RHU: WALMART HEIRS WORTH SAME AMOUNT AS BOTTOM 30 PERCENT OF AMERICANS

December 09, 2011

WALMART HEIRS WORTH SAME AMOUNT AS BOTTOM 30 PERCENT OF AMERICANS

From Huff Po:

The Occupy Wall Street movement has brought increased focus on the disparity between the top one percent of earners and everyone else in the United States. But one American family paints a particularly stark picture of the country's wealth gap.

The six children of Walmart's founders, Sam and James "Bud" Walton, had the same net worth in 2007 as the entire bottom 30 percent of American earners, according to an analysis from Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at University of California-Berkeley's Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics.

Though the 2007 figure is striking, the gap between the Walmart heirs and the rest of the country may get even bigger -- the Walton's combined fortune has grown by more than $20 billion, according to data compiled from the Forbes 400 this year.

Allegretto compared the Waltons' net worth in 2007,according to Forbes magazine, to the Federal Reserve's 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances.

The difference between the wealth of the Walmart heirs and the rest of the country epitomizes a much larger American story. The top one percent of American earners saw their incomes grow 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the bottom one-fifth experienced only 20 percent income growth during the same period.

Looking at it another way: The top 10 percent of U.S. earners control two-thirds of the country's wealth and the richest 400 Americans control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of Americans. The difference is so stark that the public opinion has turned against it: nearly three-quarters of respondents to a poll put out by The Hill said they think income inequality is a problem.

But the rise in income inequality isn't limited to America. In 17 out of 22 countries the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks, the wealth gap has grown more pronounced since 1985. In addition, theworld's millionaires control nearly 40 percent of global wealth, according to a Credit Suisse report cited by the Wall Street Journal.

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Share/Bookmark • Email this

Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f10a09888340162fd92a778970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 30 Percent Of Americans :

Comments

A friend of my family's son married one of Sam's granddaughters. I get irked hearing about all the glorious things they're doing, things they're investing in and people they're meeting when I spend every day worrying about how I'm going to pay rent and make sure my baby stays fed.

Posted by: KattyBitch | December 09, 2011 at 02:52 AM

Okay, I can understand that lots of people are struggling right now, but I have yet to comprehend what the so-called "99%ers" have against rich people. Yes I know, there are lots of rich people who have gained their wealth by exploiting others, but by and large, most wealthy people have worked hard and earned what they have.

The whole Occupy Wall Street movement has left a rather bad taste in my mouth because, while they did have some legitimate complaints, many of the protesters came off as entitled, whiny free-loaders who just didn't understand how the real world and basic economics actually work. In this case, Mr. Walton started a company that enjoyed enormous prosperity, and I see no problem with his family enjoying the wealth that that prosperity brought.

On a side note, for a movement that claimed to represent the average worker, they sure did a good job of disrupting average workers who were only doing their jobs, doing things like blocking traffic, vandalizing businesses, and driving away customers from wherever they decided to camp. Protesting corporate corruption in a company is one thing, but treating minimum wage employees in a company as corrupt themselves is quite another.

Posted by: Former Farmer | December 09, 2011 at 06:29 AM

You do NOT know that "by and large, most wealthy people have worked hard and earned what they have."

I don't believe that. That's a myth people try and tell you. But by that logic, it means that we're all simply lazy. I'm willing to put down every last dollar I have (and unfortunately, that's not a lot because my job won't give me health care and I have to pay for it myself, the people here on RHU work really hard to earn what they have. Many of my coworkers have more than two jobs.

Or do you disagree? Do you really think this system rewards hard work? Or maybe it's that money "works" harder?

Posted by: Hellbound Alleee | December 09, 2011 at 08:09 AM

The 99%ers are not against the rich. They are against the unchecked, unregulated greed, that puts money before people and is used to stomp on the common folk. Being rich isn't in itself bad, but the ones who do use greed to stomp on and screw everyone else is. Also the corporations that use money to buy themselves into politics to help them do so, basically buying legislation.

Posted by: Logan | December 09, 2011 at 08:29 AM

@Hellbound Alleee, i'm not quite sure what your point in regards to the healthcare is? Is there not a public healthcare system in America like in many other countries?

And I agree with Former Farmer in that those that have lots of money generally worked hard for what they have, thats not saying that those who don't didn't work hard, but different circumstances which enabled them to start their own successful business or climb the corporate ladder more so than others.

Posted by: jsw11984 | December 09, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Is it any coincidence that many of that bottom 30% work at hellmart? That is what defines the Occupy movement. The fact that instead of using the business profit to increase wages and offer better benefits to the workers, they have instead increased personal income and slashed benefits including health care, in order to put more of the profits into their own pockets.

Posted by: LadyBelle | December 09, 2011 at 10:43 AM

I'm not denying that there is large scale corruption in our system, but if we were to go about fixing it the way the 99%ers want to, it will only get worse.

From what I've seen, OWS wants some level of socialism implemented in America, believing that by putting everyone on equal ground, this will eliminate corruption. The problem is that, as Soviet Russia and every other socialist experiment has shown us in the past, socialist systems do not work.

First, socialist societies discourage hard work. Because the government takes the money you earn and then give you what it thinks you deserve, people are less willing to work hard because no matter how hard you pull, you're paycheck will always be the same.

Second, socialist societies discourage innovation. Any new idea immediately becomes the property of the government, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. If a person gets nothing in exchange for his idea, he has no reason to present it to anyone.

