Showing posts with label coveting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coveting. Show all posts

Monday, August 12, 2019

Civilization Values, Part III: Property Ownership


This is part III of a series about the values necessary for civilization. Part I was about  life, and Part II was about truth. The values of honoring God, life, family, truth, and property are a brief summary of the Ten Commandments, but also followed by any other culture that could be called civilization. Respecting property ownership comes up in “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet.”

Much of the material in this series comes from the Spherical Model website, written mostly between 2008 and 2010, in the Civilized vs. Savage section. In the earlier posts I’ve also added a few current comments, before, after, or within.
image from here


For today, I’ll just point out that there’s a strong connection between valuing property rights and civilization. A type of government that takes away property rights, or devalues them, deciding how or whether a worker will be allowed to spend her earnings, taking away her property if the rulers decide they know better who deserves that money—such a government is not a path to civilization. Socialism, then, is de-civilizing. It leads southward on the sphere, toward tyranny, poverty, and savagery, rather than toward the goals of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Here’s what I wrote about respecting property ownership back in 2010.
___________________

Value Property Rights

“Thou shalt not steal” is another necessity of civilization. An economy can’t thrive without respect for individual property ownership. In a lecture I once heard by University of Houston economist Bart Smith, the surprising thing he said was, “the economy is successful where the people are good.”  He showed a number of examples. It’s one of those commonsense ideas that aren’t really so common.
The culture in Mexico, for example, periodically goes through a retrenchment where they say they are going to root out corruption. But the same people live in the culture; often the same people who took graft before hold similar positions of authority, so the same corruption quickly reappears.
People actually have to believe in being good, in choosing not to be corrupt because it is a matter of personal honor. And those who cannot acquiesce to the desire for honesty need to be removed from the civilized portion of society (the more widespread, the more difficult to isolate). Religion, caring about God’s will more than selfish will, gives a rationale for honesty that allows society to prosper, and is a basis for making the change that imposing written laws cannot do.
image from here
A few years ago my husband had a computer stolen from his car. He had a lunch meeting in a restaurant and didn’t want to deal with the computer backpack at his table, so he left it on the floor, under the back seat, unfortunately only partially hidden, and locked the door. Someone with a crowbar bashed the window, grabbed the computer, and took off. It was never recovered. That computer was the only place we had photos from the previous month, not yet printed out, including our first meeting with our future daughter-in-law and also a two-day teen camp for our homeschooling group. The pictures more than anything were a painful loss. We lost some business files, but fortunately our financial files weren’t on that computer, and many other things were either not a great loss or were replaceable. The window and the computer were insured, but not until after a $1000 deductible, at a time when we were attempting a small business and had very little income. It was financially very painful, and it was hurtful to feel that, even in a locked car, in a public parking lot, someone was savage enough to consider he had more right to our possessions than we did. When you’re going through life trying to think of society as civilized, it shocks the senses. You feel betrayed.
I’m sure our experience is so common that everyone reading this has either experienced similar theft or knows someone personally who has.
When our kids were younger, we lived in a semi-rural neighborhood near a relatively small metropolitan area (about 160,000). The kids came and went throughout the day. We locked the door when we left home, because we had grown up in bigger cities. But seldom would it have been necessary to lock the door to prevent theft. In the neighborhood where we live now, in a city of several million, we keep the front door locked, usually with a deadbolt and another key lock, even when we’re home. We have an alarm system, connected to a service that has more than once sent police officers to check out whether we were safe when the alarm went off accidentally. We carry the house key if we so much as leave for the park or the mailbox.
I should add that this is a relatively safe suburban family neighborhood. But the freedom we enjoyed in the safer rural place doesn’t exist here. We spend resources and effort on our safety that we wouldn’t have to spend if the place were so civilized that no one would dishonor themselves by taking what didn’t belong to them.
[Aside: It may be worth noting that, the more urban the area, the more crime you can expect. Urban settings in today’s world are nearly always less civilized than non-urban settings. Coincidentally, if you look at the political beliefs of the basic urban dweller, you can see that they prefer socialism and governmental control to freedom, possibly out of fear caused by the constant threat of chaos.]
It takes a truly uncivilized (savage) mind to assume you have a right to the belongings of someone else when you have neither worked for nor earned the belongings. That’s why “Thou shalt not covet” is also important. Wanting what your neighbor has is a big step downward from wanting something like your neighbor has, while rejoicing that he can enjoy it, and then setting as a goal earning something similar for yourself.
[Another aside: The lottery, and other forms of gambling, reinforce the idea that it’s a good thing to get something for nothing. The most likely to fall for this lie are the poor, who can least afford to lose the money they do get from their labors. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that gambling costs society about $2 in social programs (welfare, crime) for every dollar it brings in as supposed income for the state. The solution shouldn’t be “let’s have our own gambling so those dollars don’t leave the state”; it should be “let’s educate the people about gambling so their hard-earned dollars are put to good use in our society instead of draining out in wasted gambling elsewhere.”]
Coveting is placing your wants above the rights of your neighbor. Stealing doesn’t happen if you don’t covet first. Coveting is the thought, convincing yourself you are deserving and the neighbor isn’t; stealing is the act of taking because you have rationalized that you deserved it. In a civilized society, the urge to covet and steal are corrected at around age 2-3, and continue to be monitored by parents until a person reaches adulthood; only the uncivilized keep coveting and stealing into adulthood. If these relative few are held accountable—are removed from civilized society until and if their behavior is corrected—then society is safe from the decay. But if they’re not held accountable, if they are accepted and even sometimes considered clever, then the happy sense of living in civilization declines.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Socialism Is Selfish

