1 in 5 Americans will become rich

[Redfairen]

It's not just the wealthiest 1 percent. Fully 20 percent of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives, wielding outsize influence on America's economy and politics. This little-known group may pose the biggest barrier to reducing the nation's income inequality.

Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives. That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top 2 percent of earners. Even outside periods of unusual wealth, members of this group generally hover in the $100,000-plus income range, keeping them in the top 20 percent of earners.

They're not the traditional rich. In a country where poverty is at a record high, today's new rich are notable for their sense of economic fragility. They've reached the top 2 percent, only to fall below it, in many cases. That makes them much more fiscally conservative than other Americans, polling suggests, and less likely to support public programs, such as food stamps or early public education, to help the disadvantaged.

New research suggests that affluent Americans are more numerous than government data depict, encompassing 21 percent of working-age adults for at least a year by the time they turn 60. That proportion has more than doubled since 1979. At the same time, an increasing polarization of low-wage work and high-skill jobs has left middle-income careers depleted.

"For many in this group, the American dream is not dead. They have reached affluence for parts of their lives and see it as very attainable, even if the dream has become more elusive for everyone else," says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who calculated numbers on the affluent for a forthcoming book, "Chasing the American Dream," to be published by the Oxford University Press.

http://m.chron.com/news/us/article/Rising-riches-1-in-5-in-US-reaches-affluence-5047261.php?cmpid=usworldhcat

[Rex]

1. I'm sure the Hearst Corporation was told to push this meme.

The GOP is getting desperate for people to pay attention to something else besides their destruction of the economy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Redefining "rich".

This was written by someone whose interests are served by convincing people that they're 1% ers too.

"Rich" isn't about income. "1%" isn't about income. It's not about wages, it's about wealth, and only a small percentage of people get wealthy enough to buy politicians.

[bhikkhu]

6. Good point on income vs wealth

I'm not sure what I would do if I made $250k in a year, but I know people farther up toward that category and as ridiculous as it sounds - expenses do tend to rise to meet available income. They can be flush one year then broke the next, especially if their income doesn't keep rising.

On the other hand, I think maybe having the money in the bank would be different. I like to think that if I had that much I could invest it and live reasonably well off the dividends, along with some kind of job.

[Major Nikon]

8. This is correct

I live in a very affluent area and work with people who make that kind of income. Typically the more they make, the more they spend. Many of them save next to nothing because they have themselves so far leveraged with home and car loans. People who manage to accumulate wealth in their lifetime typically live far below their means.

[hfojvt]

18. rich SHOULD be about income

and the income of the top 19% is quite substantial.

As for effecting policy, well who got more of the Bush tax cuts - the top 1% or the other 19%?

According to this, even under the Republican approach, the top 19% get more than the top 1% by 41% to 32% and for SOME reason, under Obama's proposal, the top 19% get far far more in tax cuts than the bottom 80% by 51% to 37% with another 11% thrown in for the top 1%. http://www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts2012/us.pdf

Also, that chart is kinda hard to believe. That the median of the 75-90% group is $600,000? According to the 2011 census of wealth only 13.5% of the population has over $500,000 in net worth and less than 7% of the population has more than $836,000 in net worth (the median for the over $500,000 group).

To define RICH to mean the same thing as SUPER RICH, to me, does a huge dis-service. It allows politicians to pass and promote policy in the name of the "middle class" while most of the benefits of those policies go to the top 20% and NOT to the MIDDLE 20%.

Oh, and I don't believe that people making over $100,000 a year cannot buy politicians. Who has more ability to write a $500 check to a politician, somebody making over $100,000 or somebody making less than $50,000? And one only needs 400 such people to get a nice little war chest of $200,000.

[dawg]

3. And not just at some point in their lives. It's a little known fact that one out of every hundred ..

Americans is, right now, already part of the 1%.

[hatrack]

16. Oh my GOD!!! I had no idea it was so widespread!!!!

[Ikonoklast]

4. What a steaming pantsload.

New research suggests that affluent Americans are more numerous than government data depict, encompassing 21 percent of working-age adults for at least a year by the time they turn 60.

ONE YEAR.


Make 100K for ONE YEAR of your working life, and you are considered "rich".

What happens if every other year of your working life you barely make enough to pay for food? Are you still "rich" because you had at least one good earnings year?


God Almighty people are stupid if they swallow this "American Dream" crapola.

[lonestarnot]

5. Fuck the rich! They steal from someone else to get that way always.

[SomethingFishy]

7. ROFLMFAO...

You actually buy this shit?

At the moment, it's a rigged game. And that article is part of the game. Convincing people that they aren't getting fucked over? Yeah, it's not like anyone is noticing how bad shit is

[broiles]

9. So 2% becomes 1 in 5?

[durablend]

10. Smells like turd way BS

"Some Democratic analysts have urged the party to tread more lightly on issues of income inequality, even after the recent election of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who made the issue his top campaign priority."

Um...NO!!!

"For the Democrats' part, traditional economic populism is poorly suited for affluent professionals," says Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University professor who specializes in political polarization.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Wouldn't want to mingle with the riff-raff, would we?

[KurtNYC]

11. They become rich when bathed in butter perhaps but otherwise

they are just kidding themselves. One cannot be truly rich for "part of" one's life. Real wealth is extra-generational and managing that wealth become the career of the rich person. Back in the day when savings accounts were guaranteed 5 to 7% interest, every million in the bank was an income of $50,000 per year. Eg, 2 million in the bank was a six figure income. These days a million dollars aint what it used to be.

[Wounded Bear]

12. We're all rich!!!!

Another Horatio Alger 'hope' story. Hey, look! It's not a 1 out of a hundred shot to get rich, it's only 20% We can do that!



A lame attempt to counter the whole 1/99 thought meme. It ain't working in this quarter.

[CFLDem]

13. Sweet

I like my odds.

[whatthehey]

14. This is just the inverse of that "81% near poverty" shock-line seen here

For the exact same reason. It says that at some point in their lives 1/5 have had a 2% income. Obviously 1/50 have a consistent 2% income, by definition.

Just like 4/5 have at some point been unemployed/poor/on welfare, 1/5 have at some point gotten 250k+ in a year. A big bonus. A cashout of stock options at a start up. Hundreds of hours of overtime. A lottery win. Profit taking on Google or Apple stock, or gold, a house sale in a bubble market; these ways and more exist to jump into that bracket once. Few are likely to happen to the lower end of the working class, which is why it's only 1/5, but the 1/5 figure is legitimate in that context. Similarly the "81% near poverty" is only true in similar context.

It does not mean that 1/5 are continuously getting 250k+ incomes, nor that 81% are continuously near poverty. In both cases for the vast majority it's a passing condition. Full disclosure - I've been in both those groups, as have millions of others no doubt. I've spent most of my time in the comfortable/affluent section, only once popping above or indeed anywhere near 250K when a privately held company in which I had a very minor ownership stake was sold, and only once dropping into the long-term unemployed zero income bracket too. None of the extremes tells the vast majority of my middle class middle management story.

[fishwax]

15. so one in five people reach the top 2% of income earners

On the surface, that doesn't make much sense.

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. This is a pretty impressive mash-up (considering who came up with it) of multiple lies,

folded into a myth, and topped with a big dollop of reinforcement of the national delusion.

Where's Horatio Alger when you need him?