Equal pay for equal work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work 

 

Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals in the same workplace be given equal pay. It is most commonly used in the context of sexual discrimination, in relation to the gender pay gap. Equal pay relates to the full range of payments and benefits, including basic pay, non-salary payments, bonuses and allowances. Some countries have moved faster than others in addressing the problem. Since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, it has been illegal in the United States to explicitly pay men and women working in the same place different salaries for similar work.

Early history

As wage-labour became increasingly formalized during the Industrial Revolution, women were often paid less than their male counterparts for the same labour, whether for the explicit reason that they were women or under another pretext. The principle of equal pay for equal work arose at the sames part of first-wave feminism, with early efforts for equal pay being associated with nineteenth-century Trade Union activism in industrialized countries: for example, a series of strikes by unionized women in the UK in the 1830s. Pressure from Trade Unions has had varied effects, with trade unions sometimes promoting conservatism. However, following the Second World War, trade unions and the legislatures of industrialized countries gradually embraced the principle of equal pay for equal work; one example of this process is the UK's introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 in response both to the Treaty of Rome and the Ford sewing machinists strike of 1968. In recent years European trade unions have generally exerted pressure on states and employers for progress in this direction.

International human rights law

In international human rights law, the statement on equal pay is the 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention, Convention 100 of the International Labour Organization, a United Nations body. The Convention states that

Each Member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

Equal pay for equal work is also covered by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 4 of the European Social Charter, and Article 15 of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization also proclaims "the principles of equal remuneration for equal value".

The EEOC's four affirmative defenses allows unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) ... any other factor other than sex." A pay differential due to one of these factors is not in breach of the Convention.

Legal situation by jurisdiction

European Union/European Economic Area

Post-war Europe has seen a fairly consistent pattern in women's participation in the labour market and legislation to promote equal pay for equal work across Eastern and Western countries.

Some countries now in the EU, including France, Germany, and Poland, had already enshrined the principle of equal pay for equal work in their constitutions before the foundation of the EU (see table below). When the European Economic Community, later the European Union (EU), was founded in 1957, the principle of equal pay for equal work was named as a key principle. Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome says 'each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.' While socially progressive, this decision does not necessarily indicate widespread progressive attitudes among the signatories to the treaty:

While this is often viewed as an example of the progressive nature of the European community, some argue that Article 141 (previously 119) was included largely as a concession to the French who already had equal pay legislation and feared that they would be at a comparative disadvantage.

The EEC's legislation was clarified in 1975 by the binding and directly applicable equal pay directive 75/117/EEC. This prohibited all discrimination on the grounds of sex in relation to pay; this and other directives were integrated into a single Directive in 2006 (2006/54/EC).

At the national level the principle of equal pay is in general fully reflected in the legislation of the 28 EU member states and the additional countries of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU candidate countries of Macedonia and Turkey also adapted their legislation to EU standards. The main national legislation concerning pay equity between men and women for different European countries is as follows.

Country	Main legal provisions
Austria	The 1979 Act on Equal Treatment on Men and Women (as amended since)
Belgium	The 1999 Law on Equal Treatment for Men and Women (Articles 12 and 25) and the Royal Decree of 9 December 1975
Bulgaria	Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code
Czech Republic	Remuneration for work is regulated by Act no. 1/1992 Coll. on pay, remuneration for overtime, and average income and by Act no. 43/1991 Coll. on pay and remuneration for overtime in state and some other organisations and bodies.
Denmark	The 1976 Act on Equal Pay for Men and Women, as amended since to include additional points
Finland	The 1995 Constitution (section 5, paragraph 4) and the Act on Equality between Men and Women (section 8, paragraph 2)
France	The 1946 Constitution and Articles L.140.2 and thereafter of the Labour Code
Germany	The 1949 Constitution or "Basic Law" (Article 3)
Greece	The 1975 Constitution (Article 22(1)), as amended in 2001, and Law 1484/1984 (Article 4)
Hungary	Equal pay for equal work was previously included in the constitution, but it has changed; there is now only equality between men and women, and the pay is in the Labour Code.
Iceland	The 1961 Equal pay act (#60/1961), 1976 Law for Equality between women and men (#78/1976), 2008 Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (#10/2008) and the amendment added to the law in 2017: Law on equal pay certification  according to the Equal Pay Standard introduced in 2012 (ÍST 85:2012)
Ireland	The 1998 Employment Equality Act (IE9909144F), repealing the 1974 Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act and the 1977 Employment Equality Act
Israel	The 1998 Law for Option Equality at Work and the 1996 Law for Equal Pay for Female Worker and Male Worker
Italy	The Constitution (Articles 3 and 37), Law 903/1977 (Article 2), and Law 125/1991
Latvia	Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code
Liechtenstein	Equal pay for equal work included in the civil code
Lithuania	Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code
Luxembourg	The 1981 law relating to equal treatment between men and women and the 1974 Grand-Ducal Regulation of relating to equal pay for men and women (Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 3(2) and 4)
Malta	The Constitution (Article 14) and the Equality for Men and Women Act
Netherlands	The Constitution (Article 1) and the 1994 Law on Equal Treatment
Norway	The 1978 Act on Gender Equality
Poland	The 1997 Constitution, Chapter II, Article 33.2 enshrined the equal pay for equal work principle, already included in the 1952 Constitution.
Portugal	The Constitution (Article 59) and Law 105/1997 relating to equal treatment at work and in employment
Romania	Equal pay for equal work included in the constitution
Slovakia	Equal pay for equal work included in the constitution
Spain	The Constitution (Article 35) and the Workers' Statute (Articles 17 and 28).
Sweden	The 1980 Act on Equality between Men and Women/Equal Opportunities Act, as amended since
UK	The Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended by Equal Value Regulations of 1983, and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and 1986, superseded by the Equality Act 2010

