Marvel at the beauty of Michael Moore's 10,000 sq ft summer mansion! - Page 13

DeafCaroline · 11-16-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

The dude who's suing for $2.7 million on top of the $20 million or so he already made on just one film? That's not the 1%?

By the way, to own .01% of America's wealth, you'd have to own about $5 billion. If that's the qualification for being in the 1%, fewer than 100 people qualify.

Suggestion #1 - watch the documentary.

Suggestion #2 - read this, it can explain it better than I can. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

**TWA** · 11-16-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

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.

I couldn't care less if you value my opinion or not. People usually have to earn my respect for that. You have earned little respect or credibility around here, especially when you repost biased rhetorical vomit as your initial thread starters.

And why don't you allow Deafbadger to decide who is doing the patronizing here. That's mighty nice of you to try and do his thinking for him. But just so you know, I can guarantee you he is 10 times more capable of thinking for himself than you are.

**DeafBadger** · 11-16-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are only just starting to learn ASL and have only recently begun made forays into the Deaf community. No? Please let me know how you feel about this comment in two years, after you've been a little more entrenched. It's great that you're discovering your Deaf identity, but there's still a lot for you to learn. I'm still learning a lot myself.

That's correct, I'm new to the community, but not new at deafness.

It is possible I might have a different opinion in a few years.

Quote:

Also, you don't find the "praising our individuality" part just a little bit patronizing? I mean, wow, who woulda thunk that deaf people were individuals???

No more patronizing than when Alexis de Tocqueville, the French traveler, wrote a book praising the industry, ingenuity, individuality, and fierce independence of the Americans. It was an observation he made, and it was sincere praise... especially since he lived in a time when such traits were routinely suppressed in the Western world.

So imagine that here's a guy wandering through another country... our country, our community. And he is making an observation and he sincerely praises it. Doesn't sound so insulting anymore, does it?

I'm waiting for the day when the Deaf community establishes its reputation as a fierce band of roving horsemen, driving all before them in fear... oh, wait, that's the Huns.

Maybe you're right; maybe I'll see it differently in a few years...

DaveM · 11-16-2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex

I couldn't care less if you value my opinion or not. People usually have to earn my respect for that. You have earned little respect or credibility around here, especially when you repost biased rhetorical vomit as your initial thread starters.

And why don't you allow Deafbadger to decide who is doing the patronizing here. That's mighty nice of you to try and do his thinking for him. But just so you know, I can guarantee you he is 10 times more capable of thinking for himself than you are.

Sure, WriteAlex. Next time I'll only post narrow and rigidly ideologically based links that match up with your views. This way maybe I can avoid be called "culturally insensitive" by you.

I wasn't sticking up for DeafBadger. I was pointing out that you were calling him incapable of speaking on behalf of your community.

It's nice to know that you speak for all deaf or HoH. I'll make sure to check with you before my ASL teacher assigns me my next lesson.

**DeafBadger** · 11-16-2011, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

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.

I can decide for myself whether I think I'm being patronized. And I didn't interpret it that way from TheWriteAlex.

DaveM · 11-16-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafBadger

I can decide for myself whether I think I'm being patronized. And I didn't interpret it that way from TheWriteAlex.

Fair enough, DeafBadger. Sorry.

**DeafBadger** · 11-16-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

Fair enough, DeafBadger. Sorry.

It's alright.

DaveM · 11-16-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex

I couldn't care less if you value my opinion or not. People usually have to earn my respect for that. You have earned little respect or credibility around here, especially when you repost biased rhetorical vomit as your initial thread starters.

And why don't you allow Deafbadger to decide who is doing the patronizing here. That's mighty nice of you to try and do his thinking for him. But just so you know, I can guarantee you he is 10 times more capable of thinking for himself than you are.

You know what, I'm going to try to avoid politics so much here. I signed up to learn a little about deaf culture and should spend more time on those boards. So I'm going to start posting there more where feedback will be helpful - including yours.

That last post was dick-ish of me.

**TWA** · 11-16-2011, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

You know what, I'm going to try to avoid politics so much here. I signed up to learn a little about deaf culture and should spend more time on those boards. So I'm going to start posting there more where feedback will be helpful - including yours.

