Posted by GenoType on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:07 | #

The Upper Half of the Top 1%

Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate development involved with those industries, or government contracting. Some hard working and clever physicians and attorneys can acquire as much as $15M-$20M before retirement but they are rare. Those in the top 0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor as do most in the bottom 99.5%. They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. These opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.

If an American plutocracy controls government in the manner outlined by J Richards, then those who would blame government are either the unwitting dupes or witting advocates of plutocrats.  How <u>discombobulating</u> the idea and its moral implications must be!

Posted by GenoType on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:42 | #

The use of IQ to justify increasing economic disparities in the U.S., using college degrees as a proxy, has been falsified. 

Still, I would love to see a breakdown of majors for the top 20% of earners.  I have no doubt such a list would include many of the IT and engineering-types missing from the top 1%.  However, I strongly suspect that undergrad majors in government, business, and the humanities would be strongly over-represented in that distribution as well.

Due to years of propaganda there is a reflexive tendency on the part of Americans to dismiss the growing economic disparities between the top 1% and bottom 99% in the U.S. by attributing it to the growth in company size, technical complexity, and changes in the tax structure.  Friedman and Saks (2008), however, show that in the U.S. real executive pay grew very little between World War II and the mid-1970s despite large increases in firm size during that period.  As to complexity, the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution in France, Spain, and Japan was basically flat until quite recently.  Of note, too, is the fact that in 1981 Japan saw a reduction in top marginal income tax rates equivalent to the U.S.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:46 | #

I might comment (I saw the Murray article in last week’s WSJ, and agreed with most of it - though he failed to mention immigration, a huge lacuna on several levels in any discussion of working class breakdown; he can’t just focus on whites as though hermetically sealed from minorities, their costs and destructive influences).

But first a question re this (I have not read the link):

Those in the top 0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if retired.

Does this assertion mean what it seems to - that someone is in the top .5% if possessed of a net worth of >$1.8 mil (regardless of income)? And my real question, does that 1.8 number include primary home values? I ask because in some neighborhoods, like my parents’ in Newport, many people have homes valued at considerably more than a million, even though these people can hardly be considered ‘rich’.

What is the net worth of the American top 1%? I wonder if it’s really so high as to be a source of even populist outrage ... Perhaps these Occupy assholes should be complaining about the Top 1% of the Top 1%! There is a rather large difference between being worth 2 million and 200 million - let alone 2 billion!

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:14 | #

I have no doubt that Murray’s descriptive data will be first class.  It always is.  It is however not particularly new.  One facet or another of what Murray calls the New American Divide informs most WN discussion in the last 20 years.

It is in diagnosis and prescription that Murray is visibly failing.

though he failed to mention immigration, a huge lacuna on several levels in any discussion of working class breakdown; he can’t just focus on whites as though hermetically sealed from minorities, their costs and destructive influences).

He reportedly has actively discredited “immigration” as a possible cause.

Murray (an employee of Jewish operated AEI) has apparently failed to mention any factor that would point to The Other.  The effects of immigration, affirmative action, off-shoring and other economic constraints (frequently disguised as environmentalism) are set outside his domain of explanations. 

In my view this was entirely by design.  The nether-world that Murray creates is so bizarre that he can apparently claim the causes of the New American Divide can be cured if his “Fishtowners” will just again assemble in groups at specially designated locations to sing and chant the right magic phrases and listen to specially clothed persons deliver the right lectures.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:47 | #

The theory is crap - the richest people in most communities these says are drug dealers, most of whom are sub normal IQ but rule by violence.

The hardest working people I have seen are crack addicted prostitutes - who have to suck cock and fuck multiple times a day and night to support their habits.

They are out every day, in all weathers, having sex for money or because their pimps want the money from their trade. 

The theory is designed to place the high IQ Jews as the basis of civilisation - and so act as an apologist for Jewish over representation in economics, academia etc

The theory is based only on ‘legal’ proffessions - hence ignores the criminal sector entirely.

Ignoring the criminal sector means it ignores reality.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:49 | #

Following on from LJB - extermination of yardies, for example, would reap immediate benefits in the UK. So much so that the failure to do this is obvious that it must be deliberate and the social pathology that attends them must be a desired policy outcome for the elites.

Posted by anon on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:58 | #

The undergrad degree data don’t support Murray’s proposed explanation for the Great Divide. Undergrad science and engineering majors that might lead to advanced science degrees are grossly underrepresented in the 1% group. They are so underrepresented that this data alone falsifies Murray’s primary explanation.

Useful point. The only education that matters is that which leads to a place in the elite and once part of the elite education no longer matters as the game is rigged - and in reality the required educational route will be increasingly rigged also.