Dennis Prager spoke at the University of Wyoming this past week, despite student protests. He spends 25 minutes addressing the protests; he had also had a protester on his radio program. The accusations were both absurd and unfounded. For example, he was accused of being anti-Semitic. Um, he’s Jewish, and has written books on Judaism and anti-Semitism.

screen shot from video

He gets to his topic, “Why Socialism Makes People Selfish,” at about 25 minutes into an hour-long speech plus Q&A. I did a transcript of that beginning 10-minute segment on the topic. He says things that I’ve said.

So, the topic was “Socialism Makes You Selfish.” I didn’t forget the title. According to all sorts of opinion polls, you, your generation—half of you believe in socialism and not capitalism. So, let me respond to a few things, the moral and the economic. I’ll just begin with the economic.
The only thing that has ever raised large numbers of people from abject poverty is capitalism. Nothing else in the history of humanity has raised large numbers of people from abject poverty. You would think that would matter to people who care about people living in abject poverty. But they don’t. That’s the interesting thing. People on the left care about equality, not prosperity.
It’s a different moral world. Just understand that. They live in a different moral world. And clarity is our best friend. They don’t care about lifting large numbers of people from abject poverty; they care about the inequality in the Western world.
But inequality only bothers people who are bothered by inequality. That’s a tautology, obviously. In other words, only if you resent the fact that some people make more than others do you resent inequality. Inequality doesn’t bother me.
Mr. Prager then tells a story about being raised middle middle class, related to cars. The man next door bought a Cadillac every year; he was clearly much richer than the Oldsmobile-buying Prager family. They were happy for Mr. Klein. His wealth in no way harmed them.

