Now you see, I was gonna answer but it's probably best now if you tell me the prerequisites for being in the 1%...

Just speaking on gross income alone, I think it's about 500,00/year.

Actually, forget that.

The "one percent" refers to the financial oligarchy within the United States of America whose self-expanding wealth is at the increasing expense of the millions of people who are precluded from such wealth.

I can tell you that you're not in the 1%, regardless of whether you agree with these protests or not.

That people are not disagreeing that the future of the world should be decided upon by a ruling elite based on their wealth is genuinely baffling to me, especially given that the kinds of people who are spouting such reactionary values aren't even part of that ruling elite.

I guess things will have to deteriorate even more before the middle classes of relative privilege become worried. (Their economic privilege means they are eternally doomed to political tail-ending; at best they'll "sympathise" with a movement while preaching reformism and "peaceful" methods, as if the ruling elite against whom protests take place just got there without strangling their way to power. Regardless, everything that happens henceforth will do so in spite of such apathy.)

Saying "occupy a fucking job" at this point in history is like telling a man who is walking across an entire desert in search of a lake to "drink some fucking water".

^^^ Well, I already put down a number before you said to "forget that", so...


But you can't just make a blanket statement that nobody on this board is of the 1%. Nor do I sympathize with the 99%. I was born and grew up middle class. But since then, I have been with my husband while he has increased his company over the years, and it wasn't always easy. But as it is now, I want for nothing. My kids want for nothing. We have houses, cars, boats, take expensive vacations and are taxed up the ass. If they want to tax us more, so be it. I wasn't born rich, things weren't always easy, but still, I do not stand with the protesters.

Income does not amount to actual wealth. The richer you are the more disposable income you have, but the less you're likely to spend it. That's reasonable.

Due to the demands of capitalism itself, an economic recession is likely to result in cuts in unemployment and disability benefits, etc. But if wages aren't increasing and jobs are being lost, how do you expect these already underprivileged people to make ends meet?

Meanwhile, profit is self-expanding. The wealth capitalists acquire is surplus wealth; i.e., beyond what they need for a comfortable living. It's quite obscene.

It isn't difficult to see how, when an economic crisis occurs - and each one is worse than the last because of the intrinsic nature of capitalism itself, as an economic system built on a growth rate that is unsustainable - the rich, in an effort to maintain their political stability, sap up the wealth and actually get richer; this would happen regardless of whether or not they wanted to because of the actual logic of capitalism.

It's not difficult to see how a dual-income household could earn $500,000 in a year in a particular area; but that doesn't mean that's surplus wealth - a lot of that will be spent on private debts such as mortages, career loans, credit, living costs, etc, etc. These upper-end middle-class jobs are in particular areas where the cost of living precludes even more people from living there.

It's that old adage, now that capitalism has developed enough of the wealth necessary for it to advance itself - but having now run its historical course - that there is enough money to go around, it just needs to be redistributed.

And not redistributed within the same economic system, because that would be absurd and unimaginable. Redistribution of wealth on fairer grounds than is currently in operation; seems reasonable enough, no?

Or do you agree with poverty and inequality?

And if you don't, do you agree they exist?

How else are the people who don't comprise the economic and therefore ruling elite going to wrest the power with which to change the system, other than, in the first instance, gathering en masse and organising themselves into a strategic force that can smash the social relations currently in place?

David Harvey, a Distinguished Professor at CUNY, provides reliably compelling analysis of these kinds of things.

It's wrong to approach these protests simply as wanting "a bigger piece of the pie". There are far deeper implications than the economic; they are political, historical, ecological, and so on.

I didn't make a blanket statement. I said "I very much doubt anyone on this board belongs to the 1%", a statement informed by the nine years I've been on this board. We're all middle- to working-class, as far as I know (which is why I said "I very much doubt").

Suit yourself.

Like I said: "I guess things will have to deteriorate even more before the middle classes of relative privilege become worried."

Sorry, that should read "middle classes whose relative privilege affords them a self-congratulatory apathy..."

Right, I understand what you're saying. Speaking only for myself, though, the more we make, the more we spend. We're real good at stimulating the economy. But that's just us.

And in my husband's business, as the middle class is becoming more and more non-existant, it does affect us more and more. A lot of the rich are holding onto their money anymore and over the years it's been primarily the middle class lining our pockets, but that's not happening as much anymore. So, even we've taken a hit.

Yes, I know poverty and inequality exist, that's life, and I am not saying I agree with it, but at the end of the day, what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine.