2018 Update Law on Equal Pay Certification based on the Equal Pay Standard in Iceland

Iceland introduced an Equal Pay Standard in 2012, ÍST 85:2012 (Equal wage management system - Requirements and guidance). The standard was developed by the Icelandic trade unions, the employers’ confederation and government officials with the goal in mind that it would help employers prevent salary discrimination and enable them to become certified.

In 2017 the Icelandic government decided to add an amendment to the 2008 laws Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (#10/2008). The amendment is a law on equal pay certification and was put into effect on January 1 in 2018. According to the amendment companies and institutions employing 25 or more workers, on annual basis, will be required to obtain equal pay certification of their equal pay system and the implementation thereof. The purpose of this obligatory certification is to enforce the current legislation prohibiting discriminatory practices based on gender and requiring that women and men working for the same employer shall be paid equal wages and enjoy equal terms of employment for the same jobs or jobs of equal value.

United States

Federal law: Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The first attempt at equal pay legislation in the United States, H.R. 5056, "Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex," was introduced by Congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley of Buffalo, N.Y. on June 19, 1944. Twenty years later, legislation passed by the federal government in 1963 made it illegal to pay men and women different wage rates for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and are performed under similar working conditions. One year after passing the Equal Pay Act, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII of this act makes it unlawful to discriminate based on a person's race, religion, color, or sex. Title VII attacks sex discrimination more broadly than the Equal Pay Act extending not only to wages but to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Thus with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, an employer cannot deny women equal pay for equal work; deny women transfers, promotions, or wage increases; manipulate job evaluations to relegate women's pay; or intentionally segregate men and women into jobs according to their gender.

Since Congress was debating this bill at the same time that the Equal Pay Act was coming into effect, there was concern over how these two laws would interact, which led to the passage of Senator Bennett's Amendment. This Amendment states: "It Shall not be unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex ... if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of the [Equal Pay Act]." There was confusion on the interpretation of this Amendment, which was left to the courts to resolve. Thus US federal law now states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."

New York state

In 1944, the state of New York outlawed wage discrimination based on one's gender. On 10 July 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation guaranteeing equal pay for equal work regardless of one's gender. This builds on the 1944 law by prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about their previously salary, a loophole that has had a history of enforcing pay inequality based on gender. Cuomo signed the law in tandem with the 2019 Women's World Cup victory parade in New York City.

Washington state

In Washington, Governor Evans implemented a pay equity study in 1973 and another in 1977. The results clearly showed that when comparing male and female dominated jobs there was almost no overlap between the averages for similar jobs and in every sector, a twenty percent gap emerged. For example, a food service worker earned $472 per month, and a Delivery Truck Driver earned $792, though they were both given the same number of "points" on the scale of comparable worth to the state. Unfortunately for the state, and for the female state workers, his successor Governor Dixie Lee Ray failed to implement the recommendations of the study (which clearly stated women made 20 percent less than men). Thus in 1981, AFSCME filed a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC against the State of Washington. The District Court ruled that since the state had done a study of sex discrimination in the state, found that there was severe disparities in wages, and had not done anything to ameliorate these disparities, this constituted discrimination under Title VII that was "pervasive and intentional." The Court then ordered the State to pay its over 15,500 women back pay from 1979 based on a 1983 study of comparable worth. This amounted to over $800 million. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned this decision, stating that Washington had always required their employees' salaries to reflect the free market, and discrimination was one cause of many for wage disparities. The court stated, "the State did not create the market disparity ... [and] neither law nor logic deems the free market system a suspect enterprise." While the suit was ultimately unsuccessful, it led to state legislation bolstering state workers’ pay. The costs for implementing this equal pay policy was 2.6% of personnel costs for the state.