Then he gives other comparisons and finishes his first main point:

Shortstops make more than surgeons. Is that fair? No. In some utopian world it isn’t fair, because surgeons save more lives than shortstops. OK, that’s just a fact. But it doesn’t matter. In a free society shortstops will make more than teachers and surgeons and nurses, and all people doing sweet and good things. That’s just the way it is. And it’s OK. Why would it bother me? If they make their money legally and ethically, why do I care?
I don’t care. They care. Because they covet. They resent the fact that some people have more than others.
I’ve been pointing this out as well—it’s because they covet. I wrote about that here and here, and more recently here. Prager continues:

Capitalism, not socialism, has taken people out of poverty. Capitalism also has a lot of inequality, because all liberty will have inequality. If you develop an iPhone, you make a lot of money. That’s just the way it is. And everybody likes using some sort of smart phone. That’s good. It’s good for everybody.
Why does it hurt me if some guy has billions of dollars? It doesn’t hurt me in any way. It helps me, because I am more productive, thanks to what that person has developed.
Socialism spends the money that capitalism creates. That is what you need to understand. Socialism does not produce wealth. Only capitalism produces wealth.
And the only moral question is not, “Why is there poverty?” The only moral question is, “Why is there wealth?” Poverty is the norm. Wealth is the aberration. All of the world was impoverished. But capitalism saved them from it.
This is also something I’ve written about. The economic section of the Spherical Model defines wealth as the accumulation of the results of labor.” Why shouldn’t someone who labors and accumulates the results be able to choose how to spend it?

Then Mr. Prager begins his second main point, the other moral argument:

Socialism and all of the doctrines of the left make people, generally speaking, more selfish and in many other ways morally worse than they were before.
Let me give you the biggest single example. Let me read to you a statistic. Americans give more charity per capita per income than any other people in the world. OK? Let me read to you.
This is the Comparative Non-profit Sector Project at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society[i]. It compiled a ranking of private philanthropy in 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Based on giving alone, the United States comes first. Giving 1.85% of GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34%.
By the way, isn’t it interesting that the two most hated countries in the world are the two most generous countries in the world? Isn’t that fascinating? It shows you how sick anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are. I have that in my book… my book on anti-Semitism has a whole chapter on anti-Americanism.
Next, one fact stands out. This is Forbes, December 26, 2008. “Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving.” You hear that? The countries with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets produce cheaper people. Produce less generous human beings. I’ll explain why in a moment.
In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list. Sweden 18th. France 21st, Germany 32nd. Why? Here’s the answer. In American history—before socialism caught on—in American history, this was the belief: I have to first take care of me; then I have to take care of my family; then I have to take care of my community; and then I have to take care of my whole society. That was the belief.
Socialism kills all four. The state will take care of me; the state will take care of my family; the state will take care of my community; the state will take care of my society.
Which produces finer people? It’s so obvious that it is indeed a rhetorical question. If you think that you’re morally obligated to take care of people, you are a better person than the person who thinks, “The state will take care of my mom; why do I have to?” And that’s the way they think in much of Europe and in all of these other cradle-to-grave welfare places. Indeed, I don’t have to take care of me.
Today, a lot of your generation—indeed, I shouldn’t say your generation, ten years older than you—still live with their parents, playing video games in the basement. “Mom and Dad will take care of me, and if they don’t, the government will. The rich will take care of me.” And this is considered a moral idea. Well, it obviously isn’t.
There’s nothing more beautiful than taking care of yourself, and taking care of your family and community.
And a minute later he adds,

As government gets bigger, we get smaller.
He means small as in small-minded, small as opposed to great or generous.

There’s a lot we know about socialism. It has been tried elsewhere (like Denmark or Venezuela), so we can extrapolate the outcomes. We would be less well off by every measure: less freedom, less prosperity, less civilization.

Yet the pro-socialists are gaining purchase. Our next presidential race will probably include a Democrat who gladly proclaims he’s a socialist, along the lines of Bernie Sanders. They use the appeal of the argument, “It’s unfair that there’s inequality.” They promote coveting.

screen shot from here


This can be countered by education—although I don’t think we can expect our schools and universities to provide it, since they’ve been failing to teach principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization for many decades now. My Spherical Model project is an attempt to help educate.

But the trend must also must be countered with better morality—standing up for real morality, and calling out fake morality such as unfair income distribution. 

