Before you click the video: imagine for a moment how you think that wealth is distributed among each 1% slice of the American populace. Take a moment, draw a curve, if you’re willing to do so. Now watch the video and test your belief against the truth.
This 6-1/2 minute video from mashable.com has apparently been going viral since last Friday. It takes a static chart that I believe I may have published here before and animates it, with narration. It’s amazing what a little animated narration can do. Here’s a link to check out and share, but I’ll also embed the actual video itself below.
In my pre-law-school experience as a social scientist, dealing among other things with issues involving race, I often found that what led people to what seemed like self-defeating outcomes was not that they had bad values or morals but that they had rotten information.
If you believe that we’re on the verge of mandated income inequality, such that the wealthiest 20% of our society makes the same or maybe just a tad more than the least wealthy, then of course all sorts of terrible consequences will occur to you. If you think that the ratio between income among the top and lowest 20% is 10:1, maybe you think that that’s not enough and maybe you’re right. Once we decide that we’re talking about a 100:1 ratio, even if you’re conservative you’re probably calmed down a bit. But what you may not fully comprehend is exactly what we’re dealing with right now in our society. Well-narrated animated pictures make that reality clear.
The pertinent thing that’s left out of this video is: “what do the super-wealthy 1% (and especially the super-duper-wealthy .1%) do with all that money?” The answer is: buy power. Fix the political game so that the income of the wealthy is undertaxed and so that that will become almost impossible to change. It’s like a computer virus that embeds itself into the rootkit of the operating system of our society.
I had a surprisingly unfriendly conversation this weekend with an elderly stranger who, unbeknownst to me, has been holding a grudge against me for the past year — ever since I and the members of Occupy Fullerton got a resolution that he disliked past the Fullerton City Council. The conversation ended up turning out much better than it began, but it took quite a while. I found that the man did seem to have quite a humane core — he was proud of the things in his personal and professional life that one ought to be proud of — and that he did generally seem to understand the underlying problems that would lead us to what may well have been — I don’t agree, but I won’t debate it here — an imprudent resolution. As I recall, we agreed in particular — and this man was no socialist, not one bit — that the skyrocketing wealth disparity since 1980 creates real significant problems.
I don’t remember if he chuckled (or maybe grimaced?) when I said it, but when I said it I was completely serious: we could disagree very much about the meaning and the significance of various “trees,” but if he and I saw the same forest than he, too, should have been in the Occupy Wall Street movement. And, no less importantly, the Occupy Wall Street movement, even if it meant working with a parallel organization for people who consider themselves to be embedded deeply within the mainstream, should have tried harder to find a way to work with the likes of him.
Does that seem absurd? Let me know what you think after you spend 6-1/2 minutes with this video.
Brilliant video.
The American Dream has been outsourced.
Nice post.
I’d probably have agreed with the video if it had stuck to Distribution of Income or Distribution of Wealth, but since it purposely confused the two, I’ll have to throw it into my Meaningless Propaganda bin. There was no reason to listen once they started mixing the two disparate sets of numbers.
Fair enough. Can you point to where it focuses on distribution of income rather than (as advertised) distribution of wealth? I didn’t notice it, but I’m open to the possibility — if shown the evidence — that they could have conflated them. Did they?
GD- I am not JQP, but I too thought it was a bit confusing when the narrator started talking about income….see 3:37. You actually start talking about the the same item that he says in the above. (i.e. top is “making”….making is income not wealth). Again at 5:07, the narrator seems to start focusing more on income and not net worth. Net worth and income, while related, are not tied together…especially for the middle class.
Thanks — I’ll review it. Obviously, wealth and income are related, but they should be kept separate in this discussion.
I personally feel that they are more correlated at the polar ends…the highest compensated will save a lot (i.e. increase net worth). The lowest compensated often can have a higher net worth than someone in say the 40th percentile as they likely do not own an underwater home or other consumer debt.
This is not to say that the lowest income earner with $10 in their pocket, an apartment with furniture and zero debt (they actually have a net worth) is better off than a middle class person with an underwater house, a car worth less than their loan, student loan debt, etc… and savings far less than their debt, but from a pure net worth perspective, they are better off.
Hence, I actually like the study previously discussed about liquid asset poor better…but the ideas are correlated.
That seems like a fair estimate. Lots of people nowadays have negative net-worth but seem to be doing fine month-to-month.
have you ever seen the chris rock bit on being rich and being wealthy
I think so, but I don’t remember it. The “black person vs. ______” one drove almost everything else out of my mental folder for him.
