Marvel at the beauty of Michael Moore's 10,000 sq ft summer mansion!

56.8 trillion is from the 3rd quarter of 2010 compiled stats of the US federal reserve.
 
naisho said:
Yeah, but you didn't define yours either. I needed a name to show the group on the pie.
The key differences between yours and my calcs are that you didn't look at population size as the dependent variable as closely as I did.
What do you call your "other" group?
Anyway, it is 41.5% of population to you, but 36.82% for me, that's a 14,449,291 people difference even if it's just barely under 5%.

The truth to the 42% statement is that we can see it's the millionaires + billionaires totaled, which represents a whopping 3.17% of the USA

The rest of the 96.82% of the USA is shadowed from the ~3.17% billionaires+millionaires. (Remember, that 96.82 is 36.82 + 60.00)
I couldn't use your numbers because you didn't factor the numbers for the rest of the population.

I suppose Caroline's 1% figure moved a bit up to 3%, but that's still a pretty large discrepancy.
Click to expand...

I called the other group those that are not millionaires and billionaires.

The 41.5% is for the rest of the working population and simply those who are wealthy in their own right (i.e investors and not work) that have a net worth. The 41.5% isn't for kids, teens, babies who don't have a "net worth" to speak of. I didn't include the 308 million population figure into this. You did. If you took the working population and investors that make them millionaires and billionaires, the difference from mine and yours would end up to be statistically insignificant.

Remember, your 9,800,000 millionaires (and billionaires) have kids, too. Including those between $500,000 and $1,000,000 that you called them as "middle class."

That 3% need to change upward a bit more.
 
Ah, case of the evenings. Doh, I forgot about the children. I looked them up and they are at 74.2 million children as of 2010 from Childstats.gov

This is going to be a bit more challenging now because we likely have some cases of children with net worth too under the age of 18, with work permits, or perhaps children of the billionaire/millionaires with their own bank accounts. Or ignore them completely but we wouldn't get a honest number in the end.

The thing with the 1% statement was that it was made for back in 2004, so being 7 years ago the numbers have definitely shifted. If it's not 1%, 3%, it's something else now.

Remember that I think that the original documentary looked at 1% as the population size of the millionaires++ rather than the amount of net worth held vs the rest of the population.
 
Actually, this was really simple if we exclude the children. Subtract the total number of children from the 2010 census pop. I thought about factoring in the unemployed, but I realized being unemployed doesn't mean they don't have a net worth so I left it alone.

308 million - 74.2 children = (308,745,538 - 74,200,000) = 234,545,538 adults
9.8 millionaires + 400 billionaires = 9,800,400 million

percent of population are billion/millionaires: 4.178%

Rough number, but there you have it. Give or take a few more from homeless or honest broke unemployed with $0 net worth, or people with negative net worth - that'd make the percentage go lower actually.
 
naisho said:
Actually, this was really simple if we exclude the children. Subtract the total number of children from the 2010 census pop. I thought about factoring in the unemployed, but I realized being unemployed doesn't mean they don't have a net worth so I left it alone.

308 million - 74.2 children = (308,745,538 - 74,200,000) = 234,545,538 adults
9.8 millionaires + 400 billionaires = 9,800,400 million

percent of population are billion/millionaires: 4.178%

Rough number, but there you have it. Give or take a few more from homeless or honest broke unemployed with $0 net worth, or people with negative net worth - that'd make the percentage go lower actually.
Click to expand...

Mine would be 4.477%. Not gonna quibble on precision. Like I said, between my figures and yours on the differences would be statistically insignificant. I'd say keep it between 4 and 5% since net worth continues to go up as well as the number of billionaires and millionaires as the economy creates more of them after rebounding from 2008 which will see a greater share of control of the total net worth.

However, having said that, people with $500,000 to $999,999 dollars is a very large group that has a controlling chunk of net worth, too. And there are within striking range to hit 1 million. I wouldn't be surprised if combined the number of population would go between 10% and 15%.

The adult millionaires and billionaires population is the 5% percenters that control around 56% of the total net worth in the United States. By saying 1% controls 42% of the total net worth doesn't make math and statistics sense.
 
DaveM said:
Sometimes life isn't always about color. And sometimes teaching guitar to homeless addicts with schizophrenia as part of their IOP recovery schedule, is just that.