Better moral teachings are going to require adherence to the outcomes of the Ten Commandments, honoring God, life, family, truth, and property. That last one relates both to “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet”—both of which are sins socialism is based on.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is always moral. I wrote about that in a four-part piece called "Anything Evil about Capitalism?: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, in the first month of this blog, back in 2011. And I also wrote about it here and here.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Tax Talk

A few days ago, October 19, there was a debate, unrelated to a candidate campaign, between Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders on CNN. [Transcript here.]They had one a while back on Obamacare. This one was specifically about taxes, concurrent with a tax plan working through the legislative process right now.

screen shot from here
Ted Cruz started with this summary:

This debate is very, very simple. Bernie and the Democrats want every one of you watching today to pay more taxes. And Republicans want to lower the taxes for each and every person watching this debate.
Now, tonight I'm going to make a prediction. Bernie is going to suggest in just a few seconds that this is not really about you, this is about, "taxing the rich." That's what the Democrats always say. But here's what you need to know. Every time Bernie says the rich, what he means is taxpayers. And so if you pay taxes, he's talking about you.
And Bernie Sanders begins with, wouldn’t you know, coveting the rich and hating on those evil Koch brothers:

Let me make a prediction:
In two minutes, Senator Cruz is going to tell you that if we give tax breaks to the billionaires like George W. Bush did, like Ronald Reagan did, we're going to create zillions of jobs and you're all going to become very, very rich, that we have a trickle-down economic theory, tax breaks for the wealthiest people, the largest corporations, and, whoa, everything is good.
That is a totally fraudulent theory. Here is the reality of American society today. For 40 years, the middle class of this country, the great middle class has been shrinking. And what we have seen is a massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top 0.1 percent, trillions of dollars because of cooperate greed and an unfair tax system.
Now, the Trump Republican tax proposal that's before us today, this proposal is being pushed by Senator Cruz's campaign contributors, some of the wealthiest people in this country, by the Koch brothers, who are worth $90 billion. Why are they pushing this agenda? Because 80 percent of the tax breaks in this proposal will go to the top 1 percent.
In fact, 30 percent of the middle class will end up paying more in taxes. Forty percent of the tax benefits will go to the top 0.1 percent. This is massive tax breaks for the wealthy.
So it took one minute, just 163 words, to get to the Koch brothers, who are virtually never mentioned at Republican meetings (I attend many), or at tea party meetings (I attend even more of those), or on conservative radio, or in conservative articles. In fact, the first time I ever heard of them, it was in a left-wing pro-socialist article, claiming they had a stranglehold over all conservative thought—so I, a conservative thinker, looked them up just to know who they were. I wrote about them in May 2011.

There are, of course, exaggerations in Sanders’ prediction about what Cruz would claim: “zillions of jobs,” everybody becomes “very, very rich,” etc. So that even saying “more than zero jobs will be created” would sound like something to be flippantly dismissed. But I thought I’d look at some of the data. 

Sanders says the middle class has been shrinking for 40 years. Not sure that’s essential knowledge, but it seems measurable. So I looked it up. I think the data probably comes from a Pew Research Study

Screen shot from here


Today the middle class is about 49.9%. That means that’s the percentage earning a middle income. Pew Research defines that as “two-thirds to two times the national median income for your household size” or about $46,000 to $141,000 for a 4-person household. Roughly 29% make a lower-class income, which includes entry-level workers, full-time students, retirees—not simply full-time workers who can’t make ends meet, although they are among this level. Another 21% make upper incomes.

The change has been happening over 40 years. But Bernie would have you believe this is all bad news. There has been a slight growth in lower-income households: from 25.2% in 1971 to 29% in 2015, so, over about 4 ½ decades—coinciding, incidentally, with the “War on Poverty.” Hmm.