Sorry…I have heard the Dave Ramsey bit on being poor versus broke though.
something to the effect that black people are rich but white people are wealthy,,,,kobe is rich, the white guy who signs his check is wealthy
Yeah I do remember that one. He also said something like “If Bill Gates woke up and had only the money Oprah Winfrey had, he’d kill himself.”
Sorry, I didn’t check back yesterday, but “Yeah, what he said.” Especially the part at 5:07. He’s comparing apples to oranges, or maybe lemons to oranges. Close but not the same and he blows his argument by doing it.
Then there’s the part around 3:53 where he points out the “wealth” of the lowest quintile. That’s pretty much the “paycheck to paycheck” income category and they wouldn’t be expected to have much wealth to speak of, even in an ideal world.
On that last point: soooo, is it your assertion that the bottom quintile (calling them by their formal name) in, oh, Sweden or Norway would necessarily have as little wealth as they do here? One can check that, after all.
No, they don’t. But neither of those systems would ever fly in this country – even though their distribution curves are pretty similar to the video’s “ideal” and “what we think” curves. Funny how perception works, no?
GD…not sure what the bottom quintile is for Sweden, but the research report that this was based upon showed that “although more equal than the United States’ wealth distribution, Sweden’s wealth distribution is still extremely top heavy.” I would say that they may be a bit better (if one believes that better is more equal) but by the use of “extremely top heavy” that implies that Sweden is likely not in a situation where the poorest quintile is soaking in the dough.
I don’t expect that they should be “soaking in the dough”; I do think it’s a problem when they’re no more than lightly dusted with it.
Greg…are you able to find what the bottom 20% in Sweden has in terms of wealth distribution? My gut would be that in the same infographic as presented above, they would also not register. Possibly the 2nd 20% may become a blip. Remember, wealth not income for Sweden.
Well, one thing we do know about the poor in Sweden is that they have healthcare, free pre-school available for their children beginning at age one and free higher education all of which allows them to improve they’re economic situation and makes their day to day lives less traumatic.
No debating the things they get…I am curious what the wealth distribution is in Sweden. Greg indicated (3/4, 9:52am) that one can check the Swedish wealth distribution…I am curious as to what it actually is although I cannot find it (income, yes, wealth, no), so I am hoping he can point to what it is. Does the Swedish model more appropriately distribute the wealth? What is that distribution?
“… Sweden’s income distribution: The upper quintile held 18% of the wealth, followed by 36%, 15%, 21% and 11% for the other quintiles. The last chart was, unbeknownst to participants, that of the United States: The upper quintile held 84% of the wealth, followed by 11%, 4%, 0.2% and 0.1%.”
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/taxes/perceptions-income-inequality-u-s#
Thanks for looking it up. The top quintile in income was really the third quintile in terms of wealth? There has to be an interesting story there.
Anonster…that is the same study that the above infographic was based upon. They used income not wealth. We are trying to determine the wealth distribution of Sweden. Income was easily found. Wealth not so much, although Greg indicates that one can check that, but I have been unsuccessful in finding wealth distribution figures..
That’s surmise on my part. I’d be very surprised if Sweden’s wealth distribution was unavailable anywhere — including in Google Books and in HEIM periodicals. Do I really have to look it up myself?
I should clarify…the Swedish part is income in that study (see Note 2 in the actual study). The US part is based upon wealth.
This answers that question;
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/
I think this point is the relevant point (although I think you could swap out the “Chinese” for “American”);
“In countries like Sweden, indeed, the social safety net is strong enough that you don’t need to build wealth in the same way you do if you’re Chinese, say. Wealth is a form of insurance, and when insurance is nationalized, you need less wealth. As a result, people can enjoy the fruits of their money, instead of saving it up for emergencies or for retirement — and only a small percentage of the population really spends a lot of effort in a successful attempt at accumulating more.”
Unfortunately, everything keeps referencing the Norton/Ariely study, which does NOT use Swedish wealth, but instead Swedish income. See Note 2 of the study which can be found here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
I simply cannot find wealth distribution for Sweden…I am hoping Greg can find it as he implies that it is out there.
Your (or the quoted author’s) point on there not being a need for wealth accumulation in Sweden is certainly interesting though. However, it very well may indicate that the wealth distribution perhaps is even more distorted since there is not an incentive to save due to the nation providing the safety net. It is a different, yet related, topic though.
I still am interested in the Swedish wealth distribution, although I doubt anyone will know truly what it is…
I saw some really damn rich Swedish people in “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.”
