more annually (per capita). The world’s top 1% richest people have total assets (that’s everything you own) valued at a quarter of a million dollars or more. My guess is that a not-insignificant percentage of my readers fall into the category.

48% of the world’s 1% are Americans. If you were to reduce this to 100 people (always a useful exercise), according to World Bank Economist Branko Milanovic in his book _The Haves and the Have-Nots_ almost every single one of the people in the 1% would come from the developed world – not a single person from Africa, China, Southeast Asia except Singapore, South America except Brazil, India, Eastern Europe or Russia (obviously there are rich people there, but not enough to be statistically significant).

........

Our increasingly tenuous environmental situation makes it clear we can’t afford the 1% – on a world scale as well as an American one. So we will have to turn ourselves to the incredibly difficult process of keeping what is retainable for as many people as possible, and coming up with a new way of life that is vastly more equitable – one that still has many of the necessities of a decent life, but vastly fewer of its luxuries.

(quite a bit more at the link)

While I don't agree with the conclusions (we're not about to equalize income on a planetary scale, the very idea is absurd), it's an interesting way of putting the "99% vs 1%" debate in perspective.

[bluerum]

1. And this simply makes the fact that the global .1% possess so much of the global wealth

that much more absurdly dystopic. I may be in the global 1% but I have an eye toward establishing equity, not accumulating wealth at the expense of those who have nothing.

[Johnny Rico]

5. Are you willing to reduce your annual income to $6,000? I'm not.

That's the average world income, per person per year.

[bluerum]

9. If the owners lower prices so we can survive - yes.

[Johnny Rico]

10. Um, if prices are reduced by the same proportion as wages, then effectively there's been no change.

Are you willing to live on $6,000 a year (the world average, approximately) with no change in prices if it would mean that all people were making this wage?

In other words, would you be willing to reduce your lifestyle & consumption to that of the average person living in Egypt or Sri Lanka?

I'm not.

[bluerum]

14. Yeah. Ur right. I got my piece. Screw everyone else.

[Johnny Rico]

15. Amusing, but it doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it for your convenience:

Are you willing to live on $6,000 a year (the world average, approximately) with no change in prices if it would mean that all people were making this wage?

In other words, are you willing to reduce your lifestyle & consumption to that of the average person living in Egypt or Sri Lanka?

[orwell]

2. I mentioned this to someone just the other day...

...on a global scale much of the US is part of "the 1%."

Props to Occupy for a clever branding strategy and putting their bodies on the line to address the structural inequalities in the US, but digging deeper into global resource problems tells a far less comforting story.

The US consumes far more of the world's resources and holds a tremendous portion of the world's wealth than it's population justifies. If the rest of the world comes up to our standard of living the resulting effect on global resources and the environment would be devastating.

We either need to find a low-cost non-polluting form of energy generation soon or face a planet and a way of life that is far different from what we enjoy now.

It's either that of some kind of drastic population control over the next 2 generations to reduce global populations to sustainable levels.

The era of the free fossil fuel ride is over. There is still no free lunch.

[dkf]

3. Why is it absurd to think of it in relation to all human beings?

Because its not in our interest to do so?

We suck up all the natural resources globally, yet we think this is what we deserve in perpetuity. We need to realize these are the good days. Enjoy it while you can because the odds that we can consume so much more than everyone else forever is not logical.

[Johnny Rico]

6. It's absurd because global income equalization isn't going to happen. Period.

It might make some people feel all warm and tingly to imagine that it's going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, but the chances of it actually happening is considerably south of 0.01%...

[dkf]

7. Oh it's not going to be done through a central taxing authority.

It is simply unsustainable for the planet and it requires populations with natural resources to acquiesce to our needs.

[Scootaloo]

4. This argument is tired unto death.

"There are no poor people in America because people are poorer somewhere else!"

That's right, all of you who struggle to keep a roof over your heads, every parent who has to figure out whether you should have electricity or groceries this month, all of you who are taking care of an invalid parent or loved one at home when they need professional assistance but couldn't afford it, those of you who have run out of unemployment insurance but still have no work available... SHUT THE FUCK UP! You're doing great compared to some starving kid in Mali, so what are you complaining about?

[Warpy]

8. Actually, it's the 99.9% vs the 0.1%

The problem is that the 0.1% has gotten so unimaginably rich that it's left 99.9% of this country far behind.

However, the 99% sounds better and yes, the 2% at the bottom does resemble a 92%er at the top because both are so far below the truly rich in terms of money hoarding. They're beyond the reach of government and the law. In many cases, they have become the law.

We're beyond the point of no return on this. Either there will be a violent revolution or the derivatives casino will finally collapse, wiping out much of the hoarded money at the very top. Both will be miserable to live through. I hope I don't.

[yurbud]

11. or even 0.01%

[Sentath]

12. I'm in the 99%

So are most of my friends, relatives, competition and enemies.

[Johnny Rico]

13. I know almost no one who *isn't* in the top 1% by world standards.

A couple of my sister's friends have been on public assistance for years. Beyond that, virtually everyone I know makes $34K or better in salary and benefits.

[sudopod]

16. Well bully for you. nt