*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 19th, 2011 11:02am PST - promote requested by geo321.

Hey, @enoch.

Pretty good video--good enough to upvote.

Some loosely-backed claims there, but at least it's reasonably non-partisan.

It doesn't, however, answer it's main thematic question: "Is it really 99% versus 1%?"

>> ^rich_magnet:

Some loosely-backed claims there, but at least it's reasonably non-partisan.
It doesn't, however, answer it's main thematic question: "Is it really 99% versus 1%?"


I doubt it is necessarily 99% vs 1%. It's more likely 95% vs 5%...

What it certainly isn't is 51% vs 49%...it's a huge difference no matter who's numbers you use.

Kinda like the estimates of the Vietnam war being from 2 million Vietnamese to 4 million dead. Will anyone argue that 2 million is negligible?...in any direction?

It's closer to 99.99% to 00.01%.

And the wealth seems to be flowing in one direction.

>> ^rougy:

It's closer to 99.99% to 00.01%.
And the wealth seems to be flowing in one direction.


Look I'm trying to rid the country of it's rich ass popstars and rappers...would you kindly fall in line!

And, as we know, the top 0.01% make their wealth dealing in weapons, arms and profiting off of WAR.

Really casts a strong picture of what this society truly values.

If you could stop working right now and still live in the lap of luxury with no chance of going bankrupt from a downturn in the economy or surprise medical bills, then you are in the 1%.

Sure that exact percentage may be an approximation, but the point should not be lost in the numbers. There are people out there controlling our government and financial structures who work only to pull money towards themselves without any ethical boundaries. I'm not talking about Bill Gates or anybody else who struck it rich by making the right product at the right time. I'm talking about the inbred financial aristocracy who run the banks and produce the politicians. Everything they do, even when they donate thousands of dollars to charity, is calculated to bring more income. They push all the laws to favor them just a little bit (if not a lot, like the Bush tax cuts). They're running the country like a casino. The house always wins over time. That's how they see income increase year by year while average wages stagnate. That's how they get hurt less by economic downturns. That's how they recover faster when the economy stabilizes.

I'm sorry, but this video does a piss poor job of explaining how we got to the economic situation that we are in and where it is going. The income gap is real, it's getting bigger, and it is turning more and more of us into wage slaves. For the vast majority of us, we are just a few bad days away from bankruptcy. All you have to do is imagine yourself getting laid off, then getting sick with something serious, then having your "health provider" find a reason to cut off your support. You won't be able to find a new source of income while sick, and you won't be able to pay off your medical bills while unemployed.

That's my definition of the 99%, even if it is technically the 95% or the 99.9%.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by geo321.

I would caution against tossing Bill Gates with this pejorative 1% crowd. The guy has a huge charity foundation with his wife and that's pretty much all they do now. They donate billions of their own money all the time.

I find it strange how they compare those that make $100,000-200,000 against the 400 richest.
In my opinion, that totally slants the figures because the majority doesn't make between 100,000 - 200,000.

I'm considered to make a (moderately) decent wage, (between $30,000-36,000.) And when you throw a mortgage on that, I'm basically broke most of the time. The bank owns the majority of my house, so I still have no wealth stored up in my home. Food on the table is slim, and clothes are second hand.

I have trouble believing that these numbers significantly represent the average home as there is still a major percentage of the population that makes less than I do.

This video needs to add that third tear of the population that make closer to the $25-50,000 mark.

I understand that they are saying that those that are earning 100,000 - 200,000 are not the issue in the 1% Vs. 99% debate. Kudos to those able to earn that wage, that's great, I agree with that premise. But, to raise the bar and use those stats, assumes that the majority of the population is in this bracket which is the false premise because we all know that's not the fact. In their equations, those making under 100,000 and even more so, those under 50,000 are being excluded from those figures entirely. Face it, this (under 50-100.000), bracket is the majority and needs fair mention in these assumptions.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*politics
*equality
*education

Adding video to channels (Education, Equality, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

This post has been removed from the Education channel by channel owner Sagemind. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.