But, most of the dwindling middle class has come at the upper end: from 14% in 1971 to 21.1% in 2015. So the middle class lost 3.8% to the lower class, and 7.1% to the upper class. In other words, more people are moving up. That’s not a bad thing.

Here’s another detail: “Upper-class Americans have seen their incomes rise 47 percent, while lower-class families have gained only 28 percent.” This is not a bad thing either, if you realize the good stuff is happening to more people. Unless you’d rather see bad happen to everyone if good isn’t happening to you.

And here’s another thing to note: while lower income families aren’t gaining as fast as we’d like, it’s not mostly the same families staying in poverty over those decades. Mostly those are newcomers—new young adults, new students, new entry-level workers. Most of those people gain experience and move up.

But Bernie’s view is that those poor families are specific people losing out because specific rich people are getting their gains.

That’s what you call covetousness. And “Thou shalt not covet.”

If we needed to summarize the difference between Sander’s view and Cruz’s view, it would be that Sanders thinks it’s unfair for anyone to rise; anyone who succeeds should have their rise taken away and given to someone who didn’t rise. Regardless of difference in effort. Using the force of government.

There was a significant portion of the debate talking about Denmark. A man from Denmark posed a question:

And, you know, these are countries which—where the government spends—taxes and spends approximately twice the level of the United States. And while I am very sympathetic to many of your spending proposals, especially on the things you mention on early childhood and single-payer and the like, I also know that these are countries that heavily tax everybody, not just the rich people, middle classes. They have consumption taxes on everything of 20 percent.
So while I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying, my sense is still that you would like to spend as a Scandinavian but not tax as one, is that right?
Since Bernie talked about how we need “free” health care and “free” child care—that these are “rights” we are born with and therefore the government is obligated to provide—let’s look at the cost of “free.” I wrote about Denmark a while ago. [  2-11-2016   ] Using data that a young Danish writer offered, an ordinary working class Dane who makes $25,000 DKK a month (about $4,000, which would be $48,000/year) ends up with 9,848.71 DKK before he can start making choices about how to spend it. Here’s what I said:

That is 39.39% of your original. You have paid 60.61% of your income. If you were wealthier, you would add 15% [in taxes] earlier in the process. Not far off from what Bernie Sanders thinks those terrible rich people ought to be paying here. But note that in Denmark everybody pays, no matter how little they make.
Socialism isn’t about getting free stuff; it’s about spending 60% or more of your income on those “free” things, without market choice. Everyone pays it. There’s no getting away from it. If you’re healthy and would rather pay for minimal health care, so you can save up for a down payment on a house, you don’t get that choice. If you want faster internet or more media options than the single media company offers, you don’t get that choice.
But for all the lack of choice, you work until mid-July or later for the government and can only use what you make the rest of the year to support your food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment choices.
Meanwhile, the government is telling you how happy you must be, because of the good way the government takes care of you.
To translate the numbers in our US experience, a single person makes $48,000 a year, which feels pretty good just out of college. But the government takes $29,092.80, leaving you $18,907.20.

But your healthcare is minimal; isn’t that worth it? If you’re a young, healthy person, do you think $2,424.40 is a good deal for you? Let’s throw in child care—not quite free; the Dane says it’s about $300 a month, depending on region. So, let’s take away $3,600 from your $18,907.20, which leaves you $15,307.20 for your discretionary spending like food, housing, transportation, or travel.

Do you feel better, earning $44,000, but getting to spend only $15,307.20 the way you choose, in exchange for “free” stuff?

Bernie made the false claim that the average Dane has a better standard of living than the average American. But 70% of Americans, according to the data he used, are middle class or above, so they can buy a home, one or two cars, high-speed internet, a big screen TV, and save up for vacations, open their own businesses, prepare for their retirement, and in every other way “pursue happiness.”
Meanwhile, their Danish counterpart is less likely to own a home, more likely to live in an urban setting (in an apartment, without land), and more likely to work for the government (1 in 4).

