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

deafskeptic said:
Well more like 1920s..
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that makes more sense then. I was just thinking that 1 million dollars doesn't really cut it much anymore compared to only 10 years ago. Like Cheetah said, you need to earn over a million dollars to live comfortably when you retire. Of course, some people only need a lot less. Depends on how you live.
 
naisho said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so. In 2004 was the height of the dot.com era where more millionaires were made. Networth in 2004 was $50 trillion dollars. There were 2.5 million millionaires. And the population was 290 million. Figure it all in it sans children on the number billionaires + millionaires makes out to be about 1.2%. And that's with when everybody was enjoying their networths before the crash. So, we could be looking at between 1 and 2 percent here back in 2004. In other words, their definition of "1%" today is behind the times and the question needs to be reframed like you just said, what would it take to be that 1%? What would it take to be that 5%? Rather than running around like an idiot blathering nonsense about 1%. Because net worth continues to rise going from $56.8 trillion in 3rd qtr of 2010 to $58.6 trillion in the 2nd quarter of 2011. The number of millionaires continues to rise considering the massive jump in numbers from 2.5 million millionaires to a projected 10.5 million millionaires at the end of 2011 in only 7 years.


Report: Number of U.S. millionaires jump - Jun. 9, 2005
www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf
 
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 had this discussion with someone the other day. We agreed someone with $1 million is still working class. Of course age is a factor in that too. Then again people $500,000 aren't hurting unless they have overextended themselves.....I wouldn't exactly call them middle class. Maybe we need a bunch of classes. :lol:
 
TXgolfer said:
I had this discussion with someone the other day. We agreed someone with $1 million is still working class. Of course age is a factor in that too. Then again people $500,000 aren't hurting unless they have overextended themselves.....I wouldn't exactly call them middle class. Maybe we need a bunch of classes. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for that "Snooty class" to be official.
 
TXgolfer said:
I had this discussion with someone the other day. We agreed someone with $1 million is still working class.
Click to expand...

right.

such as restaurant owners. just because they're making millions of dollars a year doesn't mean they're 1%'er or corporate fat cat. they could easily lose a huge chunk of it within a month or so if restaurant business is going bad (ie. fewer customers than minimum needed to break even).

1% is simply a statement that describes the rich and powerful who sits behind mahogany table and profits from exploitation, federal bailouts, tax loopholes, etc. such as Goldman Sachs and Exxon-Mobile.
 
Jiro said:
right.

such as restaurant owners. just because they're making millions of dollars a year doesn't mean they're 1%'er or corporate fat cat. they could easily lose a huge chunk of it within a month or so if restaurant business is going bad (ie. fewer customers than minimum needed to break even).

1% is simply a statement that describes the rich and powerful who sits behind mahogany table and profits from exploitation, federal bailouts, tax loopholes, etc. such as Goldman Sachs and Exxon-Mobile.
Click to expand...

Well, that is not how the 1% was defined originally. That might be the new definition or the ows definition.
 
Even being the numbers-lover woman I am, I didn't even take the "1%" statement literally.

To me, it's just a figurative statement.

"WE ARE THE 93.65%" is not just as catchy....
 
Daredevel7 said:
Even being the numbers-lover woman I am, I didn't even take the "1%" statement literally.

To me, it's just a figurative statement.

"WE ARE THE 93.65%" is not just as catchy....
Click to expand...

Maybe we could name them the "Havits" and the "Havnots"?
 
Back
Top