Poll: What is the most overrated sport

[Speaker to Animals]

"Earners"

You are getting snowed.

[StCapps]

"Earners"

You are getting snowed.

It's by net worth, regardless of income, you can't fucking read. 71% couldn't stay in the top 400 over a 28 year period, only 29% were able to maintain a spot in the top 400, by net worth.

Again, net worth, not income, this is the Fortune 400, I say again, net worth. That's not even the top 0.1%, that's like the top 0.00001% or some shit, the wealthiest of the wealthy, still tons of turnover.

You are getting snowed, not me. I showed high levels of turnover both by income and net worth, therefore your claiming there would be a different result by not measuring by income, is a faulty assumption.

[Speaker to Animals]

When these kinds of publications snow you, they purposely limit it to earners and ignore the fact that the 0.1% do not typically earn incomes. The mags fixate on CEOs and such, some of whom actually make it to the 0.1% because they build huge corporations, but most of whom are in the top 10%, which does have a solid turnover.

As far as burnout within that elite class, the US is the top. That is really frightening when you think about it. It is pretty hard to fall out of the 0.1% in your lifetime in the US. Usually it probably just happens through disbursement via inheritance to multiple children over generations.

[StCapps]

When these kinds of publications snow you, they purposely limit it to earners and ignore the fact that the 0.1% do not typically earn incomes. The mags fixate on CEOs and such, some of whom actually make it to the 0.1% because they build huge corporations, but most of whom are in the top 10%, which does have a solid turnover.

NET WORTH FAGGOT, learn to read. Tons of turnover even at the very top, regardless of income. You thinking that this phenomenon is only reflected in income and that's hiding the lack of turnover at the top, is just completely false.

[Speaker to Animals]

You only showed nonsense data that limited it to earners. You'd really have to go and do research to even name many families in the top 0.1%. Aside for famous industrialists like Bill Gates, the press covers for them by keeping their names out of the public discourse.

[StCapps]

You only showed nonsense data that limited it to earners. You'd really have to go and do research to even name many families in the top 0.1%. Aside for famous industrialists like Bill Gates, these press covers for them by keeping their names out of the public discourse.

It's not by earnings, it's by net worth. I showed that this phenomenon isn't just with income, but net worth as well, your theory is wrong. I showed multiple different stats, some by income, others by net worth, you ignored net worth and pretended I only showed data based on income.

Just goes to prove, citations are irrelevant, you can show them data and they won't change their mind one fucking bit, they'll just keep repeating the bullshit they believed from the start, no matter if it's completely disproved by the data or not.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well turns out that the turnover rate from the bottom income quintile and top income quintle are about the same, most of those people in those quintiles don't stay there. So rejoice.

::citation needed::

1)
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legac ... eampdf.pdf

According to a 2012 Pew Economic Mobility Project study 43% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Similarly, 40% of children raised in the top quintile (top 20%) will remain there as adults.

That means over half of children born into the bottom quintile or top quintile don't remain there.



2)
https://www.cato.org/blog/high-turnover ... ricas-rich

According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.

Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.

What if we look at economic mobility in terms of accumulated wealth, instead of just annual income (the latter tends to fluctuate more)?

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirs lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

3)
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications ... not-so-bad





Most people in the top quintile don't stay there, and most people in the bottom quintile don't stay there. There is in fact tons of turnover in every income bracket.

Free market capitalism promotes more income mobility than any other economic system, so enough of the blaming FMC for the plight of the poor, many of whom don't remain poor for very long under FMC.

Enough of the myth that rich people always stay rich forever thanks to FMC. Much of the wealth of the richest families is usually gone within three generations. Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations, first generation starts from the bottom and rises to the top often founding a big business, second generation builds on the first generations wealth and takes over the family business that is responsible for generating the wealth, third generation pisses it all away not caring about the business and wanting to coast off what has already been accumulated, usually selling the business for a short term cash in that quickly dwindles, a very common dynamic.

You don't need the government to take their wealth in order to redistribute it, they'll give it back on their own eventually, just let the free market work it's magic.

Read your own post.

You got snowed by dishonest media propagandists. No big deal.

Earners means salaried, and nobody in the 0.1% earns a salary. It is a common tactic of misdirection in the financial media.

[StCapps]

You read the post, I included a data point based on net worth to show the phenomenon wasn't just about income, there is big turnover in capital too. You just can't fucking read.

Here it is again dumbass:

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirs lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

Would you like to keep pretending it's me who can't read instead of you? Or do you want to stop making yourself look like even more of a moron?

[Speaker to Animals]

You read the post, I included a data point based on net worth to show the phenomenon wasn't just about income, there is big turnover in capital too. You just can't fucking read.

Here it is again dumbass:

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirs lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

Would you like to keep pretending it's me who can't read instead of you? Or do you want to stop making yourself look like even more of a moron?

"and their heirs"

That is another tactic I already mentioned. When a hugely successful industrialist dies and his will divides the assets to four or five adult children, the family collectively might retain the wealth, but the stats only look at the families of the individual adult inheritors, which is obviously around 1/4 or lower, depending on the number of children.

That is not a burnout.

[StCapps]

You read the post, I included a data point based on net worth to show the phenomenon wasn't just about income, there is big turnover in capital too. You just can't fucking read.

Here it is again dumbass:

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirs lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

Would you like to keep pretending it's me who can't read instead of you? Or do you want to stop making yourself look like even more of a moron?

"and their heirs"

That is another tactic I already mentioned. When a hugely successful industrialist dies and his will divides the assets to four or five adult children, the family collectively might retain the wealth, but the stats only look at the families of the individual adult inheritors, which is obviously around 1/4 or lower, depending on the number of children.

That is not a burnout.

This why citing things on an internet forum is pointless. No one changes their mind, and they will reach for all kind of excuses to ignore data and stick to their confirmation bias. StA is the prime example. The heirs do not account for a 71% turnover rate at all, and StA is being a complete clown to suggest that is the case, with no data to back up that baseless assumption.

Citations don't change minds, they just result in cognitive dissonance out the whazoo from those who disagree.