Posted by GenoType on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:16 | #

The only education that matters is that which leads to a place in the elite and once part of the elite education no longer matters as the game is rigged

The mendacious Soros media asset and feminist bitch “Yves Smith” (real name Susan Webber) of Naked Capitalism, took her Harvard B.A. in art history (talk about a no-talent kibitzer) prior to getting her Harvard MBA.  I believe she graduated ca 1980. When her wet finger in the wind told her to go there in the 1980s she migrated to Goldman Sachs and then onward to Jap investment banks.  As far I can tell she’s a child of a 20%‘er.  What we see in her is embedded structural incompetence.  An individual of this character is intrinsically unqualified to make even $10 of “capital” allocation decisions. Webber is probably a 20%‘er herself.  The 20% contains a large fraction of 1%‘er groupies.

Either way it undermines Murray’s updated fairy tale of 1%‘ers and 20%‘ers being composed of a group of misguided, but highly intelligent Horatio Algers.

Speaking of Ivy League influence peddling, a friend of mine writes that when he was school in the 1970s there was a clear expectation that undergrads heading to graduate school should go elsewhere.  At the time most universities wanted to avoid promoting an incestuous intellectual atmosphere.  But the Ivy League has done exactly that, and for the transparently obvious reason of promoting in-group cronyism and nepotism.  See the current composition and bios of SCOTUS for confirmation of this idea.

Posted by Robert Reis on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:25 | #

A youtube video worth downloading and passing on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfP0VpQMd8Y&feature=related

Posted by GenoType on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:35 | #

What is the net worth of the American top 1%? I wonder if it’s really so high as to be a source of even populist outrage ... Perhaps these Occupy assholes should be complaining about the Top 1% of the Top 1%! There is a rather large difference between being worth 2 million

Well, Leon, once again I’m shocked and surprised at you!  My maternal grandparents who lived on Miramar Avenue three/four stone throws from the old Folger Bros. homes on Channel Drive (I’m sure you visited “The Point” with a girl and watched the seals at various times back in the day) benefited from the IRS’ ”estate multiplier technique,” just as I’m quite certain your parents do.  The “technique” was made popular in Britain a century ago.  Without wasting my time describing how it works, which is something you already know about (if you are who you say) and others could Google if they’re interested, it is a system that allows the IRS to “value its wealthy citizens in the way that these citizens value their businesses.”  Heh, heh. 

(The valuation ain’t “upwards,” folks!)

————————-

For the rest of you:  In 2009, the median net worth of the top 10% of wealth in the United States was $1,569,000.  Half of the individuals in that group had nets below that amount, half had nets above that amount.  That means a $1,569,000 net was the cut-off for the top 5%.  In 2007 New York University Economics professor Edward N. Wolff placed the cut-off for the top 1% at $9 million.  In the same year the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances placed the cut-off at $8.2 million. 

People in this category are either “working” or retired.  The “working” wealthy receive active and passive incomes.  Passive incomes tend to be large and are taxed at substantially lower rates.  Passive income is the key to wealth accumulation.  The retired wealthy receive passive incomes, are busy spinning off assets to grown kiddies with huge egos, creating trusts and taking deferments and doing all sorts of other “creative,” but fully legal maneuvers to minimize tax liability in anticipation of their Final Day. 

So don’t be fooled by Leon’s web of bullshit intended to downplay the situation.  In the late ‘70s my maternal grandparent’s home was worth approximately $600,000.  They transferred over $5 million in assets to two of their three children.

In 2007 the cut-off for the top 1% was actually $8.2M-$9M.  Compared to that the value of the home is a mere distraction, unless the person was too stoopid to acquire “sound” financial advice (in which case he wouldn’t have made it to “there” in the first place!).

The author of the article I cited used IRS figures to minimize controversy.  He is, after all, an investment manager!

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:05 | #

The only education that matters is that which leads to a place in the elite and once part of the elite education no longer matters as the game is rigged - and in reality the required educational route will be increasingly rigged also.

Exactly.  Even Yale professors are now exposing their dirty little secrets.  While it can sometimes be difficult to get in to the Ivy League, once a student is in they are almost never flunked out.  Of course it’s not difficult for 0.5%‘ers to get in by the routes of “legacy” (i.e. the Bush Family) or “donation” (Jews and WASPs too numerous to count).

This kind of institutional corruption promotes general technical incompetence.  This is especially true when the “in-group” intentionally promotes down-education and active discrimination against dangerous domestic competitor groups.  Destroying these groups’ economic bases by means “off shore”, “free trade”, “immigration” and an expanding web of government regulation is an integral part of this elite ruling system.

Unfortunately the non-movement’s collective response has been to sit hunched over sobbing in their beer.

