The Super-Rich Are Out; The Uber-Rich Are In
The New York Times, which knows from the super-rich, is now declaring them over. Gone are the days of the super-rich! "For every investment banker whose pay has recovered to its prerecession levels, there are several who have lost their jobs – as well as many wealthy investors who have lost millions." So… yeah, no, not really. I think however they are missing the point in the data entirely! What is actually happening is the creation of a smaller, richer and far more exclusive uber-rich class.
One economist tells them: "the cutoff for the top one ten-thousandth of households is now… from $6 million to $8 million." Those are just your ordinary "meh, sorta rich." (In 2007, that little group made 6% of the country's income; and the top 1% made nearly a quarter of all U.S. income.)
But what we aren't getting in this account is the struggle for money that has taken place in the last four to six months in the stock market. The stock market, contrary to the media narrative for "jobs data causes market to fall" bullshit, is actually bobbing and weaving because people are desperately accumulating short term gains to climb out of the super-rich tank and into the uber-rich club. And the rest of us are trying to claw along with them for to stay in the "not homeless but rich compared to the actual homeless" camp.
so it works just like that saying about how boozing only kills off the weaker brain cells right?
The free market of… of…
*hic!
Could someone please clarify the gender of the "Once Rich" pictured?
Labradoodle.
That would be the once rich, now dead, forever a righteous bitch Leona Helmsley.
It's called a "Lynda Resnik"
Nothing like the face of Helmsley in the morning.
I can't wait to read what the the NY Times "Public Editor" will have to say about the referenced NY Times item building the case for how the end of wealth-building by the top 1% of earners is upon us. For one, the headline comes off as propaganda when you look at the statistics selected to support it. Second, Mr. John McAfee's situation is given as the single example of one sad case for the "super-rich" … his net worth reportedly down to $4M (was that fact checked?), and so much space used up for pictures of him in front of his house that he has elected to sell (no real reason given).
Perhaps this item will give comfort to both the owners of the factors of production and the poor or unemployed. The former can fire more people today– so that they might be able to keep more of their enterprise earned income and better compete with their neighbors, and the later can lay to rest their irrational fears and anger– knowing that only 2.5 million people in the U.S. are reportedly said to have (undefined) "investable assets" over $1 million. Did the writers mean $1M in a drawer, or spare cash to invest in addition to what they already have? Ridiculous.