That last post was dick-ish of me.

In light of this follow-up, I will refrain from posting my response to your last post, which I can assure you was pretty scathing. This is your only warning to NEVER, EVER post something like that again.

Follow your own advice and you will be fine. In time, you will find that the "rigidly narrow ideological" views of many people on this site are actually more broad than you suspect, but you'll only know that after you've been here longer than two days.

DaveM · 11-16-2011, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex

In light of this follow-up, I will refrain from posting my response to your last post, which I can assure you was pretty scathing. This is your only warning to NEVER, EVER post something like that again.

Follow your own advice and you will be fine. In time, you will find that the "rigidly narrow ideological" views of many people on this site are actually more broad than you suspect, but you'll only know that after you've been here longer than two days.

See you around on the other boards

**TXgolfer** · 11-16-2011, 11:18 PM

**TWA** · 11-16-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafBadger

That's correct, I'm new to the community, but not new at deafness.

Ditto.

Quote:

It is possible I might have a different opinion in a few years.

Possibly. I doubt either of us will remember this in two years, but I would be interested to know the answer. I know that my viewpoints and opinions regarding Deaf identity have changed a lot since I first found this place two years ago.

Quote:

No more patronizing than when Alexis de Tocqueville, the French traveler, wrote a book praising the industry, ingenuity, individuality, and fierce independence of the Americans. It was an observation he made, and it was sincere praise... especially since he lived in a time when such traits were routinely suppressed in the Western world.

So imagine that here's a guy wandering through another country... our country, our community. And he is making an observation and he sincerely praises it. Doesn't sound so insulting anymore, does it?

Now that's an interesting analogy. It's hard to say if it is 100% applicable here because of the historical context, but I get what you're saying. I wonder what De Tocqueville's views of Americans were before he set sail for the United States. Were they were informed by stereotypes? And if so, what were those stereotypes? If he was making a sort of "first contact," then his observations, while interesting and enlightening, are not analogous to the DaveM's initial post. Almost everyone in the United States is acquainted with Deafness, usually in the form of stereotypes seen on TV, in books, and elsewhere. Some are even aware of Deaf Culture and ASL. But few actually really understand Deaf culture and the experience of being deaf. DaveM's coming here was not a first contact but rather a shift in worldviews. Sometimes such a shift can perpetuate positive, constructive praise. Sometimes it is patronizing. Check out this thread for an interesting discussion on a related topic: Deaf not different | The Vista

Quote:

I'm waiting for the day when the Deaf community establishes its reputation as a fierce band of roving horsemen, driving all before them in fear... oh, wait, that's the Huns.

Maybe Phillips can help us out with some battle horses.

Quote:

Maybe you're right; maybe I'll see it differently in a few years...

Enjoy the ride.

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

The 1% - that term came from a documentary of the same name - it refers to the 1% of Americans owning 42% of America's wealth in 2004.

Michael Moore is nowhere close to owning even a .01 % of America's wealth. No, he's not a 1 percenter.

Not sure what you mean by "America's wealth." I am assuming you mean net worth. Saying 1% does not make any sense. Just a feel good number.

In the United States there are 413 billionaires, with a total net worth of $1.5 trillion dollars (see China Becomes “Billionaire Factory To the World” - The Wealth Report - WSJ) .

But we also have 10.5 million millionaires (see Number of millionaires is projected to rise rapidly - May. 5, 2011 ) in the United States. In 2010 millionaires controlled about 56% of U.S. wealth or $32 trillion dollars (Millionaires continue to climb in the US as more people go out of work | Joseph Klaas). For both millionaires and billionaires, combined, that's $33.5 trillion dollars they control out of $58.5 trillion dollars (United States household net worth http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...current/z1.pdf).

In other words, 413 billionaires control 2.5% of America's wealth (net worth) while 10.5 million millionaires control 56% of America's wealth. That leaves 41.5% of those who are not millionaires or billionaires who control the rest of the $25.7 trillion dollars.

Saying 1% makes no sense because the 1% does not control the so called "42% of America's wealth." If anything, Michael Moore is indeed a part of the 10.5 million millionaires (which includes 413 billionaires) that control 56% of America's wealth.

