{"id":25725,"date":"2014-05-13T07:14:15","date_gmt":"2014-05-13T12:14:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=25725"},"modified":"2014-05-13T07:14:15","modified_gmt":"2014-05-13T12:14:15","slug":"the-global-1-includes-almost-all-north-americans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2014\/05\/13\/the-global-1-includes-almost-all-north-americans\/","title":{"rendered":"The global 1% includes almost all North Americans"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peter Jaworski<\/a> explains that as with so many other issues, where you sit on the issue of economic inequality determines what you see:<\/p>\n

When people talk about the “1%”, I think they think that they are talking about a specific group of individuals, who have been and remain in that category over time.<\/p>\n

When they say “We are the 99%” I think they think that that’s a static category, designating a group of people who persist as members over their lifetime.<\/p>\n

Would people be so upset if it turned out that the individuals who made up the 1% were different people over time? That those who are in the 1% spend most of their lives in the 99%, and will go back to being 99%ers after a few years of being 1%ers?<\/p>\n

I’m not sure. I am sure that if those categories represented a permanent group of specific individuals, we would be justified in lamenting the state of the economy.<\/p>\n

But at any rate, if you’re someone who worries a great deal about the 1 and 99 %ers, would you be as worried if the following were true?:<\/p>\n

Suppose just over one-in-ten (or 12%) would be in the 1% for at least a year of their lives.
\nSuppose further, to expand our view a bit, that just over one-in-three (or 39%) would hit top 5%, just over one-in-two (or 56%) would hit top 10%, and two-in-three (or 73%) would hit top 20%, each for at least a year of their lives.<\/p>\n

And now suppose that less than one-in-150 (or a mere 0.6%) remained in the top 1% for 10 consecutive years.<\/p>\n

If all of that were true — if the income distribution were that fluid — would you still be so upset?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All of that isn’t a hypothetical: “it’s a description of the income distribution over time in the U.S.” (and Canadians are probably similarly distributed).<\/p>\n

For people in India, I bet they think the heated discussion about top 1%ers and 99%ers in Canada and the U.S. is a great big joke. The very same kind of joke that we would laugh about if the Tremblays in the Westmount area of Montreal were to bitterly complain about the Jones’ living in the Bridal Path area of Toronto. Sure, the Tremblays with their average $8 million net worth have half what the Jones’ and their $16 million net worth have, but it would take a comic to suggest we should lament and despair about the Tremblays’ attempts to keep up with the Jones’.<\/p>\n

But it’s not a joke. Or, maybe, the people who occupied Bay Street and Wall Street didn’t get it.<\/p>\n

Us Canadian 99%ers are not just rich, which we are. By global standards, we’re filthy, stinking rich. It takes roughly an annual net income of $41,600 to be in the global 1%.<\/p>\n

If that’s you, then take a deep breath, find a mirror, and repeat these words, “I am the 1%.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Peter Jaworski explains that as with so many other issues, where you sit on the issue of economic inequality determines what you see: When people talk about the “1%”, I think they think that they are talking about a specific group of individuals, who have been and remain in that category over time. When they […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,13],"tags":[91,315],"class_list":["post-25725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-usa","tag-poverty","tag-wealth"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-6GV","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25725","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25725"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25725\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25726,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25725\/revisions\/25726"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}