I never know what these kinds of phrases mean but I get a sense that they're equatable to "everything is fine so as long as it does not cease to be fine".

But I don't want to repeat myself. Like I said above...

Actually this was the line I was referring to when I said you made a blanket statement. Excuse me if I misunderstood, or misinterpreted it.

And I'm not saying that I am, just saying it doesn't take as much as people may think it does to qualify, that's all.

*waves to the IRS who are probably preparing an audit as I type...

In that case it was a specific presumption, not a general dismissal. I based it on your location and your general board activity; if you were one of the wealthiest people in New Jersey - beyond merely being "comfortably well-off" - I can't imagine you'd be spending much time on a message board. It's a pretty class-limited hobby, I think.

I don't know what you're actually trying to imply here. Is it that the "richest one percent of people in the US, who take in nearly a quarter of the country's yearly income* and who control around 40 per cent* of its overall wealth" do not, in fact, constitute one per cent?

That's quite the mathematical mind-fuck. It actually makes no sense to anyone who thinks about its contradictory implications for more than half a serious second.

* Twenty-five years ago, the richest one per cent took in 12 per cent of the country's yearly income and controlled 33 per cent of its wealth. The kind of concentration that has obviously occurred in the last quarter century cannot possibly happen without the other ninety-nine per cent seeing themselves controlling less and less of the wealth.

But apparently, this kind of growing inequality should be justified, by your logic, as "what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours": that is, what belongs to the rich should belong to the rich, and what belongs to the poor... ah, but the poor have nothing but their wage labour to sell. And to say, "well the rich make more money because they work more" is a load of tosh, considering the sole basis of capitalism is the employment of one class by another class (without that basis, capitalism ceases to exist); the employed class being the class whose productivity creates all of the surplus wealth that isn't given back to them, but is instead held onto and accumulated as self-expanding profit by the employing class.

Don't you see how that works?

Say Ronald McDonald sets up a new fast food restaurant with a $10,000 bank loan. He employs workers to make burgers and serve customers. After one year of business, after he has paid all of his staff and kept a little for himself, he has $1,000. He gives that to the bank. In ten years the loan is paid off (give or take, given interest rates). What happens after that? The staff are being paid the same - maybe their hourly wage will rise but not by much, not in proportion to living costs. So what happens? We have what's called surplus wealth. Ronald McDonald is getting fat on his self-expanding cash.

Rent goes up; that's okay, he can increase the price of his goods. But what happens if his staff, whose labour has been sold for less than it is worth - whose wealth they solely have created has not been given them - can no longer afford to buy his goods?

(Bear in mind that all other goods such as tills, counters, refridgerators, grills, etc., have in turn been made through human labour; these things aren't produced in thin air.)

So Ronald McDonald might "inject" his surplus wealth to fund a refurbishmen, get some new grills and technology etc., compete with that Burger King across the road. But what happens if the firms from which he buys such stock have gone down because they too weren't selling the goods they'd made, due the same problems as what Ronald McDonald was having?

You can't have capitalism without overproduction and surplus wealth, without inequality and the economic crises that heighten it; and it's not just economic inequality, it's not just the notion that "one guy has two cars and everyone else has one". All other inequalities stem from this; racial inequality, gender inequality, all kinds of irrational beliefs about how people make a living and so on form - oh, "she doesn't have a job therefore she must be lazy", even though she might have just been laid off because of the growing demands for the rich to retain their social positions through wealth. Just look at this very message board for some of the most reactionary, hateful, repugnant opinions you can find on the Internet; and I'm not even sure some of the people spouting it are aware of what they're saying. ("Hey, I'm all for equality! It's just that...." Uh oh. That's just the sort of "Who-me" liberalism that needs to be stamped out, physically if need be.)

Economic inequality is the basis of all other inequalities; it decides who has access to education and who doesn't, who and who does not have access to art, to medicine, to shelter and food... all of these things are rights, not privileges. Humans separated themselves from animals at the point at which they began to manipulate their habitat for their own survival, by providing their own means of essential sustenance. No other creature on earth can manufacture raw minerals into the magnificence of the Empire State Building, for instance.

And it's not that "the rich are evil" and that "the poor are good". It's not that at all; the rich retain their social positions because of the logic and demands of the system itself. That's why the social relations that stem from the economic base must be smashed, in order to build new ones.

^^^ That's a lot more than I intended to say in this thread.

