Owners Of Walmart Are Wealthier Than Bottom 40% Of The US - Polidicks

[quote=politifact]Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out. [highlight]First, what is wealth?[/highlight] In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note. It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth. In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession. From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey. [highlight]Where the Waltons fit in[/highlight] Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five: No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion That’s a grand total of $102.7 billion for the whole family. Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California-Berkeley, compared the Waltons’ cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Survey of Consumer Finances. (She used the Waltons’ wealth from 2010, which was valued at $89.5 billion.) Allegretto found that in 2007, the wealth held by the six Waltons was equal to that of the bottom 30.5 percent of families in the U.S. In 2010, the Waltons’ share equaled the entire bottom 41.5 percent of families. That 41.5 percent represents nearly 49 million families, notes Josh Bivens at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. While median family wealth fell by 38.8 percent, Bivens wrote, the wealth of the Walton family members rose from $73.3 billion in 2007 to $89.5 billion in 2010, or about 22 percent growth. [highlight]Other analysis[/highlight] At Forbes, source of the richest 400 list, Tim Worstall wrote a response to the Waltons wealth claim. He did not dispute the accuracy of the statistic but offered some broader perspective. "Wealth is always more unequally distributed than income," Worstall wrote. "By the way, it isn’t even true that all of those households with zero or negative wealth are what we would call poor, either. It’s entirely possible to have no net assets while having a good income, even a high income. All you need to have is debts higher than your assets: something that will almost certainly be true of anyone with student debt and fresh out of college, for example." He added: "If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25 percent of Americans." Bivens, for good measure, calculated the comparison of the Waltons vs. all Americans after removing households with a negative net worth -- those that drag down the overall average and make the Waltons’ advantage look greater. He found that the Walmart heirs’ $89.5 billion "is still equal to the combined net worth of the bottom 33.2 million families (about 28.2 percent of the total)." [highlight]Our ruling[/highlight] Sanders tweeted that "the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." The statistic correctly compares the combined net worth of the bottom 41.5 percent of American families with the six Walton family members. We think the additional points -- that many people with a negative net worth are not necessarily poor and that percentages about wealth distribution can be deceiving -- are important and interesting. Nevertheless, Sanders’ claim is solid. We rate it True.[/quote] [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/][source][/url] To be fair, they probably get most of the money that the bottom 40% of the US makes, anyway.

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;37061793]To be fair, they probably get most of the money that that the bottom 40% of the US makes, anyway.[/QUOTE] Talk about redistribution of wealth.

102.7 Billion USD? Are you fucking kidding me? I find that slightly absurd, to say the least.

wow who would have guessed that the owners of one of the largest stores if not the largest in the us has a lot of money

[QUOTE=DarkZero135;37061846]wow who would have guessed that the owners of one of the largest stores if not the largest in the us has a lot of money[/QUOTE] But more than nearly half of America's wealth being spread among six people is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=valkery;37061894]But more than nearly half of America's wealth being spread among six people is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Not really, it's to be expected that you have a minority with the most money in any society. It's been true for a very long time so why would it change now?

The claim is true, however it's based on net worth, and a lot of those Americans are deep in debt right now (negative net worth). It doesn't reflect their standard of living though, (which is what actually matters) since it doesn't take income into the equation.

Gotta love wealth disparity. At least the money they're sitting on (hording) is doing them good. Why the fuck don't we have a graduated tax that imposes a wealth cap of sorts?

[QUOTE=valkery;37061894]But more than nearly half of America's wealth being spread among six people is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] it's not half of america's wealth because that seems to imply it is half of the net wealth of every american citizen it is a fraction of america's total wealth, but it is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 40% of americans [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] i know i'm just stating the obvious here

Well this is pretty dumb

[QUOTE=zzzz;37062909]it's not half of america's wealth because that seems to imply it is half of the net wealth of every american citizen it is a fraction of america's total wealth, but it is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 40% of americans [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] i know i'm just stating the obvious here[/QUOTE] It isn't half of America's wealth. It is half of America ... 's wealth. Misleading I know.

[quote=The Article]First, what is wealth?[/quote] Baby don't rob me, don't rob me, no more. I don't like going into Walmart because the people and things I see in Walmart scare me. It's like Target on crack.

lol that's totally okay, get like 10 billion dollars in 3 years while people are having trouble getting enough food, that's not fucked up at all. Yes I guess they earned it, but jesus christ that is ridiculous, they are so rich one could argue they couldn't have possibly earned that much money.

[QUOTE=Clementine;37063010]lol that's totally okay, get like 10 billion dollars in 3 years while people are having trouble getting enough food, that's not fucked up at all. Yes I guess they earned it, but jesus christ that is ridiculous, they are so rich one could argue they couldn't have possibly earned that much money.[/QUOTE] if you have a problem with it dont go to walmart

[QUOTE=NightmareXx;37063025]if you have a problem with it dont go to walmart[/QUOTE] i don't, but that isn't the problem, its not walmart, its the fact that the rich get richer, and the poor just get fucking poorer. 10 billion dollars could literally go to help every poor family, but nope.

[QUOTE=NightmareXx;37063025]if you have a problem with it dont go to walmart[/QUOTE] This is really the worst answer when you take into account this type of wage disparity is not exclusive to Walmart. The culture of placing proportionally absurd wages upon managerial positions is prevalent in pretty much all facets of society, you cannot be a consumer capitalist without indirectly or directly assisting this trend to continue.

