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
Partisay
February 22nd, 2012
11:20 am
First??
Partisay
February 22nd, 2012
11:24 am
“Both factors owe directly to the growth in federal government.”
In what way? Make the link….
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
11:35 am
Partisay: More money going out the door = more people being paid well to get a piece of the action.
TDone
February 22nd, 2012
11:37 am
I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. It’s all true.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
11:39 am
You should move, if you envey those folks.
Mr. Holmes
February 22nd, 2012
11:42 am
Not going to argue with the “more money going out the door” explanation–clearly that’s part of it–but influence-peddling no doubt also plays a role. And those are corporate/1% bucks.
commoncents
February 22nd, 2012
11:43 am
I hate corpora———- wait, what? The richest (on average) live by and work for the government??
ragnar danneskjold
February 22nd, 2012
11:44 am
Sounds like a problem that a republican house and senate ought to be able to correct.
JF McNamara
February 22nd, 2012
11:55 am
@ragnar danneskjold,
Sounds like a problem that a republican house and senate created. The numbers are for the entire decade which was largely Bush and Republican legislators.
JF McNamara
February 22nd, 2012
12:03 pm
@commoncents,
The richest do not work for the government. They may be the CEOs of contractors, but they do not work for the government. For instance, most military contractors are based in D.C. because that is how they make their money. Those CEOs live in the D.C. area creating the wealth concentration.
Any industry that primarily sells to the government is generally centered there. There are only a few other places where you could have this phenomena of concentration, Silicon Valley and New York.
Both of those places have large geographical counties, though, which skews the results.
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
12:05 pm
These guys are relying on absolute numbers. What should be obvious (but apparently isn’t) is that as the population grows and as the national workforce grows, the federal government will grow. The federal workforce today as a proportion of the total U.S. workforce is about half what it was in 1970.
Also, statistics showing that federal workers make twice what the private sector worker makes is comparing apples and oranges, or better yet, CDC epidemiologists and Applebee’s bus boys. They don’t compare similar job types, educational levels, experience, or geographic location. In fact, a larger percentage of federal workers are college educated than in the private sector…a larger percentage of federal workers are older and have more experience in their positions…a larger share of high skill jobs make up the federal work force than in the private sector…a larger share of federal workers are in white collar positions…and so on.
In fact, if you compare government accountants’ compensations with private sector accountants’ compensation, same education and experience, the private private sector accountants win. Same with engineers and most other federal positions. (Remember how much private Blackwater employees were paid in Iraq compared to our military personnel?)
People should also know that the vast majority of government growth during the Obama administration has been in the areas of defense and homeland security.
This issue should be grounded by a responsible and accurate data. Instead we get ignorance wrapped in confusion wrapped in lies to score cheap political points.
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
12:07 pm
Bart: False. Some of the studies do compare similar education levels and job descriptions.
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
12:09 pm
For example: http://cbo.gov/publication/42921
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
12:20 pm
“Also, statistics showing that federal workers make twice what the private sector worker makes is comparing apples and oranges, or better yet, CDC epidemiologists and Applebee’s bus boys.”
Nice spin there, Bart. Union teachers in the midwest make 80 + a year. Trash collectors in Chicago make 60+.
“In fact, a larger percentage of federal workers are college educated than in the private sector”
Back it up, Bart. You have ZERO proof of that. In fact, just look at Chicago where there are city counsel personel who have GED’s and nothing else. Some of these folks make over 200 grand a year.
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
12:22 pm
Obama is a 1%er.
Bill and Hillary are 1%ers.
Most ALL politicians are 1%ers.
The folks at NBC, CNN, MSNBC etc are all 1%ers.
The lefts precious Al Gore has been a 1%er since birth.
Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schmuck are all 1%ers.
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
12:22 pm
“People should also know that the vast majority of government growth during the Obama administration has been in the areas of defense and homeland security.”
EFFING LIE!!!!!!!!!!! Dude, you are PATHETIC.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
12:24 pm
Bart: False. Some of the studies do compare similar education levels and job descriptions.