Oh, I shoulda probably started that with a Winship asterisk. *
The second pie chart (from Swedish statistics) shows Sweden’s wealth shares; Highest has 73%, 2nd 20% 3rd 6% 4th 0-0.5%. Much closer to the US’s, but as they point out it isn’t as important due to the strong social programs.
Ah, yes….excellent! Looks like there is not as much difference b/t the US and Sweden from a wealth distribution perspective after all. Income and social services. yes, but not much in terms of wealth.
“The point here is that wealth inequality is ever and always enormous. The US and Sweden are very far apart, when it comes to inequality, but if you look at wealth inequality rather than income inequality — which is the subject of the Norton and Ariely paper — then countries tend to look more alike than different. A huge part of the population of just about every country is going to have zero wealth — if you live paycheck to paycheck, for instance, or if you’re young and haven’t been earning money for long, or if you just spend a lot. That doesn’t mean you’re poor.”
I would add…”that doesn’t mean you are poor…broke possibly, but maybe not poor”. Sorry, had to. The national services definitely allow those without wealth to still be better off than someone without wealth here in the US though…their nation is there wealth I suppose.
Greg, it seems that Sweden’s lowest wealth accumulators are also no more than lightly dusted with wealth also.
Anonster’s handling things pretty damn well in my absence from the fray! Yes, we do have to conceive of wealth differently in countries with robust social services — even those without much personal wealth are liberally dusted with societal wealth. I’d say more, but I’m off to fight dragons.
I found this so interesting that I think it’s worth posting;
IS IT TRUE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT SWEDEN?
Some time ago I had the good fortune to meet on the Internet an actual citizen of Sweden. Since the place has always fascinated me (Thank you, Ingmar Bergman!), I peppered him with questions about it. I mainly asked about its social welfare protections.
Here are his answers. I am presenting them verbatim, with just a bit of boldfacing of Swedish terms, etc., for clarity of presentation:
A SWEDE TELLS ALL
“I got a bit paralyzed with all your listings, but decided to “start somewhere’”. Such a comparison I also find interesting, here in Sweden we have a general bad impression about the social system in US, can be interesting to find out how much of that is prejudice….
MEDICAL
Medical aid in Sweden, is not free, but we pay mostly a symbolic sum of money. For instance an operation to remove the appendix (not personal experience, asked a friend) costs nothing at all for the operation, but we will have to pay a little sum when you come in, and a little sum for the room you take up after operation and food. Even a poor person in Sweden would have no problem Getting through that, around 70 – 100 dollars if you don’t need to spend more then 2 days in the hospital, my friend says.
If you need medical aid for a long time we have högkostnadsskydd (attempted translation: ‘high cost protection’). If your medical aid costs more then about $120 dollars, that’s all you would need to pay, the state pays anything above that. This is for the year. Next year its another $120 etc. This includes medicine, if in need of large amounts over a year.
SOCIAL SAFETY NET
When a person loses his job we have something called A-kassa (not sure how to translate, A-cash or A-fund, the “A” stands for the Swedish word for unemployed anyway, so “U-fund” perhaps then in English). You have to have been working steadily and paid the ‘A-kassa’ for 1 year to get it.
What you get: 80 percent of your wages (but with a roof a little less then 100 dollars a day), after 201 days you get 70 percent. After 300 days you only get “A-kassa” if you have a child or children aged less then 18.
[That’s almost a year of high-level unemployment payments, folks, over a year and a half if you have kids! – Nightman1]
If you were paying into “A-kass”’ less then a year, you still get a base amount of MAX 45 dollars a day. Of course you have to consider what things costs before valuing the amount. Having high taxes here in Sweden [Yes, folks, your editor reports the bad as well as the good! – Nightman1] means everything costs more. One LITER of milk is a little more then one dollar, a loaf of bread is 2.8 dollars etc. Gasoline costs so much more that a visiting American would get nightmares (or so I have heard)
After that its welfare. I’m not to sure about the rules here, but in principle you have to do things to get it, enroll in some kind of educating program, search for job, go through medical examination. We do not have food stamps (Don’t know how that works in USA, but if you have to go to a shop and use food stamps, that seems to me immoral. Why should someone have to “advertise” their problems and poverty??), but we get one sum of money each month from welfare that should cover the costs, and the rent is added on top of that basic sum of money.
If you are long term sick, we have försäkringskassan (social insurance office), which gives you the same amount of money as if you were old and on pension. There is no problem to survive on that, and its clearly more then welfare. It easily covers all basic needs and still have enough to buy things that are secondary to survival.