Posted by anon on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:16 | #

What we see in her is embedded structural incompetence

This kind of institutional corruption promotes general technical incompetence

Yup, and why a collapse in every area is pretty much guaranteed soon after they fully take over.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:38 | #

“Yup, and why a collapse in every area is pretty much guaranteed soon after they fully take over.”

“Collapse” for who?  Them or us? 

I think what we see emerging is a (barely) kinder, gentler version of Orwell’s three-tier state of Oceania.  In “1984” economic poverty and a general decay of overall society were consciously fostered by the elites to help sustain their grip on power.

“1%‘ers” = Inner Party.  A broadly Jewish inner party.

Murray’s “20%‘ers” = Outer Party.  It is this group that comprises corporate managers, academics, teachers and government bureaucrats.  And it is the group that is most rigorously policed by entities like the ADL & SPLC acting as a distributed “Thought Police”.  And they do so for the same reasons the Thought Police supervised the Outer Party so strictly.

80%‘ers = Proles.  In this group only those few individuals displaying leadership potential are marked down for removal from time to time.  (Chester Doles, Bill White, Matt Hale, Alex Curtis, Shaun Walker…).  In general the old geezers are left alone.  We can look at the overall results delivered by old geezer leadership to understand why they’re left to dodder about undisturbed.

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:53 | #

@XPWA Some good Yggdrasilian points there.

On leadership, I hope they are not all or the best generally, that the US has to offer. Not wanting to offer any disrespect to those men, some of whom are now serving some hard time for being targetted as nationalists rather than wrong doers, I can only think of one from that list, who appeared to have the capacity to make an excellent contribution to our plight and that is William White. I am not US based so perhaps I am being unfair and have misssed something regarding the others. In BW’s case I wonder what he will do now that he is no longer in jail. No doubt he has a hundred years probabtion, part of which requires…. I see that he writes for Carto’s ‘Barnes Review’ at present. What an excellent website Overthrow generally was to read and yet how sad to see him proceed down the costume politics route.

Posted by anon on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:00 | #

“Collapse” for who?  Them or us?

Both, although not neccessarily in the same way. They’re a parasite that feeds off the surplus produced by the host but
- the ability of the host to produce a surplus is a function of the host’s cohesion as a group
- their strategy for increasing their share of the surplus reduces the host’s cohesion.

Catch 22. They could bleed 10% off a high surplus population more or less indefinitely but they always want more and their methods of getting more reduce the host’s ability to produce a surplus so they end up getting a higher percentage of a declining surplus.

So it goes
- 10% from a surplus of 100
- 20% from a surplus of 90
- 30% from a surplus of 80
...
- 80% from 20
- 90% from 10
- 100% from 0
(except surplus is more logarithmic imo)

So definitely collapse for us, both in terms of quantity of surplus and our share. Collapse for them in terms of the quantity of surplus they get to use despite having a larger share of the total.

I think what we see emerging is a (barely) kinder, gentler version of Orwell’s three-tier state of Oceania.  In “1984” economic poverty and a general decay of overall society were consciously fostered by the elites to help sustain their grip on power.

Yes. I think that’s exactly where America is headed - Soviet Union II - however that will have side-effects globally as they’ll have greater control of a much weaker golem.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:58 | #

America is probably heading, without any appropriate policy corrections, for something akin to Brazil mark II - a tiny elite, mostly white but multicultural (if they have got enough green their in), within ‘gated communities’ and everyone else left to fend for themselves in an relentlessly deteriorating, brutal, but vibrantly ‘diverse’ social space.

But the decline might be very slow indeed, people muddle on through until its really too late, or maybe America becomes a post-European, post Western, multicultural polity and everything works out for the best (or at least is tolerable). It’s a possibility.

In many respects we are closer today to the questions of the 19th century than to the revolutionary history of the 20th. A wide variety of 19th-century phenomena are reappearing: vast zones of poverty, widening inequalities, politics dissolved into the ‘service of wealth’, (America - the best democracy money can buy), the nihilism of large sections of the young, the servility of much of the intelligentsia. A culture based around spectacle, where anything approaching an authentic individual and collective/social life has been almost eliminated.

Rio II on the Potomac?

Enjoy the fruits of a radical socio-political experiment in individual liberty as foundational mythology/premise. Hopefully Europe can still be saved from such vaulting ambition.

Posted by anon on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:59 | #

America is probably heading, without any appropriate policy corrections, for something akin to Brazil mark II

Not if they want to keep their golem. If they want to remain a military superpower on a Brazil II sized economy - like the Soviet Union was - it will have to be much more authoritarian. They won’t be able to support Guns *and* Butter like they could as recently as Reagan.

