Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (301649)	8/29/2006 2:14:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575980

Your post was pretty much a non-sequitur. We were talking about the top one percent (not just billionaires) and really more generally about social mobility. And the turnover was not described as a normal annual event for any of the social classes. I provided a lot more information in my post to John, that I linked to in a reply to you, but apparently you had a problem understanding it. Let me break down one important sentence for you. "According to the tax data, 85.8 percent of filers in the bottom quintile in 1979 had exited this quintile by 1988. The corresponding mobility rates were 71 percent for the second lowest quintile, 67 percent for the middle quintile, 62.5 percent for the fourth quintile, and 35.3 percent for the top quintile." In other words 85.8% of people that where in the poorest 20%, where no longer in the poorest 20% 9 years later and over a third that where in the richest 20% dropped out of that group within 9 years. hat might not be "an annual turnover of billionaires", but its significant social mobility, and underscores that when you compare the wealth of the poorest and the richest over time, you have to consider how neither the group that was the poorest, nor the group that was the richest, is the same group. The poorest group often contains a lot of recent immigrants. If immigration from poor countries (particularly Mexico) increases than the levels of income and wealth for the poorest 20% of people in the US can go down, even if the individuals in both the old 20% and the new 20% have largely either stayed at about the same level or gotten wealthier. Give it a rest........we know a straw man or a comedy act when we see it! Apparently so. Your argument about the turnover of billionaires was a good example of a strawman.