Ted Cruz brought in statistics about socialized medicine in Denmark:

If you look at socialized medicine, there are waiting periods. There's rationing. The government says, if you're an elderly person and you need a hip replacement, it says, well, you may not get a hip replacement. We were talking about Denmark. The average wait time in 2014 for cataract surgery was 83 days...
And the average time in Denmark, which he brought up, for hip replacement was 55 days, 59 days for knee replacement.
The man asking the question believed these statistics were more negative than the reality. Anecdotally, he reported that his mother was treated for cancer within a couple of days of her diagnosis. However, I don’t know exactly where Cruz got his statistics, but he’s not haphazard about gathering and memorizing that kind of thing. My own familiarity with socialized medicine, Canada’s, involves a former neighbor’s father. He was told they couldn’t do anything to treat his cancer, and he should plan to die soon. He studied, changed his diet, and came to the US for some necessary care. No thanks to Canada’s socialized health care system, he lived six more important years while his grandchildren were growing.

The health care discussion was a side issue for this debate. But what it did was clarify the two vastly different philosophies on taxation. Despite some early dissembling, Bernie Sanders was really in favor of raising everyone’s taxes, significantly—up to Denmark’s levels, which are the highest in the world.

Bernie finally admitted that, but he believed promising all the free stuff would persuade voters:

If we can explain to people, yeah, you're going to be paying more in taxes, it's going to be a progressive tax system. The wealthy are going to pay their fair share, not the middle class, not the working class, but everybody will pay some more.
Cruz pointed out that admission moments later, and Bernie interrupted to tell him not to put words in his mouth. He forgot (or maybe didn’t pay enough attention to know) that Cruz remembers what he’s heard verbatim; it’s his superpower. And he’s better at math:

Bernie's tax plan cost over $13 trillion. That's what he's proposed raising in new taxes. And who pays for it? Well, the Democrats always talk about the millionaires and billionaires, but here's a simple fact. We could take every single person making $1 million a year or more and confiscate 100 percent of their income, everything they make, every penny, and it would raise about $1 trillion, about 8 percent of the cost of Bernie's tax plan.
That means if you want tax revenue, you don't get it from the millionaires and billionaires. You get it from the middle class. You get it from the working men and women in this country.
One of Cruz’s better points was that higher taxes slow growth, and lower taxes lead to more growth. Cruz had charts. Growth is important, because we’ll never get Congress to cut enough spending to cut the deficit. Here’s Cruz’s summary:

Obama versus Reagan, under Obama, median income increased 6 percent. Under Reagan, 17 percent. How about African-Americans? Under Obama, median income increased 8 percent. Under Reagan, 12 percent. How about women? Under Obama, median income increased 6 percent. Under Reagan, 25 percent. Young people, under Obama, 9 percent, under Reagan, 55 percent. Young women, under Obama, 8 percent, under Reagan, 73 percent. And, finally, the bottom 20 percent, those struggling, under Obama, 12 percent, under Reagan, 40 percent.

What I don’t know is whether the current tax plan is as good as we need it. But what I do know is that we Americans make better decisions about how to spend the money we earn than the government does.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Tops and Middles

New data map from here
I had a casual dinner conversation over the weekend in which the top 1% came up. I pointed out that two of my dinner companion’s brothers were in the top 1%. She protested. I couldn’t remember numbers, but I kind of insisted it was anyone making over about $250,000 a year. She insisted it was in the several millions. I knew I was closer (and her brothers probably fit into at least the top 2%). But I was second-guessing myself and came home to look up the numbers. I was much closer than she was.