Minnesota

In Minnesota, the state began considering a formal comparable worth policy in the late 1970s when the Minnesota Task Force of the Council on the Economic Status of Women commissioned Hay Associates to conduct a study. The results were staggering and similar to the results in Washington (there was a 20% gap between state male and female workers pay). Hay Associates proved that in the 19 years since the Equal Pay Act was passed, wage discrimination persisted and had even increased over from 1976 to 1981. Using their point system, they noted that while delivery van drivers and clerk typists were both scaled with 117 points each of "worth" to the state, the delivery van driver (a male-dominated profession) was paid $1,382 a month while the clerk typist (a female dominated profession) was paid $1,115 a month. The study also noted that women were severely underrepresented in manager and professional positions, and that state jobs were often segregated by sex. The study finally recommended that the state take several courses of action: 1) establish comparable worth considerations for female-dominated jobs; 2) set aside money to ameliorate the pay inequity; 3) encourage affirmative action for women and minorities and 4) continue analyzing the situation to improve it. The Minnesota Legislature moved immediately in response. In 1983 the state appropriated 21.8 million dollars to begin amending the pay disparities for state employees. From 1982 to 1993, women's wages in the state increased 10%. According to the Star Tribune, in 2005 women in Minnesota state government made 97 cents to the dollar, ranking Minnesota as one of the most equal for female state workers in the country. Five years later in 2010, full pay equity for women in state employment was finally achieved, with recurring, typically minor pay adjustments in local governments occurring regularly.

Federal law: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

In 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, permitting women to sue employers for unfair pay up to 180 days after receiving an unfair paycheck. On 29 January 2016, he signed an executive order obliging all companies with at least 100 employees to disclose the pay of all workers to the federal government, with breakdowns of pay by race, gender, and ethnicity. The goal is to encourage employers to give equal pay for equal work by increasing transparency.

State and local laws, 2010s

Massachusetts, California, and New York City have adopted laws which prohibit employers from asking about salary history to determine the salary that will be offered for a new job. This is intended to narrow the gender pay gap by reducing the impact of past discrimination. Many other U.S. states were considering similar laws, as of May 2017.

Australia

Under Australia's old centralised wage fixing system, "equal pay for work of equal value" by women was introduced in 1969. Anti-discrimination on the basis of sex was legislated in 1984.

Canada

In Canadian usage, the terms pay equity and pay equality are used somewhat differently from in other countries. The two terms refer to distinctly separate legal concepts. 

Pay equality, or equal pay for equal work, refers to the requirement that men and women be paid the same if performing the same job in the same organization. For example, a female electrician must be paid the same as a male electrician in the same organization. Reasonable differences are permitted if due to seniority or merit. 

Pay equality is required by law in each of Canada’s 14 legislative jurisdictions (ten provinces, three territories, and the federal government). Note that federal legislation applies only to those employers in certain federally regulated industries such as banks, broadcasters, and airlines, to name a few. For most employers, the relevant legislation is that of the respective province or territory. 

For federally regulated employers, pay equality is guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In Ontario, pay equality is required under the Ontario Employment Standards Act. Every Canadian jurisdiction has similar legislation, although the name of the law will vary.

In contrast, pay equity, in the Canadian context, means that male-dominated occupations and female-dominated occupations of comparable value must be paid the same if within the same employer. The Canadian term pay equity is referred to as "comparable worth" in the US. For example, if an organization's nurses and electricians are deemed to have jobs of equal importance, they must be paid the same. One way of distinguishing the concepts is to note that pay equality addresses the rights of women employees as individuals, whereas pay equity addresses the rights of female-dominated occupations as groups. 

Certain Canadian jurisdictions have pay equity legislation while others do not, hence the necessity of distinguishing between pay equity and pay equality in Canadian usage. For example, in Ontario, pay equality is guaranteed through the Ontario Employment Standards Act while pay equity is guaranteed through the Ontario Pay Equity Act. On the other hand, the three westernmost provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) have pay equality legislation but no pay equity legislation. Some provinces (for example, Manitoba) have legislation that requires pay equity for public sector employers but not for private sector employers; meanwhile, pay equality legislation applies to everyone.

Taiwan

Taiwan legislated the Act of Gender Equality in Employment in 2002. It regulates that an employer must give the same salary to the workers who do the same work. The law prescribes that employers shall not discriminate against employees because of their gender or sexual orientation in the case of paying wages. Employees shall receive equal pay for equal work or equal value. However, if such differentials are the result of seniority systems, award and discipline systems, merit systems or other justifiable reasons of non-sexual or non-sexual-orientation factors, the above-mentioned restriction shall not apply. Employers may not adopt methods of reducing the wages of other employees in order to evade the stipulation of the preceding paragraph.