Lawd ah mercy! Looking at the CBO publication, government cream rises to the top…the privates are left with curd (government cheese).
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
Those are just anomalies. Just ask Jefferson, getalife, those fellas…
Puck
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
and this is news? The counties surrounding the District have been among the tops in income since I was a kid there during the 60’s.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Why is the GOP lagging in the polls ? Are they gonna blow it again ?
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
“Are they gonna blow it again ?”
Guess you missed 2010.
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
I imagine the GO will quit chasing it’s tail after the nominee is picked [I do hope].
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
Oppps – GOP
Hillbilly D
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
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.
Don’t forget that the lawyers, lobbyist, Beltway journalists and think tankers are highly paid, too.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm
Fast answer, no substance.
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm
Thank you, Kyle. In my defense, that CBO information report is just 3 weeks old, and I had not seen it. I’ll go back and look at my previous sources to and to see where they got their data.
That said, here’s is CBO’s conclusion: “Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.” 16 percent…not double. I’ll accept that, if I can’t find any reliable data to contradict that.
If you have any information countering the fact that the federal workforce is smaller relative to the private workforce (meaning that, comparatively, the federal workforce has shrunk over the last several decades) or that most of the growth in the federal workforce has been in homeland security and defense, then I’d be interested to see that as well.
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
12:40 pm
Union teachers in the midwest make 80 + a year. Trash collectors in Chicago make 60+.
Focus, DW, focus. This is a discussion about federal workers.
Finn McCool
February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm
Both factors owe directly to the growth in federal government.
I call BS. It’s a direct result of the amount of money pouring into lobbyists and other vote-getting functions around Washington.
Our reps are bought and sold on a daily basis.
Finn McCool
February 22nd, 2012
12:53 pm
How about looking at the average salary of this area over the last 30 years in relation to the rest of the nation? Has it changed drastically in a way that goes against the norm?
Maybe that’s is too much work for Kyle.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
12:54 pm
Government IS the problem.
Get off your knees and leave the temple of government, Democrats, you are worshiping that which will destroy you. Get a real, productive job and forsake your handouts.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
12:57 pm
It’s a direct result of the amount of money pouring into lobbyists
———
We wouldn’t have lobbyists were it not for the hundreds of billions sloshing around in DC. Government is the problem, not free people petitioning their government.
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm
Bart @ 12:37: “16 percent…not double. I’ll accept that, if I can’t find any reliable data to contradict that.”
How kind of you, considering you’re the one who brought up “double” or “twice” as a comparison for public vs. private. Way to frame the argument.
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm
Since DW brought up state and local workers, I’ll throw this in for consideration:
“Recent reports in the national and the regional media have described state and local government employees as earning more than workers in the private sector. The average state and local government worker does earn higher wages – but this is because they are, on average, older and substantially better educated than private-sector workers. When state and local government employees are compared to private-sector workers with similar characteristics – particularly when workers are matched by age and education – state and local workers actually earn less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts. On this basis, the wage penalty for state and local government workers in New England is close to 3 percent.”
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_201-250/WP233.pdf
@@
February 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm
Ann Romney says her husband was reluctant to run
Republican presidential hopeful’s wife encouraged Romney to ‘knock heads’ in Washington
“It wouldn’t be worth it at all if we just went in there, and we just shuffle the chairs around,” Ann recalled advising her husband of his plan to pursue the presidency. “I’m not in for that. I’m in for, you’re going to go in there, and you’re going to knock heads.”
The tough talk won polite applause at the luncheon.
Later, Ann Romney returned to softer themes common to her stump speeches, including her husband’s sensitivity and care when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998.
The message seemed to fill a picture of Romney that some said had been missing.
Which picture? The one where he’s knockin’ heads or being Mr. Sensitive?
@@
February 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm
Enter your comments here
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
1:09 pm
“Focus, DW, focus. This is a discussion about federal workers.”