I don't get how you couldn't be in the least interested how these things work and affect you, frankly. All I can say is, suit yourself. Cheers for reading.

To be a millionaire or multi-millionaire in NJ is not hard. There are many around, plenty. I was assuming that that made them part of the 1%. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. That's why I initially asked you what it took to qualify, b/c maybe I was off, or maybe it was more than simple gross income.

Yeah, I'm on a message board, true. But most of my posting time is from an office working for my husband. What is the way I should act? How do the rich act? My husband and I are not Wall Streeters, we're not white collar. I'm from Queens, NY, originally, I have a potty mouth, my mind is always in the gutter, and that's never gonna change. So, yeah, I'm comfortable being around here. But this is just mindless entertainment for me, to pass the time before the man comes to yell. lol How does what's in my bank account dictate what or where I should be posting? My husband is in trucking and construction... with businesses here in Jersey, all over the US. Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. So, let's assume your assumption was wrong about me, ok. Most days I have a mouth full of sand from being in a truck yard all day, I hang around truck drivers and construction workers all day, so yeah, I'm comfortable. That in no way means, I'm ignorant, stupid, or not being able to fit in with high society types when i have to. But that's not me..the real me. The way you guys see me post and talk, is the real me. Again, it is no reflection on my financial place in society. I do agree, I'm not the norm, though.

I already said that the way things are going and the way the middle class is becoming non-existant, it's affecting me, and of course I'm interested. We do a lot to help out anyone. I just can't relate to these OWS'ers out there and how many of them have no idea WHAT they are there for. That has been my biggest gripe. I've heard some interviewed that want to go back the barter system, or think credit should be altogether eliminated. That is just straight up ignorant and if that's who's out there, then yeah...they should just get a fucking job, like I said earlier. One thing is for sure, the more are out there, the more mexicans are happy to come work for me.

I've already answered this.

I didn't mean to offend you into a defensive life-story. I never said you were "ignorant" or "stupid". I said that if you were in the 1% you'd unlikely spend your days on the Gangster BB.Net; I mean in theory of course anyone can spend their time on message boards, from the homeless who'd spend their change in internet cafés to Bill Gates.

But I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I suggest it's a middle-class hobby that draws in a particular kind of demographic. There's nothing wrong with that, I was just explaining how I was able to go out on (not much of a) hunch and say you didn't belong to the upper 1% of American society.

That was the only assumption I made: that you don't belong to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Not much of this has anything worth responding to, though I will point out the problems of limiting oneself to the media's representation of Occupy. I realise it's convenient but it's not really conducive to actual analysis.

If the middle-class is "becoming non-existent", I'm very interested to hear what you think is replacing it. And if the answer is "nothing", then what social relations exist in its absence?

I really have nothing to add. I simply asked a question as to what you considered to be the 1%. Was pretty simple. Or so I thought.

And you didn't offend me. I don't get offended.

I repeat: If the middle-class is "becoming non-existent", I'm very interested to hear what you think is replacing it. And if the answer is "nothing", then what social relations exist in its absence?

The point isn't that there is a 1% of wealthiest people on earth. The point is that its income is a quarter of that of the national income and that it controls 40% of the national wealth.

That's the issue. There'll obviously be a "top one per cent" in everything. There'll a top one per cent of most active members on this board, for instance.

Which is why the issue isn't just an economic one, isn't just "they have more money than us".

Honestly I don't know what's replacing it. I'd have to answer with nothing, I guess. I think middle class is regressing into poverty level. Cost of living going up, wages staying the same. Every home has to have 2 incomes to make ends meet. Jobs diminishing as people are being replaced by robots, not being able to retire at 65 anymore. The opportunities that middle class once had to start their own business is not there anymore.
However, I do feel things will come around and turn around again. Just not anytime soon.

I think my main idea behind my point was that the majority of the 1% are not as rich as people think, but more that many of the 99% are sinking.

Ah, in that case, the middle-class isn't diminishing, it's just less wealthy.

We can't define classes by something in flux, such as income, but by the definite social relations that they are, i.e., their relation to the means of production.

I agree with what Carmela, says ! I also feel that 97% of these people have not a clue as to why they are there. But getting together and having company. The big shots of this stay in 5 star hotels and or either go home to soft beds.

Yes I also am sick and tired of the rich and famous, and me doing what I can to survive. I do not care what political party there is they all talk from two holes in their body.

Think alot of this SUCKS ! But that is just me.

By the way that Pepper Spray in Schools, and everyone waiting for it give what a Crock !