Criticism

Criticisms of the principle of equal pay for less hours worked by women equal sub par work by protected classes include criticism of the mechanisms used to achieve it and the methodology by which the gap is measured. Some believe that government actions to correct gender pay disparity serve to interfere with the system of voluntary exchange. They argue the fundamental issue is that the employer is the owner of the job, not the government or the employee. The employer negotiates the job and pays according to performance, not according to job duties. The issue with that is men are perceived to be high performers based on the same skill that a woman would have been able to do. A private business would not want to lose its best performers by compensating them less and can ill afford paying its lower performers higher because the overall productivity will decline. However, the Independent Women's Forum cites another study that prognosticates the wage gap possibly disappearing "when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job".

The difference between equal pay for equal work and equal pay for work of equal value

Equal pay for equal work	Equal pay for work of equal value
Equal pay compares the pay of incumbents in the same or very similar jobs.	Pay equity compares the value and pay of different jobs, such as nurse and electrician.
Either men or women can complain that their work is undervalued. If a male incumbent is paid less than a female incumbent in the same job, he can file a complaint. As well, a woman or man can complain if she or he is paid less than a man or woman in the same job.	Only people (both men and women) in jobs traditionally reserved for women can complain that their work is undervalued. If nurses are paid less than electricians by the same employer, then they can file a complaint.

For example, it may take the same level of skills to be an electrician as it does to be a nurse, but if the electrician is performing their job 200 feet above the base floor of an offshore oil rig, pay will tend to be higher because the risks are likewise higher. Indeed, many argue it's that the unwillingness of women to work in jobs which are dangerous or otherwise undesirable such as plumbing and coal mining accounts for a significant percentage of the wage gap.

Pay gap

While there are many movements going on in society to ensure that women are feeling more valued as individuals, there are still large gaps to be filled. Women are rarely found at the very top levels of US business organizations and comprise only 15.2% of the corporate boards of Fortune-500, about four-in-ten working women (42%) said they have experienced gender discrimination at work, compared with about two-in-ten men (22%) who said the same. One of the most commonly reported forms of discrimination focused on earnings inequality. One-in-four employed women said they have earned less than a man who was doing the same job; just 5% of men said they have earned less than a woman doing the same job. On average, women in the United States earn 82 cents for every male dollar. And the gender pay gap is even greater for women of color with black women and Latinas earning 38% and 46% less, respectively than white men."I’d Rather Get Paid" takes on the issue of pay gap between female and males in the workforce. American women on average make 20% less than men, resulting in $513 billion in lost wages each year for women.

The pay gap between men and woman has been a topic for quite some time now. On Average, men with a bachelor degree make an annual salary of $87,000 per year, while the average woman with a master’s degree makes an annual salary of $83,000. Additionally, men who just have a High School diploma make $47,000 per year, while women with an associate's degree get paid $43,000 per year. Over a lifetime men earn billions more than women because of the pay gap. There is a pay gap between men and women and the gap is staying stable after years of getting smaller. Male-dominated industries tend to have higher wages than industries and occupations made up mostly of female workers. An example of a male-dominated industry today in America would be construction work or engineering. Women typically need to earn a higher academic degree than their male colleague to earn around an equal pay; they could be doing the same job and work just as hard, however, the male would still get paid more. An example of a female-dominated industry today in America is nursing. Women make up 90 percent of all nurses, but the male nurses receive more money. Female nurses earn 98 cents for every dollar made by the male nurses. Men and women are paid differently for performing the same role, which has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1970 (Else). There are plenty of studies proving the gender pay gap and how big of a problem it is.

Workplace culture

Females are portrayed differently in workplace culture than males. They are unable to make the same advancements as a gender with the stereotypes present in society. Women, traditionally, as a gender role are typically assigned to the home, to support the children, cook and clean for the man that supports the household. If they are not doing household jobs, they are historically been given roles in the workplace that do not entail responsibility and skill, rather just supporting the men. They are said to have "jobs" and not "careers". Those jobs are exemplified in this ad^{[What ad?]} as bringing coffee, and secretarial jobs, and doing mindless work around the office with little responsibility. If they have jobs, they are not able to manage looking after children and keeping up with household duties, but careers hinder the ability of a female to perform in their assigned gender role. However, when the EEOC evaluates cases based on gender equality, the nature of the business is taken into consideration. For example, teaching is still a predominantly female profession as is nursing.

