Where the top of the 1 percent lives (hint: not mostly NYC)
“Based on Where the Top 1 Percent Lives, the Occupy Crowd Should Be Protesting Against Big Government.”
So says Cato’s Dan Mitchell, who takes an MSN Money report on the 15 U.S. counties (the highest one-half of 1 percent) with the highest per capita income and creates this map:
Map of wealthy counties near D.C. (source: International Liberty blog by Dan Mitchell)
The stars, as you may have guessed, represent counties in the top 15. You’ll notice there are 10 such stars — meaning two-thirds of America’s very richest counties are suburbs of the nation’s capital. That includes the three highest-earning counties and four of the top five. By comparison, suburbs of New York City account for only four of the top 15. (The 15th is just south of Denver.)
Here’s a sampling of what the MSN report had to say about some of these counties:
15. Charles County, Md.: “The first of five Maryland counties to make our list, Charles’ population grew 21.6 percent in the first decade of the 21st century.” (From Kyle: Hmm…21.6 percent growth during a decade when federal spending almost doubled.)
No. 14 St. Mary’s County, Md.: “The median household income in St. Mary’s skyrocketed from about $72,000 in 2009 to more than $88,000 in 2010, the biggest percentage increase (roughly 22 percent) on our richest-counties list.” (From Kyle: Federal spending increased by 16 percent between fiscal 2008, which included the beginning of calendar 2009, and fiscal 2010, which included the end of calendar 2010.)
No.2 Fairfax County, Va.: “Langley (headquarters of the CIA) is within the county, so government employees must be making a decent amount of money these days. Also, the unemployment rate in the county has been astoundingly low historically, hitting 1.4% in 1999, when the national rate was 4.3%.” (From Kyle: Nuff said.)
While there has been a spate of reports about the relatively higher pay among federal employees compared to their private-sector peers, that factor alone cannot account for this concentration of wealth. Clearly, the rent-seeking business is booming like never before.
Both factors owe directly to the growth in federal government. Which gets back to Mitchell’s original point.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
133 comments Add your comment
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
6:03 pm
Breaking News Kyle–
“The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package continues to have a significant effect…The bill raised fourth-quarter 2011 gross domestic product by as much as 1.5 percent, it states, and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.1 percentage points…The package reduced the rolls of the jobless by up to 2 million people in the last three months of 2011…It continues to predict that in 2012, the stimulus will increase the number of people employed by up to 1.1 million.”
I’m looking forward to the follow-up to your post last Friday in which you wrote, “.We’ve spent a lot of time in recent months talking about the flaws of the Republican candidates, and rightly so. But whenever that race wraps up, we’ll hear plenty about the shortcomings of the Obama presidency. And the lackluster results of the stimulus will be one tough albatross for him to shed.”
To the contrary, I’d say that your lackluster performance as an AJC columnist will be one tough albatross for you to shred.
Michael H. Smith
February 22nd, 2012
6:04 pm
Yippee ki-y@@y
MarkV
February 22nd, 2012
6:07 pm
Dusty,
First of all, it is quite a chutzpah when you tell me to be less aggressive. Although your style varies a lot, you have shown quite a bit of aggressivity yourself from time to time.
To answer your question (although usually I would refuse to answer personal questions), I am not writing a thesis, and do not live in a monastery, fraternity house of embassy.
Now I have question for you: Explain how my words shows rejection of ordinary common sense and language and little contact with the real world. Since what I have written have been said and written by many people, I wonder what unreal world they occupy.
Further, I have seen plenty of ignorance on these blogs, so that nothing surprises me.. Therefore, when you write the following, “The communists picked that up right away and said that everyone should receive the same wages, land, houses, and they would see that everybody got it equally,” I just sigh and say, “Here we go again.” No, they did not say that, but in any case, I see no relevance of what communists said to what I have written.
Finally, you are way off when you write the following: “…you give no mention to the differences of humankind that so often result in assorted levels of income. You do not seem to see the difference in abilites, fair or unfair.” Where exactly do you see that in my post?
Rafe Hollister
February 22nd, 2012
6:13 pm
For what it is worth, coming from an retired federal employee, the stats on misleading. They talk about Average employee salary. Ask them the mean employee salary. The Average is so skewed by what was done back in the 80’s. The federal employees were payed on a wage scale of 1-15. GS 15 did not pay enough to attract the “elite” minds necessary to satisfy whomever was in charge at that time. So they created an Excepted Service, where politically appointed heads of agencies and their posse, were given salaries excepted from the GS scale.
A few Excepted Service people making extremely high salaries distorts the average. Bush/Cheney pushed outsourcing and so the government now contracts for all the low skilled jobs like secretary and file clerk, so there are now no low paying jobs on the record. The jobs still exist, however to keep from paying benefits and giving civil service protection, they pay them much more than they did before. It is a real racket, the contracting game, that is.
So, the average government bureaucrat was not out of line with the private sector until the Obama recession. Now private sector jobs are so few the wages have dropped accordingly.