The numbers I came up with are from 2012, which isn’t very satisfying, but there you go.* [I found the information here.] Anyway, I’ve listed the top 1% in each state, from least to most. I also wondered about median income (per household) by state and various questions about the relationship between the top and the middle.
So here’s the data, followed by a couple of comments. (Delta is the difference between the top 1% and the median family income. The ratio is the top 1% divided by the median family income for that state.)
           Top 1% $300,000 or under                  Median in state                              Delta             Ratio Top 1%/Median
1.      Idaho               $274,000         $45,489           $228,511         6.0
2.      Montana          $280,000         $45,076           $234,924         6.2
3.      Arkansas          $283,000         $40,112          $242,888         7.0
4.      New Mexico    $286,000         $42,558           $243,442         6.7
5.      Wyoming         $295,000         $54,901*        $240,099         5.4*
6.      Alabama          $299,000         $41,574           $257,426         7.2
7.      South Carolina $300,000         $43,107           $256,893         7.0 

           Above $300,000 up to $400,000           Median in state                              Delta             Ratio Top 1%/Median
8.      West Virginia  $304,000         $40,196             $263,804         7.6
9.      Indiana            $307,000         $46,974             $260,026         6.5
10.  Mississippi      $309,000         $37,095*            $271,905         8.3*
11.  Kentucky         $311,000         $41,724              $269,276         7.5
12.  Iowa                $316,000         $50,957               $265,043         6.2
13.  Maine              $322,000         $46,709              $275,291         6.9
14.  Nebraska         $329,000         $50,723              $278,277         6.5
15.  Wisconsin        $334,000         $51,059             $282,941         6.5
16.  Ohio                $334,000         $46,829              $287,171         7.1
17.  Oklahoma        $335,000         $44,312             $290,688         7.6
18.  Missouri           $335,000         $45,321             $289,679         7.4
19.  Louisiana         $335,000         $42,944             $292,056         7.8
20.  Hawaii             $337,000         $66,259*           $270,741         5.1
21.  Tennessee        $338,000         $42,764             $295,236         7.9
22.  North Carolina $338,000         $45,150             $292,850         7.5
23.  Arizona            $339,000         $47,826             $291,174         7.1
24.  Delaware         $339,000         $58,415             $280,585         5.8*
25.  Michigan         $340,000         $46,859             $293,141         7.3
26.  Nevada            $340,000         $49,760             $290,240         6.8
27.  Utah                 $340,000         $57,049            $282,951         6.0
28.  Oregon             $342,000         $49,161            $292,839         7.0
29.  Vermont          $349,000         $52,977             $296,023         6.6
30.  Kansas             $351,000         $50,241            $300,759         7.0
31.  South Dakota   $352,000         $48,362            $303,638         7.3
32.  Alaska             $354,000         $67,712*           $286,288         5.2
33.  Rhode Island   $359,000         $54,554             $304,446         6.6
34.  Georgia           $365,000         $47,209             $317,791         7.7
35.  Florida             $367,000         $45,040             $321,791         8.1*
36.  New Hampshire$375,000        $63,280*          $311,720         5.9
37.  Washington      $378,000         $57,573            $320,427         6.6
38.  Pennsylvania   $387,000         $51,223             $335,777         7.6
39.  Texas               $391,000         $50,740             $340,260         7.7 

            Above $400,000                                     Median in state              Delta             Ratio Top 1%/Median
40.  Colorado          $406,000         $56,765            $349,235         7.2
41.  California         $433,000         $58,328            $374,672         7.4
42.  Minnesota        $408,000         $58,906            $349,094         6.9
43.  Illinois             $413,000          $55,137            $357,863         7.5
44.  Virginia            $433,000         $61,741*          $371,259         7.0
45.  Maryland         $435,000         $71,122*           $363,878         6.1
46.  North Dakota   $455,000         $53,585             $401,415         8.5*
47.  New York        $511,000         $56,448             $454,552         9.1*
48.  Massachusetts  $499,000         $65,339*           $433,661         7.6
49.  New Jersey      $504,000         $69,667*           $434,333         7.2
50.  Connecticut     $642,000         $67,276*           $574,724         9.5*
51.  DC                   $688,000         $66,583*           $621,417       10.3*

 
I marked the median state level for top 1% (as many states below and above); it’s $340,000, which is the actual top1% for three states. The range of top 1%-ers goes from a low of $274,000 in Idaho, up to $688,000 in Washington, DC (not even a state, but an expensive US place to live).  