We also have bostadsbidrag (housing allowance). If you fulfill the required demands to get it, it pays most of your rent, and you get more or less depending on your rent. There is a roof, when you pass the roof (too expensive apartment) you do not lose it, but you get only aid up to the roof level, as if.
WORK, EDUCATION, AMENITIES
Your new questions:
1) In Sweden we have by law 5 weeks 100% paid vacation every year, I don’t know how it is in other countries in Europe [Nightman’s Note: I believe every major European country has such a law. I know France and Germany do—both providing 6 weeks’ vacation, I believe.]
2) Higher education is free in the sense that you don’t pay the university or higher schools any money, but you still need a loan to cover food, rent and books. Some take part time jobs while studying. If you are the poorest of the poor you still can take a ‘study loan’, no problem. To my experience you can in some cases even get the whole education for free (including rent, food, books) while being on welfare, but I don’t know how or why, so that’s a vague footnote.
3) We have homeless people here in Sweden but I am not sure why, cause we have a proper social security structure that shouldn’t allow it. Maybe people who gets involved with drugs? No idea…
I have a friend who has been on welfare for more then 10 years, I don’t know to be honest if they can have welfare indefinitely, but what should we do, let them live on the streets? I think that is beyond Swedish mentality. He has been forced into some “educational” programs from time to time. Long ago he also had some stray jobs… To be on welfare is a stressful and depressing situation also in Sweden.
4) English is a natural second language to many here in Sweden and I love English. I Have cultivated my elementary school English by reading hundreds of books by now, and when I write down thoughts I mostly use English.
Thanks for the compliment!
—
(I think I forgot to mention one thing in the last PM, here in Sweden people cannot get fired just like that, we have strong unions. To kick someone they will need a really good reason. This also goes for hiring people, they can’t just hire anyone they want, anyway they want. Everyone is supposed to have a chance on the available job.)
Cheers!”
http://nightman1.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/is-it-true-what-they-say-about-sweden/
Meanwhile, we’re throwing daggers at each other instead of focusing on what we should or could be getting for our tax dollars, Americans are such chumps.
i hate it when the general public has access to this type of information. they might actually begin to think and, as greg the social scientist knows, coherent thought leads to rational action which threatens the way things are
I wonder if the perception has changed much at all in the 7 years that have passed since the survey was done. Lots has happened economically in those 7 years. My gut tells me that the perception is likely closer to the “goal” but still very far away from the actual. The actual has probably shifted even more to the top also. With the housing drop, the middle class has seen their equity in real estate quite possibly disappear making them also more likely to have a negative net worth. The top has other assets that should be able to absorb a real estate drop. The lowest 20% may actually have fared better net worth speaking as they are less likely to own a home.
With almost 44% of the US having less than $5,400 of an emergency fund, it should not surprise anyone that the bottom two quintiles are non-viewablet on the chart, although a lot of the middle two classes and even up into the 3rd also will find themselves with no net worth at all. If someone has $100 of net worth, they are better off, net worth wise, than a lot of their fellow Americans.
The chart is based upon Net Worth by the way and not income. The two do not go hand in hand.
The question is, are we conditioning the poor to stay where they are in life and not move ahead? A friend and I were recently talking about this. He got laid off recently and his sister told him, “Oh, don’t worry about getting a job right now. Enjoy unemployment!” How many Americans feel that way today?
Some feel that way fleetingly. Long-term, not so much. The poor, who don’t usually have the luxury of expecting that a new job will be along soon, generally not at all. If anyone is being conditioned to expect to be bailed out, it’s the wealthy.
How about conditioned for apathy?
You don’t need to condition people for apathy.
You and Kim, two of my most congenial conservative friends, should talk to some poor people about their work prospects. Better yet, ask them about the prospects for their children, where it’s harder to feign stoic indifference.
Ah, I think you do.
Ask any college grad since 2002 about being conditioned for apathy and the raw deal they got.
Not as substantial a conversation as speaking with a family of 5 living on $22k a year, but when you hear about individuals with Master’s degrees accepting jobs as administrative assistants (a noble and necessary occupation, don’t get me wrong), it hits a similar chord.
I think that you’re conflating apathy and powerlessness. People may feel alienated and powerless, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t care about what is happening to them and others.
I should add in that my friend got a job today. Conditioned for apathy is accurate though.
I have to admit, Greg, that I laughed when I read that I should talk to some poor people about their job prospects. Talk to myself? 🙂 In all seriousness though, that happens with me more often than you care to know. It depends on the person and many factors. My comment would run pages.