Michael H. Smith
February 22nd, 2012
6:14 pm
From The Hill ~
CBO: Stimulus continues to deliver
The bill raised fourth-quarter 2011 gross domestic product by as much as 1.5 percent, it states, and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.1 percentage points.
The package reduced the rolls of the jobless by up to 2 million people in the last three months of 2011.
The CBO analysis is very similar to the last stimulus report it produced in November. It continues to predict that in 2012, the stimulus will increase the number of people employed by up to 1.1 million.
Despite the CBO figures, the $831 billion stimulus package has not lived up to the claims the administration made when it sold Congress on the bill.
Obama economic adviser Christina Romer claimed the bill would keep unemployment below 8 percent, but the rate spiked to 10 percent in 2009 and remained above 9 percent until last October….
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/212113-cbo-stimulus-package-continues-to-deliver
Well Kyle, you probably have little to fret from the bluster of Brucie Unable
Oh, and by the way last U6 unemployment number (which obumer and cronies didn’t use) was 15%
Rafe Hollister
February 22nd, 2012
6:21 pm
and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.1 percentage points…
So, without the stimulus, our U6 unemployment rate would be 16% instead of 15%. I guess 1 Trillion dollars doesn’t employ as many people as it used to.
MarkV
February 22nd, 2012
6:22 pm
Dusty,
I should also warn you that you are on a very dangerous ground writing about “the disillusionment of democracy.” Not because of me, but because it might raise hackles on your side. Naturally, the US is a democracy, but some people cannot accept that.
Linda
February 22nd, 2012
6:28 pm
Liberals moan & groan about income inequality, disparity, disproportion & fairness until Junior comes home & announces to Mom & Dad that he’s landed a job as a CEO making over a million dollars per year + benefits, bonuses & stock options (& is moving out of the basement) & that he’s building a wing onto his university economics building. That’s when liberals get religion & start praising the Lord.
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
6:34 pm
I guess 1 Trillion dollars doesn’t employ as many people as it used to.
To be precise the stimulus has spent less than half of $1 trillion. $445 billion to be exact. The rest of the stimulus was tax cuts.
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
6:36 pm
Here you go Linda: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
If you run out of ampersands, feel free to borrow some of mine.
Linda
February 22nd, 2012
6:37 pm
In my 6:28 comment, I should have said, “Junior OR Daddy’s girl” to be politically correct.
Dusty
February 22nd, 2012
6:37 pm
MarkV
I’m really in a hurry because I have to go but
You get mean at times when people disagree with you.
You like to pick out words of others you want to change . (ex….unequal to disproportionment)
You are so familiar with communism you want to correct anything I say about it.
Anyone you disagree with is “ignorant” and beyond your capability to get so “low”.
You never mention why there ARE differences in income. You think it is all unfair that some make less than others. But you blame such differences on society and never on individual failings.. I suggest inabilities may be an inherent cause. Why are you an “authority” on income differences?
That’s the best I can do for now. “incorrect”.Probably!!… Later……if I get time…
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 22nd, 2012
6:39 pm
“Naturally, the US is a democracy, but some people cannot accept that.” Well knock me over with a feather, I thought we were a representative republic.
Linda
February 22nd, 2012
6:45 pm
Bart@6:36, Thank you so much but I don’t collect that brand of china. Do you have any Lenox? Thank you for looking out for me! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
MarkV
February 22nd, 2012
7:01 pm
Dusty,
I appreciate your listing and detailing of my shortcomings. Incorrect? I am afraid you are, in many respects.
Before I answer your charges, I think it would be fair to list at least some of your shortcomings. I will limit them to what you have shown in your latest post. You read things in my writing that are not there, and then criticize them. You stretch and exaggerate what I have written to unreasonable extent. And when I point those things out to you, you just ignore what I have written.
Just a few examples from your latest.
“You like to pick out words of others you want to change. (ex….unequal to disproportionment)”
What did you mean by “pick out words.” What I wrote was that the usual term “income inequality,” which many people use, I find wrong, because it suggests that income should be equal. I would have thought that you would be first to agree with that thought.
“You are so familiar with communism you want to correct anything I say about it.”
Most certainly not. Only if you are somebody else is wrong. What do you expect from me, to accept whatever somebody writes?
“Anyone you disagree with is “ignorant” and beyond your capability to get so “low”.” Surely an exaggeration. I use the word “ignorant” quite sparingly an donly when well deserved.
“You never mention why there ARE differences in income.” I did not know that was the question.
“You think it is all unfair that some make less than others.” Here you are getting in a true distortion of what I have written. Care to document it?
“Why are you an “authority” on income differences?” I never claimed to be.. I could ask you the same regarding any opinion you have expressed.
Have good night.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
7:11 pm
Yippee ki-y@@y
Followed by Bruce Willis’ notorious ********** or “get along little doggie”?
Neither are very nice.
Personal attack if ever I’ve heard one!!!
Pure vitriol, I say!!!
