The Wealthy?

They aren't who we are led to believe they are.  In other words, somebody is being deceitful or dishonest.  (Is that the same thing as "lying?")

I guess a couple of university professors (Washington Univ?) did a study of several decades of the "1%" in the US.  (Can I assume their findings are not distorted, that they aren't being "deceitful" or "dishonest?")  Over the lifetimes of Americans, fully 16% will find themselves at one time or another in the top 1% of income earners in the US.  Almost 2 in 5 will be in the top 5% at least once in their lives.  56% will be in the upper 10%.  More astounding to me is that just about 3/4 of all Americans will, at one time or another in their lifetimes, be in the upper 20% of income earners.

On the other hand, just over half of Americans will experience poverty- or near-poverty levels for at least one year in their lifetimes.

What this suggests is that the 1% and the 99% are fluid, not at all static.  People's economic/financial pictures seem to change a great deal.

I find it interesting, on a tangential note, that many people I talk to who criticize the big money bankers, CEOs, etc. earn (Yes, I did say "earn.") don't agree that, say, Don Worth of the Detroit Tigers be given the same money as Miguel Cabrera.  After all, what does production count?  What does what one really contributes have to do with anything?  Isn't Worth trying as hard as Cabrera?  Doesn't he practice as much? Doesn't he, too, have a role on the team--the key here being the word "team?"  He's likely just as nice a person, too.  So, shouldn't the two get the same money?  That would only be fair, wouldn't it?  Oh, no, not a one says that.  Why, then, should things be any different in the corporate world, with people running their own businesses, etc.?  Shouldn't people who are more productive--for whatever reasons--be rewarded with greater incomes?

(OK, yes in candor, I resented many other teachers who didn't assign essays, showed movies all of the time, never graded papers or took work home, etc. taking home the same money as I did.  In fact, I wonder why others, in the bargaining unit, who didn't have students, didn't have any of the classroom work, weren't responsible for 150 or 160 or 180 students a day, etc. received the same pay as I did.  I'm not saying anything about me here; rather, I'm saying it about others--and there were far more than one would imagine.)

I believe that, since 1962, the income gap between the very wealthy and the not-so-wealthy has increased, but at a rather paltry 2.2%.  (I think that comes from the CBO, but I'm not sure.  Regardless, I'm never certain if I'm supposed to believe CBO figures or not--they depend on who's making the argument on whatever issue!)  I've noted this before, but I think it's worth repeating.  I don't really care if some Hollywood-type, some hippy rock star, or some professional athlete is making millions of dollars.  I don't really care if the CEOs, bankers, etc. are making far more than I am.  (Now, school administrators, yes, I do resent that they make far more.)  I think it's ridiculous that professional athletes, TV so-called "stars" (so-called because what little television I watch, I am not at all impressed with acting abilities, not at all), gangsta rappers, etc. make millions and millions.  How stupid!  But I don't resent it, not at all.  As I have noted, I now have far more than I ever dreamed of growing up in the shadows of the Ford Rouge Plant.  Compared with what my parents were able to afford, I have them beaten by tons.  That doesn't mean I'm one of the "1%" or even 5% or 10%.  It just means I am comfortable and am adult enough to realize I can't have everything I want.  I'm not jealous of those wealthier than I am.  I'm not envious.  If they've earned their money--or someone thinks they've earned it, enough so that they are paid so--good for them.  Much of the squabble over "income inequality" isn't about anything but greed and not the greed of the wealthy.