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Ditto.

**Jiro** · 11-17-2011, 12:27 AM

this thread is about Michael Moore's mansion... not whether or not if he's 1%'er. Nothing to see in here as OP's allegation has been debunked and explained.

Pundits and the conservatives seem to conveniently ignore the fact that some people like Al Gore does not have a commercial building to work at. They work at their own home and they have a large staff which is why they live in a "mansion". again - nothing to see in here.

***naisho*** · 11-17-2011, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Not sure what you mean by "America's wealth." I am assuming you mean net worth. Saying 1% does not make any sense. Just a feel good number.

In the United States there are 413 billionaires, with a total net worth of $1.5 trillion dollars (see China Becomes “Billionaire Factory To the World” - The Wealth Report - WSJ) .

But we also have 10.5 million millionaires (see Number of millionaires is projected to rise rapidly - May. 5, 2011 ) in the United States. In 2010 millionaires controlled about 56% of U.S. wealth or $32 trillion dollars (Millionaires continue to climb in the US as more people go out of work | Joseph Klaas). For both millionaires and billionaires, combined, that's $33.5 trillion dollars they control out of $58.5 trillion dollars (United States household net worth http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...current/z1.pdf).

In other words, 413 billionaires control 2.5% of America's wealth (net worth) while 10.5 million millionaires control 56% of America's wealth. That leaves 41.5% of those who are not millionaires or billionaires who control the rest of the $25.7 trillion dollars.

Saying 1% makes no sense because the 1% does not control the so called "42% of America's wealth." If anything, Michael Moore is indeed a part of the 10.5 million millionaires (which includes 413 billionaires) that control 56% of America's wealth.

Your math might be a bit off. I used older numbers for the sake of relevancy since 2011 ain't over yet. Pie chart of what the 56.8 trillion share looks like:

Calculations are below if you want to read it all:

Code:

Central reference for numbers here, the source is tweeted by ~5k and Facebooked by 36k so I have some confidence in the numbers.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-

First some prelim calcs for the bottom categories for population size:
400 billionaires / 308,745,538 (census 2010) = 0.000129% 
9,800,000 millionaires / 308,745,538 = 3.17%
185,247,323 poorest 60% /  308,745,538 = 60%

America's total net worth: 
$56.8 trillion (federal reserve)

Forbes top 400 (% population: 0.000129%):
$1.37 trillion

9.8 Millionaires (% population: 3.17%):
$31.80 trillion

Poorest 60% of USA (% population: 60%)
$1.26 trillion

Remainder missing: 
100% pop - 0.000129 - 3.17 - 60 = 36.82%
36.82% of 308,745,538 = 113,668,693
$56.8 trillion - $1.37 - $31.80 - $1.26 = $22.37 trillion
Remainder's net share: 22.37 / 56.8 = 39.16%

So, in a nutshell:

Forbes top 400: 0.000129% pop
... Controls 2.41% of total net worth

9.8 millionaires: 3.17% pop
... Controls 55.98% of total net worth

Poorest 60% of USA: 60% pop
... Controls 2.21% of total net worth

Middle class, upper class: 36.82% pop
... Controls  39.16% of total net worth

**Jiro** · 11-17-2011, 02:37 AM

lol heh

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 02:52 AM

....moved...

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

Your math might be a bit off. I used older numbers for the sake of relevancy since 2011 ain't over yet. Pie chart of what the 56.8 trillion share looks like:

Calculations are below if you want to read it all:

Code:

Central reference for numbers here, the source is tweeted by ~5k and Facebooked by 36k so I have some confidence in the numbers.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-

First some prelim calcs for the bottom categories for population size:
400 billionaires / 308,745,538 (census 2010) = 0.000129% 
9,800,000 millionaires / 308,745,538 = 3.17%
185,247,323 poorest 60% /  308,745,538 = 60%

America's total net worth: 
$56.8 trillion (federal reserve)