The EEOC reports that in 2017, 996 charges of Equal Pay discrimination were filed with the EEOC and out of those, 798 were deemed to be unfounded allegations and the remainder either withdrew their charge or settled. In comparison, in that same year, 3250 race/colour discrimination charges were filed with 2474 having a no reasonable cause outcome. These numbers show the decline in equal pay and gender inequality pay but also highlight the fact that race/color discrimination is still happening at a rate of nearly 3x that of Equal Pay. 

In 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large portion of the population to work from home and many layoffs in occupations that lost work due to the unconventional circumstances. Women were at a higher risk of losing their jobs because they make up the majority of the workers in the occupations that were having layoffs. These occupations fall in the realm of Community & Social Services, Education, Library & Training, Office & Administrative Support, and Personal Care & Services. Also, to limit the spread of COVID-19 children were kept from going to school so parents had to compensate by taking care of their children more than usual. Women were more likely to take time off work or resign in order to cover the extra responsibilities at home. This plays a role in the gender pay gap because research from PayScale found that women receive a pay penalty of 7 percent less when they return to work the same position from a leave of absence.

African-American upper class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_upper_class 

 

The African-American upper class consists of engineers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, politicians, business executives, venture capitalists, CEOs, celebrities, entertainers, entrepreneurs and heirs who have incomes amounting to $200,000 or more. This social class, sometimes referred to as the black upper class, the black upper middle class or black elite, represents less than one percent of the total black population in the United States. This group of black people has a history of organizations and activities that distinguish it from other classes within the black community, as well as from the white upper class. Many of these traditions, which have persisted for several generations, are discussed in Lawrence Otis Graham’s 2000 book, Our Kind of People: Inside America’s Black Upper Class.

Scholarship on this class from a sociological perspective is generally traced to E. Franklin Frazier's Black Bourgeoisie (first edition in English in 1957 translated from the 1955 French original).

Historical background

When African slaves were brought to the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries and sold into slavery, there began to be mixed-race children of African and European descent in the Americas. Then called "mulattoes," they were sometimes not enslaved by their white slave-holding fathers and comprised a large part of the free black population in the South. In addition, numbers of Africans escaped to freedom during the American Revolution. Others were manumitted by their enslavers. The free black community in the US had therefore increased considerably by 1800, and although most of them were very poor, some were able to own farmland or to learn mechanical or artistic trades.

Some people escaped slavery and served in the American Civil War (1861-1865) for the Union and after the war, some of them received 40 acres (160,000 m²) and a mule, which contributed to land ownership among blacks following the emancipation of slaves.

Other former slaves, often mixed-race former house slaves who shared ancestry with their onetime owners and had acquired marketable skills such as cooking and tailoring, worked in domestic fields or were able to open small businesses such as restaurants and catering firms. Some free blacks in the North also founded small businesses and even newspapers. They were able to get a head-start on the blacks who were essentially still enslaved by their lack of access to wealth accumulation, particularly when it came to owning their own land.

History of college education

During the American Civil War in the 1860s, organizations like the American Missionary Association, which had sponsored elementary schools for Southern blacks, established some of the first historically black colleges and universities. These include Fisk University, founded in 1866; Hampton University, Howard University, Tuskegee University, Spelman College and Morehouse College. Those who attended these schools, as well as such other black colleges as Hampton University, Howard University, Morehouse College and Spelman College, were able to acquire skills and academic knowledge that put them in a distinctly different class. Cheyney University, Lincoln University, PA founded in 1854, and Wilberforce University founded in 1856, were the only black colleges operational prior to the American Civil War; these schools were located in the North. However, there had been a few predominantly white colleges, such as Oberlin College in Ohio and Berea College in Kentucky, that had accepted black students even before the war, and their black graduates had been given a head start on economic stability.

Since the founding of the historically black schools, often attended originally by the children of skilled former slaves who had been able to establish businesses or farms in the post-war period, several generations of many families have often become alumni of Talladega, Spelman, Morehouse, Howard, Fisk, Tuskegee, Dillard, Atlanta University (now Clark Atlanta University), and Hampton. While today there are well over one hundred historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the US, these early institutions have consistently been the favorites for upper-class blacks. Spelman College, Howard University, Hampton University and Morehouse College, in particular, have been considered by the Black intelligentsia to be the premier historically black colleges. Spelman College and Howard University are perennially listed in the top national rankings for HBCUs, and have the two largest endowments of all the HBCUs. Spelman is the only HBCU ranked as a US News & World Report Top 100 Liberal Arts College, and Howard is the first HBCU to be featured on the publication's National University Rankings. 

