The Fortunate 400 and Challenging the Second Gilded Age

[marmar]

from OurFuture.org:




The Fortunate 400 and Challenging the Second Gilded Age
March 14th, 2008 - 10:30am ET


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fortunate 400 and the Second Gilded Age

A century ago, we were living in period of extreme inequality. They called it the Gilded Age as gold-leaf trimmed mansions rose over Newport, Rhode Island.

Newport’s premier annual social event of the period was a gala party thrown by patrician Caroline Astor known as “the 400” for its exclusive guest list. Wealthy families clamored to be invited to the Astor estate –and falling off the invitation list was tantamount to exile.

We are now deeply into our Second Gilded Age with our own exclusive 400 lists. There is the annual fall release of the Forbes 400, a ranking of individual wealth. The list is now exclusively billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.54 trillion.

Now we have the “Fortunate 400,” a U.S. Treasury department analysis of the country’s top 400 income earners. This report –which doesn’t name names –reveals that these 400 households together earned $85.6 billion in 2005, an average income of $213.9 million each. See www.inequality.org.

For perspective, in 1982 when Forbes first published its 400 list, it only took $91 million in wealth, not income, to be included. The Fortunate 400 took home a stunning 1.15 percent of all the income earned in the U.S. in 2005.

All this has inspired the formation of the Working Group on Extreme Inequality, a network of labor, business, religious and civic organizations that is focusing attention at the corrosive effects of such levels of concentrated wealth and power. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/fortunate-400-and-challenging-second-gilded-age

[AX10]

1. $91 million in 1982 is equal to $280 million today.

If you cannot live the life of luxury with $280 million, then you have real problems.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The 82 measure was total wealth.

"these 400 households together earned $85.6 billion in 2005, an average income of $213.9 million each."

That is annual income. Their annual income is almost equal to 82's total wealth.

[Bandit]

10. The difference is the 91 million was "net worth" the other is income

"net wrth" is not even mentioned any more..

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. so sad for these people

for they apparently aren't satisfied with what they have, which is the true definition of wealth.

[Hannah Bell]

3. more sad for us. their wealth = our poverty. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. and the dervishes in rags

bow to one another and call each other "king".

The key is to be contented and thankful for all that comes your way.

[Hannah Bell]

7. I don't mean to be rude, but

that's the stupidest thing I've heard today. Pseudo-spirituality.

I don't bow & say "Thank you" when Bush gives me a war for oil, I don't bow & say "Thank you" to thieves and liars. Nothing to do with whether I myself wear rags or silk.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. That is where you are coming from

and the other is where I am coming from. The good dervishes so described would smile at being called "pseudo-spitiualists". My belief system gives me peace and contentment. This does not mean that I think what is going on in the world is all wonderful and good. But having a perspective of detachment allows one to view things dispassionately. I observe from your posts that your perspective is very different. Perhaps what you treasure is, too. So I wish for you that you receive that which you treasure the most.

[Hannah Bell]

9. I wasn't talking about dervishes. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Then I am confused

because my post about dervishes was what you responded to.

[SpiralHawk]

6. Bottoming out on the J-curve of rising expectations