User:Becritical/Sandbox/First

This version may have the missing sources

new
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/opinion/occupied-wall-street-seen-from-abroad.html

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/06/can-occupy-wall-street-spark-a-revolution?ref=opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/o/occupy_wall_street/index.html

visualeconomics.creditloan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OccupyWallStreet-Dan-110411-1.jpg

should be good http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/video/2011/nov/16/99-v-1-occupy-data-animation


 * This is filed under "news" and "world news," also referenced by, it is part of their general coverage of the Occupy movement

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57328622/a-populist-uprising-may-shape-2012/

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57328622/a-populist-uprising-may-shape-2012/ the 99% -- that is, the gap between the rich and poor........income inequality was a problem. What's more, 60% of respondents in a Washington Post-ABC poll said the federal government should act to close that gap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-occupation-doesnt-have-to-be-over/2011/11/18/gIQAasH5fN_story.html

“We are the 99%” was originally a reference to the concentration of personal wealth in the United States among the richest 1 percent of the population, but it is applicable to other countries, too.

The financial times:

"Today only the foolhardy would dismiss a movement reflecting the anger and frustration of ordinary citizens from all walks of life around the world … the fundamental call for a fairer distribution of wealth cannot be ignored." The American dream "has been shattered by a crisis brought about by financial excess and political cynicism. The consequence has been growing inequality, rising poverty and sacrifice by those least able to bear it – all of which are failing to deliver economic growth." It ends thus: "The cry for change is one that must be heeded." and

Source summary
Here is a source from The Guardian. It is linked from the main website, where is is under News --> World News --> Occupy movement as of Nov 21. It is by Simon Rogers, who in addition to working on the datablog is also a news editor on the Guardian. The only reason we would have to question this source is that it is called a "blog." I checked this source out on the RS noticeboard here, and I think editors agreed that although for opinion it would have to be cited inline, it is a reliable source for the economic statistics relevant to the "We are the 99%" slogan. The most negative comment noted that choice of statistics can be used to make a point, but that we face such problems with any news source. We cannot use raw data on Wikipedia unless it's specifically about the subject, and the Congressional Budget Office isn't going to oblige us by saying that their data support the "99%" slogan. Thus we have to use secondary sources to avoid OR. I suggest that this is a reliable source for the article.


 * This is filed under "news" and "world news," also referenced by, it is part of their general coverage of the Occupy movement

Text
The phrase "The 99%" is a political slogan of "Occupy" protesters. It was originally launched as a Tumbler blog page in late August of 2011 by an anonymous 28-year-old New York activist named "Chris." It refers to the vast concentration of wealth among the top 1% of income earners compared to the other 99 percent, and indicates that most people are paying the price for the mistakes of a tiny minority.

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, gains in income have been consintrated in the top 1% of the population, who have more than doubled their income over the last thirty years. The report was released just as concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement were beginning to enter the national political debate.

Public opinion: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Incomes:

In 2010, the average American income was $26,487, which in real terms was over $2000 less than in 2006. The income of the 24 million poorest households went down 10%, while the 400 wealthiest households went down 4%, which is $270.5 million lost for each household. During the Great Recession poverty has increased, but sales of luxury goods such as luxury cars have increased. Today, top executives are paid an average of $4.9 million each, and executives at the largest companies are paid XXXmoreXXX than 4 times what they were in the 1970s. During the same period, non-supervisory workers saw their pay decrease by over 10%.

Taxes:

Those whose incomes are $100,000 to $200,000 yearly pay up to 25% in taxes, but the tax returns of the 400 richest households show that they paid an average of 18.1% in 2008, lower than the 23% they paid in 2001

this is because: summary of financial wealth versus overall wealth

Wealth:

he richest 1% of Americans own a third of the wealth, and the top .01% of the population

checked to here

According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927. In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home) was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%. During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.