Actually it’s a discussion about guvmint workers in general.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
1:11 pm
Oops and lawdy but I got a quick trigger finger. At any rate, just wanted to find out whether people know what ’santorum’ means. For our less educated but still lovable right wingers, it means: the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. I think that fits Rick quite nicely, actually.
Schnirt
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm
“Federal workers earning double their private counterparts” http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
As you know, Kyle, I didn’t frame the argument. USA Today reported it, and talk radio and Fox News have been endlessly repeating this debunked report. You built on the foundation created by this myth, by posting about “the growth in federal government.”
The CBO says that federal workers are compensated 16 percent higher than comparable private sector workers (an important statistic…thanks for the info)…private sector workers, by the way, whose wages haven’t been keeping up with inflation or economic productivity. You also failed to take into account the relative growth compared to the total workforce and where such growth has taken place (defense and homeland security).
So, I say to you, “way to frame the argument.”
@@
February 22nd, 2012
1:14 pm
Kyle:
I sure hope that 1:11 is apparent.
Sarah Coulter
February 22nd, 2012
1:21 pm
Government IS the problem.
Get off your knees and leave the temple of government, Republicans, you are worshiping that which will destroy you. Get a real, productive job and forsake your handouts.
Fixed it for you. :^)
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
1:24 pm
Gov’t can be made better, its not going away.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
1:30 pm
That’s nice, Sarah, but makes zero sense.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
1:30 pm
Actually, JACK, I’m more in favor of the heathen, Newt. Goin’ against the grain, I am.
There’s just something about his ability to wage political warfare.
Now go on back to jay’s and spread “your love”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
1:32 pm
Wages aren’t supposed to keep up with inflation or productivity; that kind of thinking springs from an entitlement mentality. Wages are supposed to keep up with dand for the labor they purchase.
Think, dammit!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
1:33 pm
“dand” = “demand”
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
1:36 pm
Sarah Coulter
Forget your meds?
Bart Abel
February 22nd, 2012
1:36 pm
The middle class has been getting the shaft over the course of the past few decades, including federal workers. The idea that we should be mad that federal workers, compensated 16 percent more than private sector workers, because they didn’t get the shaft as much as the rest of us did strikes me as odd. Especially as the incomes of a very small group at the very top has grown by leaps and bounds, leaving everybody else behind.
The thinking seems to be that if they can distract voters by getting them mad at federal workers, then we won’t notice that the uber-rich are getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie. There’s a joke that goes something like: “A millionaire and two middle class workers are sitting at table with ten cookies in the cookie jar. The millionaire grabs nine cookies for himself, and then looks at one of the middle-class guys and says, watch out…that other guy wants your cookie.”
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
1:37 pm
“the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. I think that fits Rick quite nicely, actually.
Looks like someone is impersonating @@ again.
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
1:38 pm
“The middle class has been getting the shaft ”
How so? Fact is, if people used common sense they’d be fine financially.
UGA 1999
February 22nd, 2012
1:46 pm
Kyle, CONGRATULATIONS on the birth of your child. It is truly a blessing.
JV
February 22nd, 2012
1:47 pm
According to a September 2011 study by the nonprofit watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), the outsourcing of federal services (at the time a $300 billion annual expense for taxpayers) actually costs more than doing the work in-house.
Though outsourcing is designed to both save money and enhance agency flexibility, the POGO study’s authors say their fresh methodology shows that most savings are illusory — and that in some cases agencies are paying contractor employees twice or even five times the rate for a federal worker.
They found that while federal workers are paid slightly more in benefits than private sector employees in general — a 36.25 percent benefit rate versus 33.5 percent for private employees — contractors’ employees were paid more by the hour in 33 of the 35 categories. The government pays contractors 1.83 times more than it pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than twice the total compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services. The only area where outsourcing saved money, Amey said, is the familiar service of grounds keeping, which contractors can perform at a cost of 20 percent less than federal staff.
A POGO investigator and the organization’s General Counsel say too many private studies comparing pay… “rely on misleading data from the private sector instead of contractor billing rates. They should measure what it costs to have private contractors do the work.”