Slingin’ the fecal matter…
and all that crap.
Just kid’n! Wanted to see how the left shoe fits.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
7:19 pm
ragnar danneskjold: If we eliminated everything that is not military, or social security, or medicare, or any other giveaways that the graspers whine about, would we not still eliminate 50% of bureaucrats?
———————-
But…how would Democrats get elected if they didn’t have freebies to hand out to their parasite base?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
7:25 pm
142 million jobs when Obozo took office.
140 million jobs today.
Only cost us $800 billion.
Obozo: Fail.
Rafe Hollister
February 22nd, 2012
7:33 pm
Noun 1. nitpicker – someone who makes small and unjustified criticisms
critic – someone who frequently finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments
If the shoe fits anyone in particular.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 22nd, 2012
8:08 pm
Alright, so who hasn’t already spotted the whackjob liberal in the CNN debate audience, it isn’t that hard to do, the angry looking petulant littlefreak who wouldn’t hold his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.
Wonder what question he’ll ask; Uh, how many of youse is totin guns tonite, duh? Guns skeer me. Where can I puke?
Jm
February 22nd, 2012
8:38 pm
Go Romney!
Jm
February 22nd, 2012
8:39 pm
Yeah
Awesome mitt answer
UAW blows
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 22nd, 2012
8:46 pm
Romney got wasted and probably doesn’t even realize it; for him to say that his earmark was necessary and proper while everyone else’s earmarks were ewie, he sounds just like your average wormy liberal, don’t he?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 22nd, 2012
8:58 pm
Ron Paul- planned parenthood shouldn’t receive anything.
He hasn’t quite won my heart but I can now say, You go girl!
Don't Tread
February 22nd, 2012
9:40 pm
Somehow this is not surprising. I would have thought that the other 1% county would be near Hollywood somewhere, though. But hey, the 1% like skiing, I suppose.
Strange that the OWS minions aren’t massing around DC…seems to be a target rich environment. Oh wait…that’s right. The wrong party is in power. Let the Republicans gain control of the Senate and White House and then they’ll show up.
MiltonMan
February 22nd, 2012
10:28 pm
libtards up in arms about defending their own in these two uber liberal areas
GT
February 23rd, 2012
7:56 am
I would like to see a history of this comparison. Where was the one percent in the 60s, 70s, … Just being employed right now might put you in the 1% and if you have a college education you are in the house. I,m sure we could do much better, O has already made movement to get rid of the Interior Department. I think we could get rid of the SEC too, after watching the Madoff story.
When the cutting begins and it is not in areas the Republicans think it should be you will see a usual smear campaign. Cutting cost is no longer the question. The question is where we make these cuts. Every answer last night except Ron Paul’s were spending more money. Bush taught us not to read lips, watch the hands always watch the hands.
theTruth
February 23rd, 2012
8:50 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout: Dow when President took office around 8000 to over 12000 today.
Job lost was 750,000 per month during Bush’s last months and Osama bin Laden was still alive.
LeeH1
February 23rd, 2012
9:03 am
It is not the government employees who are making the high salaries. It is the contractors and lobbiests who are raking in the big dough. They get paid for having congressmen manipulate the law in order to give their businesses bigger pieces of the corporate world, and colse out their competitors.
They are also passing on their costs to the federal governments. The contractor bosses are paid big pensions by the government as part of the deal. Their employees are also on the hook for government payments, or sometimes they get nothing. See the article about the latest (of many) scandals concerning hiring contractors instead of federal employees: http://fcw.com/articles/2012/02/10/federal-agencies-stuck-paying-for-federal-contractor-pensions-group-says.aspx?s=fcwdaily_210212
And this leaves out entirely the lobbiests for the banking industry. They earn the largest of big bucks, and they should. Their abilitiies to get congress to protect their companies are fantastic- not only are they bailed out, but enough money is given in even the worst years for huge bonuses, paid for by you and me. We pay them to scr@w us. Such a deal.
bob
February 23rd, 2012
9:05 am
Sorry, PARTISAY et al — It’s not a few 1%ers getting rich by siphoning off Fed $$$. It’s a few lobbyists and flaks getting rich from corp and 0.01%ers $$$ to buy up the Fed govt.
td
February 23rd, 2012
9:16 am
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
6:03 pm
$750 billion dollars saved 1.1 million jobs. You do understand that means it cost the American tax payer $681,000 per job created? Is this really a good allocation of tax payer resources? Do you think there might have been a bigger rise in GDP if the government would have just decided to 2.2 million people $340,000 each or maybe 3.3 million $170,000 each?
I do not call this a government success in any terms.
JB
February 23rd, 2012
9:40 am
Offer a Bounty of 1 million dollars to the first 5 million people to retire. Presto, 5 million jobs open and at a small price in Federal money standards. We’re now at 4 % unemployment. Next problem please.
Jedseernelire
February 23rd, 2012
3:18 pm
Lesen Sie mehr über Naturstein