Thank you for your input, though. I'll pass it on to the Community Behavioral Health board.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a privileged white male. And fooling yourself into believing that you are so magnanimous and hold no racial bias by helping the poor homeless black schizophrenics. You seriously need to spend less time looking outward and addressing people's needs from your ethnocentric perspective and start looking honestly inward at the ways that you contribute to the situation these people find themselves in. You are, from the way you have presented yourself, more of a problem than a solution.
I'll pass it on the the agencies they answer to.:cool2:
 
DaveM said:
I used to have fun debating here with you. Is there a reason you need to get personal?
Click to expand...

Is there a reason you need to misrepresent yourelf? You've gone from therapist to guitar teacher in 24 hours.
 
DaveM said:
Yeah, for someone who's first reply to me was:

"Great, just what we need; another misinformed conservative posting biased misinformation. You're going to be real popular around here" at post #13

I'm not sure I would value your opinion on pre-judging or patronizing as much as I would value others here. Especially as you just felt the need to patronize DeafBadger.
Click to expand...

You are not the one to determine whether another believes you have been behaving in a patronizing manner toward them. They are.:cool2:
 
Does being a millionaire mean a lot anymore? I would think that having at least $10 million net worth is the new "millionaire" in our society today.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Does being a millionaire mean a lot anymore? I would think that having at least $10 million net worth is the new "millionaire" in our society today.
Click to expand...

very good point. I discovered that when I was calculating my retirement needs. I need to save well over a million dollars for retirement. I was astounded. Sadly I have a LONG way to go.
 
My opinion? I don't see how being rich automatically means you love 100% unregulated capitalism. As if 100% capitalism is the only way to become rich?

Sometimes people think in extremes. If you are against capitalism, that doesn't mean you are 100% for the opposite.

There IS such a thing called middle ground.

I'm not exactly a fan of Michael Moore nor believe 100% of what he says, but honestly, I got to give him credit for trying to expose a lot of things, even through some of those things may be misleading or not exactly true. Better to get people to talk about it and verify if it's true or not rather just not talk about it at all.

(PS... one has a better chance of exposing things when they are rich...)
 
Cheetah said:
very good point. I discovered that when I was calculating my retirement needs. I need to save well over a million dollars for retirement. I was astounded. Sadly I have a LONG way to go.
Click to expand...

That is hilarious!! Because I did the exact same thing a few weeks ago!

I was like.. DANG..... And that's assuming TODAY's dollars.....
 
Daredevel7 said:
Does being a millionaire mean a lot anymore? I would think that having at least $10 million net worth is the new "millionaire" in our society today.
Click to expand...

I thought being a billionaire was the new millionaire.
 
kokonut said:
Mine would be 4.477%. Not gonna quibble on precision. Like I said, between my figures and yours on the differences would be statistically insignificant. I'd say keep it between 4 and 5% since net worth continues to go up as well as the number of billionaires and millionaires as the economy creates more of them after rebounding from 2008 which will see a greater share of control of the total net worth.

However, having said that, people with $500,000 to $999,999 dollars is a very large group that has a controlling chunk of net worth, too. And there are within striking range to hit 1 million. I wouldn't be surprised if combined the number of population would go between 10% and 15%.

The adult millionaires and billionaires population is the 5% percenters that control around 56% of the total net worth in the United States. By saying 1% controls 42% of the total net worth doesn't make math and statistics sense.
Click to expand...

The 1% controls 42% numbers were made for 2004 though. It may had made mathematical sense back then. Plus after 2008, there are more people in debt or bankrupt, with a negative net worth fueled by the economy. The not-so-rich people with home forclosures, I'm guessing many of them are in negative net worth, and we don't know where to get these numbers.

I'm sure a lot of the population today hasn't done calculations to the point as we did to figure out where it really stands.

I kinda liked my own definition of "what it takes to be in the 1%" a little better because I had an idea of what I was talking about. These days having 500,000 - 999,999 might not make you a millionaire, but at the same time we have to consider the "new cool kids group" should be 5million, 10million like Daredevel7 said.

In that definition, since we know that billionaires and millionaires are 3 or 4-5%, it would knock down the percentage even lower on top of the negative worth people.
 
deafskeptic said:
I thought being a billionaire was the new millionaire.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the time periods you are comparing. I was comparing now with a time that's like 10-15 years ago. If you compare a millionaire from say.. back in the 50s to now, then yes, being a billionaire is the new millionaire.
 
Back
Top