Dusty
February 22nd, 2012
2:00 pm
Well, I guess we want the best and the brightest to be running our country. But that many at those salaries to make it some of the richest counties in the USA? That seems a bit much. Too much $$$ or too many workers? Both?
Considering the fact that DC has some of the worst schools in the nation, I assume these rich workers are not sending their children to public schools in D.C. Obama is not sending his to public schools there either..
UGA 1999
February 22nd, 2012
2:05 pm
Kyle, does Westchester County, NY make the list? I have a rental property up there.
Junior Samples
February 22nd, 2012
2:07 pm
Which President has sent their school aged children to public schools? I’ll give you a hint, he was from Georgia.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
2:07 pm
The evil rich government workers mostly live in the MD and VA suburbs, which have better public schools than DC. DC parents are just glad if their kids make it home alive after making their way through Obozo’s crime-infested city.
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
2:09 pm
Alright, Obamabots. Here’s a dose of reality for you and it ain’t pretty.
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/florida-drivers-shelling-out-nearly-6-a-gallon-at-some-gas-stations/
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
2:09 pm
” I’ll give you a hint, he was from Georgia.”
Yeah, but then he put her in the most expensive private school in GA.
Junior Samples
February 22nd, 2012
2:15 pm
The point being it’s a security risk (and distraction for the rest of the kids, teachers, etc…) for any President’s children to be in public schools. For someone to state the “President isn’t sending his children to public schools either” is ridiculous and outdated.
Junior Samples
February 22nd, 2012
2:19 pm
Wow, I am completely and utterly shocked that gas prices next to the largest theme park in entire United Stats of America has the highest gas prices.
Shocked I tell ‘ya.
UGA 1999
February 22nd, 2012
2:20 pm
Junior….Most higher income families do not go to public schools…Why do you think that is?
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
2:23 pm
“I am completely and utterly shocked that gas prices next to the largest theme park in entire United Stats of America has the highest gas prices.”
Considering it’s Florida and not California. Yes.
Dusty
February 22nd, 2012
2:26 pm
Junior Samples, 2:15
When did it get outdated to want SAFE public schools? I think schools should be safe for all children.
The president’s children will have extra security no matter what school they attend.
What you are saying is that schools are so bad even security could not protect the president’s children. Sadly, that may be true.
But saying that the president’s children do not go to public school is not rediculous.. Just a fact that parents in D.C. might understand very well.
jconservative
February 22nd, 2012
2:28 pm
I worked in the DC area in the early 1960’s and most of these counties were the haven to the top 1% then. With an exception: Calvert County where I spent every day for 2 summers was dirt poor. Obviously it has changed!
PS – the Chesapeake Bay area is an absolutely wonderful place.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 22nd, 2012
2:28 pm
Presidents send their kids to private schools for the superior education. It has zero to do with security.
UGA 1999
February 22nd, 2012
2:31 pm
Lil…..I think that is correct.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
2:37 pm
Junior:
I don’t expect any president to send his children to public school. Under the circumstances (crime rate) he shouldn’t be forcing low-income families to send their children there either.
President Obama’s 2013 budget request not only recklessly increases funding for the Department of Education by another 3.5 percent (taking the bloated agency’s budget to $68.9 billion), it brazenly eliminates funding for the highly successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Not that long ago, President Obama said on the Today show that he would not send his own children to D.C. public schools. For seemingly political reasons, Obama has decided to stand in solidarity with the education special-interest groups and against this highly successful school-choice program.
More than 1,600 low-income children are currently enrolled in the D.C. OSP, and receive vouchers of $8,000 ($12,000 for high-school students) to attend a private school of their choice that meets their needs. In a city with the worst-performing and most dangerous public schools in the country, the vouchers have been a lifeline to a brighter future for these children.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291021/obama-budget-eliminates-dc-voucher-funding-lindsey-burke
Junior Samples
February 22nd, 2012
2:42 pm
Dusty…
Your 3rd sentence @ 2:26 was the point I was making. Public schools are generally larger than private ones, especially the ones our Presidential offspring attend. Easier to protect.