However, since integration, many children of the black upper class have attended predominantly white colleges and universities. "In the first time period covered by the scholars, black colleges were attracting significant numbers of students from professional, middle-class black families [these people] are now the students who are cherry-picked by highly selective, prestigious institutions that weren’t looking for them in the 1970s", said Michael L. Lomax, president of the United Negro College Fund.

A small number of free blacks during the 19th century were also admitted into private, predominately white institutions such as Harvard, Amherst and Oberlin College.

Greek organizations

In 1904 Sigma Pi Phi fraternity, also known as the "Boule," was established as the first Greek-letter society for African Americans, admitting mainly those African-American men who had gained considerable respect within their chosen industries. Within the decade, undergraduate college students established fraternities and sororities as small, selective social groups that later developed an emphasis on scholarship and social activism.

Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity at Cornell University in 1906 was established as the first African-American intercollegiate fraternity. Today there are a total of nine historically black sororities and fraternities that make up the National Pan-Hellenic Council, sometimes referred to as the "Divine Nine." These include Alpha Phi Alpha (1906), Alpha Kappa Alpha (1908), Kappa Alpha Psi (1911), Omega Psi Phi (1911), Delta Sigma Theta (1913), Phi Beta Sigma (1914), Zeta Phi Beta (1920), Sigma Gamma Rho (1922), and Iota Phi Theta (1963).

Some argue that historically black Greek organizations differ from those that are traditionally all-white, because of their importance to blacks long after they have left their respective colleges and universities. Graham said in his book Our Kind of People: Inside America’s Black Upper Class that these sororities and fraternities "are a lasting identity, a circle of lifetime friends, a base for future political and civic activism".

Social and family organizations

Over the years, the black upper class has also founded numerous other organizations that allow them to socialize, build networks and get involved in communities. 

One of the most notable is Jack and Jill of America, Inc., a mothers' club for African-American women founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1938. It was created by a group of middle and upper middle class mothers who wanted to bring their children together to experience a variety of educational, social and cultural opportunities, which, due to segregation and racism, were not otherwise readily available to African-American children, regardless of the socio-economic status of their parents. Today there are around 218 chapters across the US and the world. About 30,000 parents and children participate through 9,500 mothers who hold membership. Separated into age groups, children attend monthly activities extensively planned by the mothers of that age group, which may include philanthropic endeavors, community service, pool parties, ski weekends, theater, museums, lectures, and college tours. Membership is by invitation only and, even then, not guaranteed due to the extensive candidate selection process, which may last a year or longer and may include a vote by existing members. Membership is limited to mothers of children between the ages of 2-19. Annual costs of membership, including dues and activity fees, may easily reach thousands of dollars. 

The National Smart Set is a private social club founded in 1937 in Washington, DC. This group provides a respite to African-American women who are leaders in their professions and, often, leaders of other respected and notable clubs and organizations. There are 700 members in 26 chapters. Each of the 26 local chapters provides philanthropic services and financial support to causes within the geographic region. At the national level, the organization donates to member-agreed causes including the MLK Memorial, Smithsonian's National Museum of African-American History and Culture, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lupus Foundation and the Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute to name a few. Membership to the National Smart is by invitation and the organization seeks to contain its size to ensure that members develop and nurture nation-wide bonds and relationships.

National Tots and Teens, Incorporated is another well-noted family organization. It is unique in that fathers hold membership with mothers; single father-headed households are eligible for membership. Tots and Teens was founded by Geraldine Jacoway-Ross of Los Angeles, California in May 1952. In 1953 its second chapter was organized in Baltimore, Maryland. Ross wanted to expose her daughter and other youths to experiences they would not otherwise be able to receive in the segregated and troubled society of that time. Tots and Teens holds a variety of activities for youth and parents such as ski trips, debutante cotillions, volunteer projects, and cultural events. Membership requires two families for sponsorship and the first year the family is viewed as a prospective member without full membership status.

Twigs, Incorporated was founded by Clara J. Bostic in Yeadon (Philadelphia) in 1948 as "an association whose objective is to encourage and foster mental, physical, social and cultural development of the children who are members." The organization is national in scope and sponsors a wide variety of activities. It has sponsored ACT/SAT prep sessions, book fairs geared toward African-American children, and leadership development for Twigs youth groups. Twigs has sponsored an annual scholarship competition through its chapters for community youth graduating from high school and continuing their education at four-year institutions. The organization has an archival repository housed at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

The 100 Black Men of America was founded in 1963 in New York City. The organization has chapters across the US and internationally, and is primarily composed of college-degreed black men. Its primary mission is to improve the quality of life within their communities and enhance educational and economic opportunities for all African-Americans. It currently has over 10,000 members.