Forbes top 400 (% population: 0.000129%):
$1.37 trillion

9.8 Millionaires (% population: 3.17%):
$31.80 trillion

Poorest 60% of USA (% population: 60%)
$1.26 trillion

Remainder missing: 
100% pop - 0.000129 - 3.17 - 60 = 36.82%
36.82% of 308,745,538 = 113,668,693
$56.8 trillion - $1.37 - $31.80 - $1.26 = $22.37 trillion
Remainder's net share: 22.37 / 56.8 = 39.16%

So, in a nutshell:

Forbes top 400: 0.000129% pop
... Controls 2.41% of total net worth

9.8 millionaires: 3.17% pop
... Controls 55.98% of total net worth

Poorest 60% of USA: 60% pop
... Controls 2.21% of total net worth

Middle class, upper class: 36.82% pop
... Controls  39.16% of total net worth

Essentially the same only that the project for 2011 is a bit more on number of millionaires for 2011 than 2010 which skews the percentage slightly upward (only a .02% higher than yours). Nothing is really off and not even statistically significant either on the differences between yours and mine.

Where did you get the $56.8 trillion?

One problem though, you haven't defined exactly what constitute as "middle class." You've already included millionaires and billionaires. Kind of hard to believe a person making $900,000 would be considered as "middle class." Or even $500,000 for that matter. The same question goes for the "poorest," too. What is that low range?

***naisho*** · 11-17-2011, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Essentially the same only that the project for 2011 is a bit more on number of millionaires for 2011 than 2010 which skews the percentage slightly upward (only a .02% higher than yours). Nothing is really off and not even statistically significant either on the differences between yours and mine.

Where did you get the $56.8 trillion?

One problem though, you haven't defined exactly what constitute as "middle class." You've already included millionaires and billionaires. Kind of hard to believe a person making $900,000 would be considered as "middle class." Or even $500,000 for that matter. The same question goes for the "poorest," too. What is that low range?

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.

***naisho*** · 11-17-2011, 03:13 AM

56.8 trillion is from the 3rd quarter of 2010 compiled stats of the US federal reserve.

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

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.

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.

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

56.8 trillion is from the 3rd quarter of 2010 compiled stats of the US federal reserve.

Ah, mine was for the 2nd quarter of 2011.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...current/z1.pdf

***naisho*** · 11-17-2011, 03:56 AM

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.

***naisho*** · 11-17-2011, 04:10 AM

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.

kokonut · 11-17-2011, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

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.

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.

darkdog · 11-17-2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

Suggestion #1 - watch the documentary.

Suggestion #2 - read this, it can explain it better than I can. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Suggestion #1- Show me where I'm wrong. Nothing in that article suggests I am wrong. Perhaps I missed something?

Suggestion #2- If suggestion #1 is impossible, just acknowledge that Michael Moore is in the 1%.

jillio · 11-17-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

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.

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.

jillio · 11-17-2011, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

I used to have fun debating here with you. Is there a reason you need to get personal?

Is there a reason you need to misrepresent yourelf? You've gone from therapist to guitar teacher in 24 hours.

jillio · 11-17-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveM

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.

You are not the one to determine whether another believes you have been behaving in a patronizing manner toward them. They are.

11-16-2011, 11:18 PM	#371 (permalink)
TXgolfer Dream Weaver Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Everywhere Posts: 17,622	__________________ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21 Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

11-17-2011, 12:27 AM	#375 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,512	this thread is about Michael Moore's mansion... not whether or not if he's 1%'er. Nothing to see in here as OP's allegation has been debunked and explained. Pundits and the conservatives seem to conveniently ignore the fact that some people like Al Gore does not have a commercial building to work at. They work at their own home and they have a large staff which is why they live in a "mansion". again - nothing to see in here. __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

11-17-2011, 02:37 AM	#377 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,512	lol heh __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

11-17-2011, 02:52 AM	#378 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	....moved... __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-17-2011, 03:13 AM	#381 (permalink)
*naisho* Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 6,162	56.8 trillion is from the 3rd quarter of 2010 compiled stats of the US federal reserve.

11-17-2011, 03:56 AM	#384 (permalink)
*naisho* Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 6,162	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.

11-17-2011, 04:10 AM	#385 (permalink)
*naisho* Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 6,162	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.