I'm among the richest 0.35% of people in the world by income. Where do you rank?
Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)
The results will probably surprise you.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
There's a charity appeal beneath that which I don't vouch for one way or the other, just as a warning.
EDIT: in response to a fair point downthread, divide your total household income by your household size when you do this. So, if you make $20K, and your spouse makes $30K, and you have two kids, divide $50K by 4 for $12,500.
= new reply since forum marked as read
people like yourself seem happy to celebrate the destruction of the us working class.
"look happy peons, you have it better than poor Haitians!"
But not for long, eh? Main street where I live looks something like this:
Still, America's a wealthy nation and many of its people don't deserve to live in poverty.
Cut back the MIC.
(This image is every single countries' GDP vs the United States, if it isn't obvious.)
Send along our sincere apologies for offending them 
I merely allude to the fact that Americans are the most wealthy people on the planet, and here you come along whinging about bankers and the 1% (who are in reality, on the world scheme the top 0.0001%).
Oh, poor Americans, being fleeced by the top 1% of this country! Nevermind we, even our poorest, are in the top 0.1% of the world!
It's part of the TPP excuse tour
the results. But I think I've been pretty clear about "how much do you really need?"
I'd like to see a charitable donations including time donated test. I'd bet that even though the Kochs and Devos families have much more than I do - my husband and I are far "wealthier" than they are.
I think we are in the - There but for the grace of selecting the right womb, and the right set of life circumstances and opportunity go I. . . Wealth/Inome bracket.
AND, it's often left unsaid, our families should also accept lower and lower standards of living. 
It's a pretty simple fact; it doesn't have left- or right-wingedness to it.
Didn't you know? 
We should all feel grateful to that we are being exploited and robbed by the 1% because people in 3rd world countries are so much poorer than we are. 
This complacency will end up making it worse for ALL of us. The relatively wealthy 1st world workers AND the impoverished in the 3rd world as the race to the bottom continues.
B happened, and is worse than A.
Therefore A is justified.
This is the most blatantly fallacious form of the argument and is a hindsight version of the "not as bad as" argument that states past actions can legitimise current actions. The existence of a worse atrocity in the past, however, does not actually justify anything — it merely points out that there have been similar things in the past. People who use this as a justification may be well aware that it's logically fallacious, and use it purely as rhetoric, or as a distraction.
Holocaust deniers and apologists use this quite frequently: "the Holocaust was bad, but Stalin killed more" is technically true, but this ignores the Axis' willingness to encourage World War II and is irrelevant if discussing murders carried out under Hitler's regime. Similarly "Internet censorship in the US isn't as bad as internet censorship in China" is true, but not relevant to discussing the erosion of free speech in a country that holds free speech to be an important part of human rights. Good and evil may be on a sliding scale, but the baseline of what makes something wrong shouldn't be set at the worst possible atrocity!
It is also used occasionally as a particularly underhanded emotional appeal, in an attempt to guilt trip someone, in order to have them stop voicing a complaint. For example: 'Feminists of the past had it WAY harder than modern feminists, so modern feminists should shut up!!'
Wingnuts (Stuart Varney on Faux, specifically) use this "not as bad as" canard to denigrate America's poor, admonishing them if they have TVs and Refrigerators, as if an appliance is some indicator of great wealth. They figure "Weeeeeellll, if you can buy this TV, then why should my hard-earned tax dollars go to feed your nine crack babies???"
The real problem is that they can't eat healthy, can't afford to live in a safe area, often can't afford a roof, can't afford any substantial medical problems and have no prospects to better themselves.
It's cold comfort to tell them "well at least you aren't getting raped in a favela or eating beetles!"
What good does that do?
If that's the distinction they're making, they're outright lying... it isn't "sleight of hand".
They're taking every member of every household in the world and giving them one Xth of the household income for household size X.
Then why don't they ask you to take the income you report and divide by the number of people in your household?
On edit - Ok... I see the correction. 
to try to shame the poor or the economic left to stop arguing against the harmful policies that the right wing (and far too many "Democrats"
support.
Yet they don't even reach the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs every day, whereas some tribes in South America, Africa and elsewhere reach the highest level of self actualization. with their community
The discussion of what constitutes wealth as purely a monetary inference is illusionary and disingenuous.
That's exactly what it it. But we should feel grateful for the crumbs the global 1% throws us regardless.
compared to what many have around the world, you realize how wealthy this nation is.
Even the worst schools here have qualified teachers, multiple stocked classrooms, a cafeteria that serves food (albeit horrible quality), and bathrooms...with toilet paper. Electricity. Running water.
Fifty years ago, a child could get a good education if there was a school with good teachers, books, pencils and paper, and a chalkboard. I'm pushing sixty, and the most high tech item in my school was the overhead projector. 
And the sad thing is...you could still give a child a quality education with not much more than that if he feels safe, secure, and is well fed.
We could do a lot better.