The National Coalition of 100 Black Women was founded in 1970 in New York City. The organization has chapters across the US and its membership is primarily composed of black women who have college degrees. It advocates on behalf of black women and girls, as well as promotes leadership development and gender equity in health, education, and economic empowerment.

The LINKS, Incorporated, founded in 1946, is a social service organization that requires each member to accumulate many volunteer hours. It is known for numerous annual social activities, including debutante cotillions, fashion show luncheons, auctions and balls. Women interested in joining any of the local chapters must be nominated by a current member. Members include philanthropists, college presidents, judges, doctors, bankers, lawyers, executives, educators or the wives of well-known public figures. There are currently about 12,000 members in 273 chapters in 42 states.

The Girl Friends®, Incorporated is one of the oldest and most highly respected social organizations of African American women in the United States. It was founded in 1927 during the Harlem Renaissance, by a small group of close friends. The organization remains true to its fundamental tenet to foster friendship and now includes more than 1,700 members and 47 chapters in cities across the country. Although the original concept was purely social, over the years, The Girl Friends®, Incorporated has expanded its purpose to include charitable and cultural activities. In 1989, the Girl Friends Fund founded a separate 501(c)3 organization to provide financial assistance to students countrywide.

Other prominent women's groups include the Chums, Inc.; Knights of Peter Claver, Inc. Ladies Auxiliary; Continental Societies, Inc.; the Drifters, Inc.; the CARATS, Incorporated; the Moles, Inc.; the Pierians; the Carousels; Top Ladies of Distinction (TLOD); the National Smart Set; The National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women's Club, Inc.; National Women of Achievement, Inc.; and the Northeasterners.

A few organizations have been founded specifically for upper class black men. Some of these include the Sigma Pi Phi Boule, the Comus Social Club, the What Good Are We Social Club aka "The Whats" (Howard University, Washington, DC), the Reveille Club, the Hellians (Washington, DC; Baltimore, Maryland; and Jackson, Mississippi), the Chesterfield Club of Selma, Alabama the Thebans, the Tux Club, the Consorts, Bachelor-Benedict Club, the National Association of Guardsmen, and the El Dorado Club of Houston, Texas. 

Home ownership rates

According to a 2007 estimate, 80 percent of upper-class blacks own their own homes. This is compared to 66 percent of those earning more than $50,000 and 52 percent of those who earn between $30,000 and $49,999 in income.

Famous black business districts during segregation

The following are a few black business districts, areas, and cities that swelled with success during the era of legal segregation, which also contributed to the rise of the African-American upper class.

• U Street, NW in Washington, D.C.
• "Black Wall Street" in Tulsa, Oklahoma
• "Sweet" Auburn Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia
• Harlem, New York
• South side of Chicago, Illinois
• Central Avenue, Los Angeles
• "The Deuce" in Richmond, Virginia
• Black Bottom/Paradise Valley in Detroit, Michigan
• "Black Wall Street" in Durham, North Carolina
• Indiana Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana
• Black Business District, Walnut Street, Louisville, Kentucky

American upper class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class

  

The American upper class is a social group within the United States consisting of people who have the highest social rank, primarily due to the use of their wealth to achieve social status. The American upper class is also distinguished from the rest of the population due to the fact that its primary source of income consists of assets, investments, and capital gains rather than wages and salaries. The American upper class is estimated to include one to two percent of the population.

Definitions

The American upper class is seen by some as simply being composed of the wealthiest individuals and families in the country. The American upper class can be broken down into two groups: people of substantial means with a history of family wealth going back a century or more (called "old money") and people who have acquired their wealth more recently (e.g. since 1946), often referred to as "Nouveau riche". In a 2015 CNBC survey of the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, 44% described themselves as middle class and 40% as upper middle class.

Many heirs to fortunes, top business executives, CEOs, successful venture capitalists, persons born into high society, and celebrities may be considered members of the upper class. Some prominent and high-rung professionals may also be included if they attain great influence and wealth. The main distinguishing feature of this class, which includes an estimated 1% of the population, is the source of income. While the vast majority of people and households derive their income from wages or salaries, those in the upper class derive their income from investments and capital gains. Estimates for the size of this group commonly vary from 1% to 2%, while some surveys have indicated that as many as 6% of Americans identify as "upper class." Sociologist Leonard Beeghley sees wealth as the only significant distinguishing feature of this class and, therefore, refers to the upper class simply as "the rich."

