The wealthiest 1% close to becoming richer than the entire upper middle class (employment, minimum wage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the Soviet Union was in full swing, you had super wealthy people that were connected to the state and made their riches from political favors and contracts.
Meanwhile, everyone else became poorer because the wealthy and powerful controlled the Communist Government.
The same thing is repeating in the USA where the middle class is being killed while the wealthy connected get more richer.
Anytime you look at countries with a high concentration of wealth at the top never works out well.
Kingdoms and Castles used to dominate across the lands but the hoards were always attacking them so that model was done away with and replaced democracy.
Now we have come full circle again where Democracy has been replaced by Oligarch and Plutocracies.
Again, completely false.
70% of rich people lose their wealth by the third generation and 90% by the fourth.
Meanwhile, 80% of rich people are first generation rich and self made.
Ugh don't even get me started on land. I mean it's literally pieces of grass. I mean you have to have it to put your house on but not sure why it can cost as much as a few million..even a few hundred thousand is a lot.
It's called The Law of Supply & Demand.
Thanks to Liberals, we no longer teach economics in high schools, but do try to follow along.
Generally, things in short supply but with high demand fetch a very high price.
Land is in short supply and may be very desirable. The reason why the land is desirable is not necessarily relevant, but the fact that it is highly desirable is.
Land is incredibly expensive in the Mount Adams neighborhood where I live. Why? Because you can sit on your balcony in the morning drinking a cup of java and have a breath-taking spectacular view of the Ohio River, the Ohio River Valley and the Cincinnati Skyline.
People are willing to pay a lot of money for exactly that purpose. Not every property in Mount Adams has a spectacular view of the Ohio River, but it is an historic district; it has no crime; the values, morals and ethics of the people who live there would never tolerate crime and will always cooperate with police in criminal matters; there's convenient access to services and retail; convenient access to downtown; and convenient access to I-71, I-74, I-75 and I-275, plus convenient access to Kentucky.
Other areas may be desirable for other reasons. Some measure of privacy until you exit the subdivision; low crime rate; the morals, values and ethics of the people in the subdivision do not tolerate crime and will always cooperate with police on criminal matters; good to excellent schools; good to excellent access to services and retail; and good access to interstates or major thoroughfares. Additionally, there is the greatest likelihood that property values will increase over time, so that one can recover the cost of the home and perhaps a profit when they sell.
Property that is not desirable is unkempt; high crime; the people have no morals, values or ethics and tolerate crime when they're not actually engaging in crime and refuse to cooperate with the police; glorify drug use; glorify prostitution; glorify violence; have poor schools; limited or no access to services and retail (usually because of crime); and no potential for increasing value.
As a landlord, why should I accept $500/month when I have 50 people ready and willing to pay $700/month? Why should I accept $1,500/month when I have 50 people ready and willing to pay $2,200/month?
As a homeowner, why should I accept $100,000 when I have 10 people ready and willing to pay $200,00? Why should I accept $750,000 when I have 10 people ready and willing to pay $1 Million?
You can't tell me that if you put your home for sale for $250,000 that if 5 people offered you $400,000 you'd say "no" because you're either a fool or a liar.
Thanks to Liberals, we no longer teach economics in high schools, but do try to follow along.
Generally, things in short supply but with high demand fetch a very high price.
Land is in short supply and may be very desirable. The reason why the land is desirable is not necessarily relevant, but the fact that it is highly desirable is.
Land is incredibly expensive in the Mount Adams neighborhood where I live. Why? Because you can sit on your balcony in the morning drinking a cup of java and have a breath-taking spectacular view of the Ohio River, the Ohio River Valley and the Cincinnati Skyline.
People are willing to pay a lot of money for exactly that purpose. Not every property in Mount Adams has a spectacular view of the Ohio River, but it is an historic district; it has no crime; the values, morals and ethics of the people who live there would never tolerate crime and will always cooperate with police in criminal matters; there's convenient access to services and retail; convenient access to downtown; and convenient access to I-71, I-74, I-75 and I-275, plus convenient access to Kentucky.
Other areas may be desirable for other reasons. Some measure of privacy until you exit the subdivision; low crime rate; the morals, values and ethics of the people in the subdivision do not tolerate crime and will always cooperate with police on criminal matters; good to excellent schools; good to excellent access to services and retail; and good access to interstates or major thoroughfares. Additionally, there is the greatest likelihood that property values will increase over time, so that one can recover the cost of the home and perhaps a profit when they sell.
Property that is not desirable is unkempt; high crime; the people have no morals, values or ethics and tolerate crime when they're not actually engaging in crime and refuse to cooperate with the police; glorify drug use; glorify prostitution; glorify violence; have poor schools; limited or no access to services and retail (usually because of crime); and no potential for increasing value.
As a landlord, why should I accept $500/month when I have 50 people ready and willing to pay $700/month? Why should I accept $1,500/month when I have 50 people ready and willing to pay $2,200/month?
As a homeowner, why should I accept $100,000 when I have 10 people ready and willing to pay $200,00? Why should I accept $750,000 when I have 10 people ready and willing to pay $1 Million?
You can't tell me that if you put your home for sale for $250,000 that if 5 people offered you $400,000 you'd say "no" because you're either a fool or a liar.
Demand is affected by where capital chooses to invest (increase in population) and speculation to store value in some form of property. None of that is decided by labor or community forward business. The global markets impede freedom by rising the costs of public goods (housing, medical care , etc.) beyond average wages so that people must partake in the loan/credit market which then expands their costs requiring them to work for a steady revenue.
That steady revenue is derived not from community choice, but the work the markets/government deem efficient which inevitably is in a highly concentrated area of investment, which usually means higher prices.
Demand is affected by where capital chooses to invest (increase in population) and speculation to store value in some form of property. None of that is decided by labor or community forward business. The global markets impede freedom by rising the costs of public goods (housing, medical care , etc.) beyond average wages so that people must partake in the loan/credit market which then expands their costs requiring them to work for a steady revenue.
That steady revenue is derived not from community choice, but the work the markets/government deem efficient which inevitably is in a highly concentrated area of investment, which usually means higher prices.
Again, completely false.
Plenty of investments end up with zero demand. In fact, most investments fail.
"Millionaire" is a dime a dozen now. I work with a guy whose mom died a millionaire. She bought a house in Bergen Co NJ in the 1960s and lived there until she died. 900K ugly house in the right town. That and her checking account made her a millionaire. This is entirely different than the true elite. The guy I work with would be a millionaire now too if he didn't have 2 siblings.
The true elite are a mix of self made and not self made but at the true top, it is not even close to 88% self made. The true elite are the ones that buy congress to manipulate the market for them. True elite are a different breed.
"Millionaire" is a dime a dozen now. I work with a guy whose mom died a millionaire. She bought a house in Bergen Co NJ in the 1960s and lived there until she died. 900K ugly house in the right town. That and her checking account made her a millionaire. This is entirely different than the true elite. The guy I work with would be a millionaire now too if he didn't have 2 siblings.
The true elite are a mix of self made and not self made but at the true top, it is not even close to 88% self made. The true elite are the ones that buy congress to manipulate the market for them. True elite are a different breed.
1% is a misnomer. More like .01%
You are right, these days having a million dollars is just barely scraping into upper middle class.
So, where's the problem? They have enough money to support themselves without coveting and wishing to take others' wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.