So either no superpower - and no golem - or Big Brother.

Posted by GenoType on Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:45 | #

From an article published nearly two years ago and cited by Kmac, Steve Sailer, & Chronicles:

“At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability). Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant’s admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it.

“Besides the bias against lower-class whites, the private colleges in the Espenshade/Radford study seem to display what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study’s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities—including community service activities, performing arts activities, and “cultural diversity” activities—conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant’s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here—every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.

“But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. “Being an officer or winning awards” for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, “has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.” Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”

(This discrimination against underclass whites is not only explicitly politically and economically driven, but structural as well.  For example, nobody is bothering to ask if the Espenshade and Radford study addressed underclass white children who have to work part time, or cannot participate in extracurricular activities due to the costs involved, or attend high schools that don’t offer these activities in the first place.  Underclass whites – Populist, Independent, Democrat, and Republican – needn’t bother to apply to the Ivy League.)

Posted by GenoType on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:46 | #

Response to Leon Haller:

Two of the reasons for the apparent monetary advantage

There is nothing apparent about the monetary advantage.  The advantage is clear.  At Harvard 25% of applicants with perfect SATs and 80% of all valedictorians are rejected, simply because there is no room for them all.  Applicants known as “legacies” receive preferences on a scale greater than blacks.  Espenshade suggests that the weight of being a “legacy” is significant, on the order of adding 160 SAT points to a candidate’s record (on a scale of 400-1600).  William Bowen of the Mellon Foundation found that being a legacy increased one’s chances of admission to a selective institution by 19.7 percentage points.  The children of alumni generally make up 10 to 25 percent of the student body at ivy league schools. The proportion varies little from year to year.

Ivy grads<u>do better</u>than non-Ivy students in the workplace, especially the most remunerative workplaces.

We’re finding that the loaded term “doing better” has less to do with IQ and hard work than it does with nepotism, cronyism, and for females, marrying up.

The status of the institution from which a student earns a degree influences his or her opportunities and this has a long-term effect.  If a working-class white student’s access to selective colleges is limited, then his access to the best jobs and to the social networks that have significant power in American politics and business is also limited.  Eliminating diversity and affirmative action in all its forms and implementing admission policies based solely on merit wouldn’t have but a short term effect on upward mobility for working-class whites, for the very reason you’ve cited, above.

Over time the “legacies” of alumni (jews and moneyed whites truckling for jews in their quest for EZ money) would retain and solidify their advantage.

For working-class whites a better – not perfect – solution is to tie financial aid to class, not race.

Posted by uh on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:07 | #

And some assholes around here are trying to accuse ME of being some kind of liberal or ‘plant’?!

http://www.millon.net/taxonomy/paranoid.htm

‘Paranoid’ is more than a dismissive epithet: it is a personality type. When the paranoiac gains control of an institution (ahem), the spirit of free inquiry evaporates, replaced by the leaden weight of their relentless suspicion.

Eerily, the descriptions match those traits of American women extensively catalogued by the manosphere, and evident to all from everyday interaction.

Posted by GenoType on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:03 | #

Haller,

I spotted your amusing, double-posted, off-topic comment attacking the “diversitarian” mentality, complete with ALL CAP “shouting.”  Thanks for re-posting those absurdities here.  You’ve been found elsewhere – The Economist, for example.  At Classical Values, of all places, you recommended violence and were made the subject of an article, “We get annoying comments.”  If your intent was to establish some form of “white nationalist” credibility, then you’ve failed miserably.  How stupid do you think we are?

You’ve missed what I was driving at

I’ve missed nothing.

I was not alleging that intra-white Ivy League university admissions are purely meritocraticMy point is that it was our own abilities that gained us admission.  In modern economies there is a positive correlation between wealth and IQ,

That is Murray’s contention and it was addressed at the top of this thread.  You missed it.

I’m not really too concerned with working class whites, anyway.

Really?  Gee, we didn’t know that!

Is aiding them a racialist objective?

It is my objective, not yours.

I’m concerned with the EGI of all whites.

Except when they are working-class whites.

I am a racialist, not some <u>prole</u> empowerment type.

As a gentile truckler for jews your racialism is delimited by the question, “Is it good for my pocketbook?” 

“Leon Haller” was the name of a former professor of economics at Stanford who passed in 2010.  Is that where your moniker was derived?

Posted by GenoType on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:16 | #

First, you might have the common decency to tell your comrade JRichards to stop trashing my posts, which he now odes even with those which have nothing to do with him

My decency is not in question here.  Your decency is.  You’ve failed to abide by Richards’ repeated request to address banker control of the money supply on the appropriate threads.  I suggest that you do so.