I too had someone say a similar comment…although, they unbelievably said “I am enjoying FUNemployment”…yes- “funemployment”. Crazy- with that type of creativity they should be putting it to work. The longer someone is out of the workforce, the harder it is to get back in for a multitude of reasons.
I don’t believe that the majority of the working poor enjoy losing their employment, but there certainly are those who are in no hurry to get back. They are the minority though and unfortunately, they are often the last to get a job once they decide to commit to get one.
Poor is a state of mind. Broke is a temporary economic situation. You can be broke without being poor- it is a state of mind. Once you give into being poor, it is difficult to climb back out…sometimes even emotionally devastating.
This is exactly what’s wrong with this country. Instead of everyone being appalled and alarmed that 50% of the country is poor … POOR(!) there’s a discussion going on about whether or not people actually enjoy being unemployed.
Do you morons realize what a minimum wage worker gets in unemployment benefits? $40 fucking bucks a week! Whoo-hoo, let’s party, I’m living on $160 dollars a month, sweeet!
You need to pull your middle class heads out of your asses and realize unemployment can mean HUNGER and HOMELESSNESS!
It’s SCARY for most people and for those who are “enjoying” it, it’s probably because they haven’t had a decent vacation in years, because that’s another area America sucks in; vacation time.
And Boutwell, stop with the “poor is a state of mind” crap, poor is poor. It’s not about spending too much on kiddie parties and lattes, it means not making enough money to live on, it means a series of awful choices, like choosing between housing or transportation, heat or hunger.
“Poor is a state of mind.”
I’m guessing that’s a bullshit Dave Ramsey talking point.
Just another Christian teaching prosperity theology, albeit through the back door.
First anonster…if you are referring to me as a moron, I don’t appreciate it. I am respectful of you and would hope that you can be of me. These don’t have to be “either or” discussions…both can be legit on their own.
Those who are do enjoy unemployment are likely those who have saved up a bit, can take afford to take some time off, and likely feel that they have a legit chance of gaining employment when they get back in the game. They also likely have a 2nd wage earner in the family. This is from my experience.
Minimum wage employment can be devastating on its own, yet alone when someone goes on unemployment and is getting that much less. I don’t need a lecture on what it means to go on unemployment when someone is in that type of situation.
Nearly 50% of the country does not have enough liquid savings to weather any type of emergency…I think we already had a pretty good discussion on that, so to say that instead of having a discussion about that, we are talking about funemployment would not be correct- we are doing both. Do some who get fired/laid off enjoy it, yes. Is there a problem with people not having enough savings…absolutely!
Poor is poor. Broke is broke We can debate our definitiions of them, but that will not help those who are either. Whether you think you are or you are not, you are correct. Being broke sucks. Being broke and poor is even worse in my mind.
Anon, not sure if you are against Christians in general or maybe just the “prosperity theology”. I am sure that if you would go down to Civic Center tonight and ask the 150+ folks who show up for dinner served and funded by a local church if they are appreciative of the food that they are served (and their dogs too) by Christians, a lot of them financially successful, you would find that they are quite appreciative of the meal that they otherwise would not have.
Thank you for showing up with another classy reply. I appreciate your patience and hope to better emulate it.
I’m against prosperity theology and placing an inordinate focus on money in one’s life.
I am not necessarily familiar with prosperity theology (your use of it was the first I have ever heard it use), although I definitely agree that placing too much of a focus on money in one’s life is not healthy.
Sorry, but I think a discussion about the extreme wealth inequality in this country devolving into whether or not people enjoy being unemployed is moronic. Moronic and shocking.
I don’t think your comments (except for the “state of mind” thing) were moronic, but I do think that running with that thread was and is moronic.
This country is losing our middle class, we are fast becoming a two-tiered society; rich and poor, well really three-tiered; super-rich, rich and poor.
We should all be alarmed about this situation, not casting aspersions on other struggling Americans. Divide and conquer, pit workers against each other. Don’t have a pension or benefits, bitch and moan about those that do,characterize the poor as lazy and undeserving. Classic way to race to the bottom … moronic.
You did not say that the discussion was moronic, you called people morons. You are entitled to your opinion which is fine.
I am so sorry that your feelings were hurt and you were offended. I know that you are a brilliant person and were only accidentally drawn into a moronic conversation.
Oh and let me add the obvious; IMO.
For the record: Boutwell is no moron. Everyone please sign on to that.
I know of exactly one person, recently, who had a “funemployment” break. She’s a Republican.