A couple of the Waltons live in the town where I go to college (and where Sam Walton himself graduated from) and they give a lot back to the community. I know that when his wife died in 2007, all of her billions were donated to charities.

I don't really mind that 6 people have more money than the bottom 40% of america, it's not surprising and at this stage in a developed economy, it's to be expected. There is an amount of redistribution of wealth here aswell, as it's not like they have 100 billion dollars in cash out in the garage, there'd be a few billion in assets; houses, stores, cars and such and the rest would be either in a bank account or in a market portfolio of some kind. In either case, it's not them who actually have the money, especially the latter and if the money was taken out of these circumstances, which as much as they could do, it's highly unlikely, liquidating all their assets would devalue the economy at the same time. However, what I do have a problem with is the monarchy-style ownership that's going on. It's the Walmart [I]family[/I] with all this wealth, so it often goes to people who did absolutely nothing to earn it, and may very well misuse or squander any wealth or power given to them. With that said, I'm glad philanthropy is so common in these situations.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37063085]This is really the worst answer when you take into account this type of wage disparity is not exclusive to Walmart. The culture of placing proportionally absurd wages upon managerial positions is prevalent in pretty much all facets of society, you cannot be a consumer capitalist without indirectly or directly assisting this trend to continue.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with wages or managerial positions at all though. It's about net worth. If all the combined assets of the Walton family were suddenly transferred to me for no reason at all, I would have a net worth of $102.7 billion, but zero wage, and I wouldn't be the CEO or manager of walmart, just the owner. Anyone that owns anything more than what the average family has is going to have a significantly larger net worth than the rest of us. So of course their net worth is going to be grossly bloated [i]they fucking own walmart[/i]. It's not like the Waltons just have $102.7 billion dollars in their back account doing nothing. It's just the value of their assets. They could have any amount in their pockets. [quote]"Wealth is always more unequally distributed than income," Worstall wrote. "By the way, it isn’t even true that all of those households with zero or negative wealth are what we would call poor, either. It’s entirely possible to have no net assets while having a good income, even a high income. All you need to have is debts higher than your assets: something that will almost certainly be true of anyone with student debt and fresh out of college, for example." He added: "If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25 percent of Americans."[/quote] This shouldn't surprise anyone.

[QUOTE=OvB;37063195]This has nothing to do with wages or managerial positions at all though. It's about net worth. ...[/QUOTE] Duly noted assessment, it is still telling of a disturbing wealth gap though.

[QUOTE=Coffee;37061911]Not really, it's to be expected that you have a minority with the most money in any society. It's been true for a very long time so why would it change now?[/QUOTE] That's not a good thing

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37061836]Talk about redistribution of wealth.[/QUOTE] In America we believe in wealth redistribution from bottom to top!

Don't worry, once gas prices reach the point where truck drivers don't make a profit anymore, they won't do it, and then Walmart is fucked, as are we all

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;37062700]Gotta love wealth disparity. At least the money they're sitting on (hording) is doing them good. Why the fuck don't we have a graduated tax that imposes a wealth cap of sorts?[/QUOTE] The Walton's [i]do[/i] do quite a bit of charity work. Spending loads of money won't necessarily be reflected in ones net worth. (Unless your habitual spending problems force you to sell off assets to pay debts) The reason their net worths are so bloated is simple - they own stakes in a massive company. It doesn't necessarily mean they hoard money and buy a new Ferrari every day.

They obviously worked harder than bottom 40% of Americans added up. [IMG]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/rolleyes.gif[/IMG] [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] And don't you fucking [I]dare[/I] leech on their success with taxes or anything. They made the money fairly and properly. They are the true Americans.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;37062700]Gotta love wealth disparity. At least the money they're sitting on (hording) is doing them good. Why the fuck don't we have a graduated tax that imposes a wealth cap of sorts?[/QUOTE] Because the people who make the laws are the people who would be affected by such a cap. They wouldn't make a bill that takes their money away.

[QUOTE=Coffee;37061911]Not really, it's to be expected that you have a minority with the most money in any society. It's been true for a very long time so why would it change now?[/QUOTE] It's not true for "any society". Scandinavia, continental Europe and Japan are varying levels of egalitarian.

On the other hand their concept of a store is what enabled the bottom 40% of the US to buy super-cheap products pretty much 24/7. They didn't get the money by STEALING it, people GAVE it to them. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37063604]They obviously worked harder than bottom 40% of Americans added up. [IMG]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/rolleyes.gif[/IMG] [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] And don't you fucking [I]dare[/I] leech on their success with taxes or anything. They made the money fairly and properly. They are the true Americans.[/QUOTE] Money is not representing "hardness of work", it is representing VALUE of work.

I would be totally fine with this if it wasn't possible to buy legislation.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37064026]On the other hand their concept of a store is what enabled the bottom 40% of the US to buy super-cheap products pretty much 24/7. They didn't get the money by STEALING it, people GAVE it to them. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] Money is not representing "hardness of work", it is representing VALUE of work.[/QUOTE] I am just going by the beloved phrase "hard working" people. "Not enough money? Work harder." Etc. Don't act like that isn't largely used.