It’s easier to understand someone when you’re not putting words in their mouth. But I guess that defeats your motive.
Later…
JKL2
February 22nd, 2012
2:42 pm
Chris Christie to Warren Buffet “Shut up and write a check if you want to contribute more to the government”
You have to love that man…
MarkV
February 22nd, 2012
2:43 pm
Kyle,
What is your point about federal employees being paid overall more than in the private sector? How about making a headline and summary as follows:
Private sector companies pay less than the federal government.
While private sector companies pay more to highly educated professional employees, they do not pay living wages and sufficient benefits to less educated workers.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
2:48 pm
Why don’t you kump on Jennifer Hauser of CNN for her GA Lottery win last week?
I’m happy for Ms. Hauser. Granted, she didn’t earn it the hard
way…nevertheless…it’s hers now, not mine.
I suck at gambling. Give me $20…a nickle slot and I’ll have hours of fun. I’m up, I’m down, I’m up again until I’m broke. That $20 goes a long way.
UGA 1999
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
@@…I agree. However she actually did “earn” it. She bought the winning ticket didn’t she?
Daniel
February 22nd, 2012
2:56 pm
Kyle -
Your post has a couple flaws…
First, the MSN article you cite doesn’t actually have data about the top 1% of earners. The counties listed have the highest median incomes; the only connection the article makes is “Here’s where some of the nation’s 1% live,” which doesn’t actually mean anything. For your argument to work, you need data on the concentration of earners making $350k or more. Maybe it’d be the same list of counties, but as it stands, that’s not what your evidence suggests.
Second, even if you did have the evidence to support you claim, you’re still arguing a correlation. Your post basically reads, “Because federal workers live where rich people live, federal workers must be rich.” It doesn’t make sense. You need something to demonstrate that the 1% in those counties are actually federal employees. And the CBO report you link in the comments works against you here, since it looks like even top end federal incomes aren’t even close to being in the top 1%. On top of that, government lawyers, accountants, MBAs/MPAs, and PHDs (in other words, the most skilled workers) make less than their private sector counterparts, which cuts directly against your argument.
Having worked for a defense contractor in Alexandria, Virginia, I would guess that most of the wealth in the D.C. suburbs is from the owners/senior managers at government contracting firms. If you want to cut amount of money we spend on contracting, I’m totally with you, but those people aren’t federal employees.
ragnar danneskjold
February 22nd, 2012
3:12 pm
Other than the military, there is nothing our government does that is essential. 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? A couple of other ideas, (1) move all bureaucrats earning more than $50,000 to Minot, ND, and (2) abolish all non-military pensions, use only 401ks. The problem would correct itself.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
3:14 pm
UGA:
However she actually did “earn” it. She bought the winning ticket didn’t she?
I was talking labor. She got a hefty return on her investment.
I MIGHT buy a ticket 3 times a year. Not sure who got my portion of the investment. I always wait until I’m at some remote little store in rural Georgia. I’ve convinced myself that that’s where the winners are.
Hooray for all those who took a chance and won.
This one’s for Hillbilly.
Federal prosecutors in Charleston, W.Va., have filed the most serious criminal charges yet in the April, 2010, coal mine explosion that left 29 mine workers dead.
The conspiracy charges reach into the management ranks of Massey Energy and signal an effort to seek evidence against higher-level executives.
The wheels of justice are too often slow. When it comes to crooked politicians, they’re seized up by rust.
Hillbilly D
February 22nd, 2012
3:15 pm
I suck at gambling. Give me $20…a nickle slot and I’ll have hours of fun.
You do know that the odds of winning at a slot machine are the lowest of any game at a Casino? At least if you play cards or something, you have some chance to affect the outcome. Slots are pure luck.
Stephenson Billings
February 22nd, 2012
3:15 pm
One of the things we’re paying them for:
Feds: Fresh milk 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized dairy
“The federal government said Tuesday that fresh milk is 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized milk — a finding that bolsters the government’s argument as it goes after farmers who sell unpasteurized milk across state lines.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/21/feds-fresh-milk-150-times-dangerous-pasteurized/
Hillbilly D
February 22nd, 2012
3:19 pm
@@
If they find those people guilty, they ought to line ‘em up and shoot ‘em.