Doing some math fun, I notice that the range of 1%-ers from the lowest to median is only $66,000. The range from the median to the high is $348,000. So I wondered, where does $66,000 above the median land; I’m sure you were wondering that very thing. That’s $406,000, right where Colorado is. Forty states fit within this range. I’m thinking, then, that states that don’t fit within $66,000 of the median are outliers, exceptions. There are ten states plus DC in this group. California plus the DC to New York/Connecticut corridor, with North Dakota randomly tossed in.  

My chart also shows median income for all the states. I wanted to see if regular people have to make more in the same states as the top 1% need more income to reach their top status. There’s some correlation. Forty-five states have median household incomes under $60,000 a year. Those that don’t are all among the outliers requiring high incomes for their top 1%.  

There are a couple of lower outliers as well. Mississippi has the lowest median income, at $37,095, while it ranks tenth lowest for its 1%-ers; even with that low 1%-er ranking, the top earn 8.3 times what the median family earns.  

Wyoming has a midrange median family income of $54,901, while ranking fifth for its 1%-ers.  So cost of living is low, and it doesn’t take that much to get to the top. (Go into oil, except when it’s at $50 a barrel, like now.) And then you have a place like Hawaii, with a relatively low rank for 1%-ers, but a surprisingly high $66,259 for median family income—high cost of living, but not so much harder to reach the top.  

In general, it takes a lot of money to live in the coastal bastions of “progressivism.” And apparently a lot of people make good money in North Dakota as well—maybe because of the oil boom there. (Again, the data is from 2012—with boom underway and no oil price slump yet.) 

What the chart doesn’t tell us is what lifestyle looks like for the top 1% and the median family. I looked at the ratio to see how many years it would take a median family to earn what a top 1% family earns in a year. That tells us a little about disparity, but not everything.  

Look at my state of Texas. There’s opportunity to get into the top 1% (it’s within $66,000 of the median states’ top 1% range), but the standard of living for the median family in Texas is pretty good. It’s not an outlier with a 7.7 ratio, but it does seem to have a relatively high disparity, if you don’t know that a median family might be buying a house in the suburbs. In Connecticut, it takes the median family 9.5 years to make what the top 1% make in a year—and the cost of living (made worse by taxes) leaves the median family probably hopeless about home buying. 

As for the dinner conversation—I admit I was low-balling the estimate for top 1% earners. Mea culpa. But I was right in that the top 1% are pretty nearly regular people, probably living in nice suburban homes, maybe with some extra property. They could be business owners, or maybe professionals who’ve had time to build up their business over some decades. But they aren't what most of us think of as "filthy rich." They might have more freedom to travel and invest than many. But they’re not casually buying numerous mansions and yachts and private jets.  

If you think the top 1% are multi-millionaires (by income every year), then you’re mistaking them for the top .1% (1 per thousand) . Or maybe the top .01% (one per ten thousand). There aren’t that many of those, no matter how many you see in media. And even if you confiscate all the wealth from all those super-high earners, you don’t lift standard of living nearly as well as those people can by hiring and spending on their own. 

So, re-read the Ten Commandments, and notice that one about “Thou shalt not covet” (also here). Let go of class envy and the associated false misperceptions. And trust that there is enough abundance in the world and to spare for all who follow the principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.


* PS: This evening, while looking for something graphic to go with this post (which I used above), I find that CNN put out a story today with some updated data. I’m not going to redo my math, since that wasn’t my point. Suffice it to say, what growth there has been since 2012 has been top heavy. Where there was disparity, there’s now more. It’s more pronounced where “progressives” enact their policies.