Third, socialist societies create enormous governments filled with intrusive bureaucracies that do little more than create more obstacles for companies' operations by implementing ever-more-restrictive regulations.

These are things that we here at RHU hate. When our bosses stiff us on our paychecks, we get mad because we are not properly rewarded for our efforts. When our coworkers are lazy and give us their work, we seethe and foam at the mouth at the unfairness of it. When our managers take credit for our ideas and efforts, we feel cheated, because we did all the work and received none of the rewards. And when we are subjugated to restrictive and asinine policies whose only purpose is to give some bureaucrat a pat on the back, we roll our eyes and grumble.

Based on what I've seen of the OWS, if they were to get their way, everything that we at RHU hate about our jobs will be codified into law. Hard work will never be rewarded, innovation will provide no opportunities, and there will be no means of advancing your position in life, other than kissing the ass of whichever bureaucrat is lording over you.

Posted by: Former Farmer | December 09, 2011 at 11:03 AM

@ Former Farmer: "Soviet Russia and every other socialist experiment?" Really? I think the Nordic countries would like to have a word with you. ;)

(Here's a hint: look up the Nordic model of government. Lovely mix of socialism and capitalism that's provedremarkably successful, both in social areas and economic areas.)

Posted by: Aether | December 09, 2011 at 01:10 PM

@ Aether: Pardon my lack of clarification. By "socialist experiment" I meant countries that worked under pure socialism, like WWII-era Italy or Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

You're right, the Nordic countries do have some nice things going for them, but they aren't running on pure socialism. They realize that people should be rewarded for their hard work, but at the same time, there are some things that private companies just can't run effectively.

There are definitely some aspects of socialism that would improve the US, but what the OWS wants isn't Nordic style governance. What they want is for the government to take control of anything and everything it can and then give them hand-outs because they "deserve" it. It's the same entitled welfare mentality that's plagued much of our country for years. Ironically, it's almost the exact same type corruption that sits at the top, the idea that the world owes them something, and they will swindle anyone they can to get another buck.

Posted by: Former Farmer | December 09, 2011 at 01:34 PM

@jsw11984 There is a form of government health care available to some. My kids are eligible. However for me to be able to receive it as an adult I would have to make less then $700 a month with a family of 5. That wouldn't even cover rent much less food on the table. So I slave away at hellmart and just hope to not get injured or ill while working.

Growing up I was without health insurance more often then not, so unless someone was near death, you just didn't go to the doctor. Also no dentist visits which means my teeth are crap now and would take much more money to fix. Luckily the kids can get twice a year cleanings and check ups, so they are all cavity free and healthy. Regular, preventative care can save money in the long run

Posted by: LadyBelle | December 09, 2011 at 06:11 PM

Edit to comment: If I got injured at work I realize there is workers comp insurance. I more meant not get ill or injured in general. Heck getting ill would get me fired since it would mean missing work.

Posted by: LadyBelle | December 09, 2011 at 06:16 PM

This seems quite relevant: http://xkcd.com/980/
(click for huge version)
Especially check out things in the "billions" section like US Household Income.. Crazy shit, yo.

Posted by: Opera House Whore | December 09, 2011 at 08:36 PM

They aren't wanting socialism or communism. That is something that get's said on faux news and then others quote it as though it were a fact. Whenever the OWS is mentioned, someone will say "socialism has never worked" and other arguments, that are based on the "fact" that they already have in their heads and refuse to let go. You can't base your argument starting from information that isn't true.

Posted by: Logan | December 10, 2011 at 07:21 AM

In other words bill o'reilly is not god, don't take his words as coming from above.

Posted by: Logan | December 10, 2011 at 07:23 AM

@ Logan: You know, I could just as easily throw an ad hominem attack at you and accuse you of just parroting the main stream media, but we aren't discussing the authenticity of news outlets here. I've done my research, looked through dozens of sources, and doing so has led me to believe what I stated above. In other words, Bill O'Reilly is no my god, and I never base my opinions on one single source.

Now, back to the topic at hand. If you have proof that the OWS supports something other than socialism, I'd love a link to the appropriate website. Until then, I'd appreciate if you kept the insults and attempts to put words in peoples' mouths to a minimum.

Posted by: Former Farmer | December 11, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I've been to organizing meetings for the occupy movement, and I think you've got them all wrong. What they want is an end to corruption. Corportations aren't people, and they shouldn't have free speech rights like people do. They shouldn't be able to buy a politician. Sure, I can vote for whoever the corporations put up for election, but my congressman isn't going to take my call. Not unless I can contribute substantially to his re-election campaign. No one really wants a handout, and I haven't heard anyone saying they do. We just want corporations out of government, so it can return to being of the people, for the people and by the people.

Posted by: Teresa | December 11, 2011 at 07:08 PM

"Now, back to the topic at hand. If you have proof that the OWS supports something other than socialism"

Actually since you make the claim that they want socialism, then it is up to you to show proof. Show your source where they say they want socialism. Show me one of their signs that says "socialism now!" You could just as easily make the claim that they want everyone to wear bananas on their heads and then claim that someone else has to prove that that isn't what they really want. Then you can accept the bananas on the head as a FACT and simply always run with "Well since they want everyone to wear bananas on their heads, They don't have a leg to stand on" even though that is not a fact.

Posted by: Logan | December 12, 2011 at 02:31 AM