More than once, in my working life, I’ve been told to disable some kind of safety equipment. Sometimes. I either just didn’t do it or flat refused, if it was something I felt was seriously dangerous.
And I’ve also heard the “the OSHA inspector is coming today” talk, too.
Hillbilly D
February 22nd, 2012
3:22 pm
I know people who’ve been drinking raw milk, all their lives. They’re way older than me (insert your own punchline here). I see nothing wrong with selling raw milk, as long as it is clearly labeled as such and there is no attempt to deceive.
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
3:34 pm
Stephenson: That’s way too long of a C&P. Just a short excerpt and a link, please.
Stephenson Billings
February 22nd, 2012
3:38 pm
Sorry. Here ya go: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
3:41 pm
Daniel @ 2:56: As I wrote in the OP, we are talking about “the highest one-half of 1 percent” of counties. There are 3,141 counties in the U.S.; the top 0.5 percent equals 15. I’m sorry if that wasn’t as clear as it could have been.
As for the rest of your comment: You seem to have missed the penultimate paragraph:
“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.”
Those two things (along with others) combined refer to “big government,” which in no way means only “federal workers.”
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
3:42 pm
MarkV: Because I don’t agree with the “they do not pay living wages” part. In any case, your framing isn’t more objective…it merely reflects your opinion.
Kyle Wingfield
February 22nd, 2012
3:44 pm
Chris: I’m not in the habit of publishing people’s email addresses on this blog, unless they are the public email addresses of elected officials.
Dusty
February 22nd, 2012
3:48 pm
I think we really need a tightwad, conservative government!!! REALLY, REALLY NEED ONE!!
It seems, if you give government “an inch, they take a mile”. It won’t be long before we have to be inspected or licensed to turn over in bed.
I know we need some controls but how far do we take this? We should not smoke, eat junk food, drink fresh milk, dig a hole in the ground, cut down a tree, fish/drive/shoot without a license or play slot machines. etc.etc.etc. Freedom is a big old concept fast moving out of our universe. Personal responsibility is being replaced by crowd control, the government, an extravagant government at that..
Liberty? Liberty? Where’s Patrick Henry when you need him??
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
3:50 pm
“Chris: I’m not in the habit of publishing people’s email addresses on this blog, unless they are the public email addresses of elected officials.”
Who’s Chris?
Do what??????
February 22nd, 2012
3:52 pm
Well, ole Bookman is all pissed off because GA outlawed abortions. Guess his fellow baby killer friends will have to go somewhere else now.
Hillbilly D
February 22nd, 2012
3:56 pm
Where’s Patrick Henry when you need him??
Henry’s view of things lost out to the Washington/Hamilton view over 200 years ago. Not a good thing, in my opinion, but I don’t ever see it turning around. The Hamiltonians consolidated their gains in the latter half of the 19th century.
MarkV
February 22nd, 2012
4:27 pm
Kyle Wingfield @3:42 pm “MarkV: Because I don’t agree with the “they do not pay living wages” part. In any case, your framing isn’t more objective…it merely reflects your opinion.”
Kyle, just like your framing reflects your opinion. I have on my side, however, those many who point out to income inequality as a major source of friction and dissatisfaction. (I do not like the term “income inequality,” however, because it appears to suggest that incomes should be equal. I prefer “income disparity or “income disproportion.”)
Road Scholar
February 22nd, 2012
4:27 pm
How is the % of college grads, masters, and phD’S in this area compare to other areas/states? How about lobbyists and government contractors (private sector)? Security: FBI,CIA, TSA,etc.? Top military? Congressional staff?
Many do not know what it really cost to hire experts; they do not work for minimum wage!!!1
@@
February 22nd, 2012
4:39 pm
Hillbilly:
You do know that the odds of winning at a slot machine are the lowest of any game at a Casino? At least if you play cards or something, you have some chance to affect the outcome. Slots are pure luck.
I’ll leave the cards to my husband. He’s good with ‘em. He encouraged me to join him at a blackjack table once. The people on either side of me got frustrated. I think something I did screwed up their chances.
Slots don’t complain.
Linda
February 22nd, 2012
4:52 pm
One of the Ten Commandments (not suggestions) is “You shall not covet…”
Only heathens are jealous of others. High income workers are not necessarily rich. Rich people don’t always have high incomes. Regardless, high earners & the rich are not evil, arrogant, mean, deceitful, greedy unworthy vultures.
There has always been & will always be inequality, disparity & disproportion among earnings & net worth. We are guaranteed equal opportunities but not equal outcomes.
Pray that those who are the most fortunate will remember those who aren’t. We all benefit from the generosity of those who can afford & who do contribute to our hospitals, universities & charities.
P.S. Isn’t it funny that those who are green with envy are also those that support the green agenda that is ruining our economy?
Acer706
February 22nd, 2012
4:55 pm
DC Gives Me The CREEPS!
Everyone is Living Off of Taxpayers That They Will Never Have To Answer to.
Our tax dollars should not all go to one area.
MarkV
February 22nd, 2012
5:02 pm
It is incredibly callous and superficial to attribute any criticism of income disproportion to envy, jealousy, class warfare, etc. It is done by people who have no concept of fairness.
Dusty
February 22nd, 2012
5:14 pm
Hillbilly D, 3:56
Wouldn’t you know I’m 200 years behind (and hanging out with Patrick Henry)? Hasn’t been a good day!
Not sure I like those Hamiltons. Poor ol’ Alexander was killed in a duel, wasn’t he? They knew how to settle an argument in those days. Quick and inexpensive except for the funeral.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 22nd, 2012
5:16 pm
Philadelphia’s two daily newspapers have long been accused of liberal bias, but critics say a group of potential buyers led by former Gov. Ed Rendell would turn the papers into mere mouthpieces of the Democratic Party in a 2012 swing state.
Then they would be just like the Urinal.
dbm
February 22nd, 2012
5:19 pm
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
1:24 pm
There aren’t many people that want government to go away.
There are a lot that think it would be a lot better if ir were a lot smaller.
Michael H. Smith
February 22nd, 2012
5:44 pm
Keep track of how many times the comrades on the left use the following words: fair, fairness and fair share. These are leftwing code words that will be used repeatedly in all democrat talking points this election cycle.
Let’s see what the comrades concepts of fairness truly are if any of them dare to answer this question:
Is it fair to take from the rich because they are rich and give it to the poor because they are poor?
Dusty
February 22nd, 2012
5:52 pm
MarkV
May I ask if you are writing a thesis on the disillusionment of democracy or some such subject? Your choice of words seems to show rejection of ordinary common sense and language and little contact with the real world.. Monastery? Fraternity house? Embassy?
People have been complaining about wages every since the first penny was earned. 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. As was said “some were more equal than others”.
I am only guessing that you are trying for “the betterment of mankind”. but 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. But they are there and most of us know it. There is no way to correct all human frailties even as we try.
Be a little less aggressive. You might get more understanding.
Michael H. Smith
February 22nd, 2012
5:59 pm
dbm
The federal government should only provide about ten percent of our total need of government, the rest of all the government we need should be provided by our States, Counties and Cities.
It is past time that every one of us demand, not request, of those who we elect to stop growing the federal government has it has been done year after year by both major political parties. The federal government must be drastically reduced in its’ size and scope.
@@
February 22nd, 2012
6:01 pm
Since we’re discussing wealth within the state of Virginia, thought I’d mention a neighbor of mine. Worth millions. His favorite pastime is traveling up to Virginia’s Appalachian region…doing what he can. He often solicits our church’s help.
His story is one of those rags to riches accounts. An amazing individual.
In exchange for helping him coordinate things at church, he lets me ride his quarter horses whenever I have time.
YeeHaw!
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