Households with net worths of $1 million or more may be identified as members of the upper class, depending on the class model used. While most sociologists estimate that only 1% of households are members of the upper class, Beeghley asserts that all households with a net worth of $1 million or more are considered "rich." He divides "the rich" into two sub-groups: the rich and the super-rich. The rich constitute roughly 5% of U.S. households and their wealth is largely in the form of home equity. Other contemporary sociologists, such as Dennis Gilbert, argue that this group is not part of the upper class but rather part of the upper middle class, as its standard of living is largely derived from occupation-generated income and its affluence falls far short of that attained by the top percentile. The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth without depending on occupation-derived income. This demographic constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley's definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class employed by most other sociologists. The top 0.01% of the population, with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been characterized as the "richest of the rich".

The members of the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an influence on economy and society far beyond their numbers. They make investment decisions that open or close employment opportunities for millions of others. They contribute money to political parties, and they often own media enterprises that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes... The capitalist class strives to perpetuate itself: Assets, lifestyles, values and social networks... are all passed from one generation to the next. –Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998

Sociologists such as W. Lloyd Warner, William Thompson and Joseph Hickey recognize prestige differences between members of the upper class. Established families, prominent professionals and politicians may be deemed to have more prestige than some entertainment celebrities; celebrities, in turn, may have more prestige than the members of local elites. However, sociologists argue that all members of the upper class have great wealth, influence and derive most of their income from assets rather than income.

In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class" (list of top donors) and defined the class, for the first time, as "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population – and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access."

Theories regarding social class

Functional theorists in sociology and economics assert that the existence of social classes is necessary to ensure that only the most qualified persons acquire positions of power, and to enable all persons to fulfill their occupational duties to the greatest extent of their ability. Notably, this view does not address wealth, which plays an important role in allocating status and power (see Affluence in the United States for more). According to this theory, to ensure that important and complex tasks are handled by qualified and motivated personnel, society attaches incentives such as income and prestige to those positions. The more scarce qualified applicants are and the more essential the given task is, the larger the incentive will be. Income and prestige--which are often used to tell a person's social class--are merely the incentives given to that person for meeting all qualifications to complete an important task that is of high standing in society due to its functional value.

It should be stressed... that a position does not bring power and prestige because it draws a high income. Rather, it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel is for one reason or another scarce. It is therefore superficial and erroneous to regard high income as the cause of a man's power and prestige, just as it is erroneous to think that a man's fever is the cause of his disease... The economic source of power and prestige is not income primarily, but the ownership of capital goods (including patents, good will, and professional reputation). Such ownership should be distinguished from the possession of consumers' goods, which is an index rather than a cause of social standing. – Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, Principles of Stratification.

As mentioned above, income is one of the most prominent features of social class, but is not necessarily one of its causes. In other words, income does not determine the status of an individual or household, but rather reflects that status. Income and prestige are the incentives created to fill positions with the most qualified and motivated personnel possible.

If... money and wealth [alone] determine class ranking... a cocaine dealer, a lottery winner, a rock star, and a member of the Rockefeller family-are all on the same rung of the social ladder... [yet most] Americans would be unwilling to accord equal rank to a lottery winner or rock star and a member of one of America's most distinguished families... wealth is not the only factor that determines a person's rank. – William Thompson, Joseph Hickey; Society in Focus, 2005.

Education

Members of the upper class in American society are typically knowledgeable and have been educated in "elite" settings. Wealthy parents go above and beyond to ensure their children will also be a member of the upper class when they grow up. Upper class parents enroll their children in prestigious preschools and elementary schools leading to private middle schools and high schools, and finally elite, private colleges. Often graduating from schools such as those in the Ivy League, upper class members have traditionally joined exclusive clubs or fraternities. Students at Yale University created the Skull and Bones social club. The Skull and Bones was a secret society that had members such as George H. W. Bush and John Kerry. These members obtained valuable social capital by joining the club.

Religion

Individuals of a broad variety of religious backgrounds have become wealthy in America. However, the majority of these individuals follow Mainline Protestant denominations; Episcopalians and Presbyterians are most prevalent.

Empirical distribution of income

One 2009 empirical analysis analyzed an estimated 15–27% of the individuals in the top 0.1% of adjusted gross income (AGI), including top executives, asset managers, law firm partners, professional athletes and celebrities, and highly compensated employees of investment banks. Among other results, the analysis found that individuals in the financial (Wall Street) sector constitute a greater percent of the top income earners in the United States than individuals from the non-financial sector, after adjusting for the relative sizes of the sectors.

Statistics

A study by Larry Bartels found a positive correlation between Senate votes and opinions of high income people, conversely, low income people's opinions had a negative correlation with senate votes.

 

Top 5 states by HNWIs (more than $1 million, in 2009)
State	Percentage of millionaire households	Number of millionaire households
Hawaii	6.4%	28,363
Maryland	6.3%	133,299
New Jersey	6.2%	197,694
Connecticut	6.2%	82,837
Virginia	5.5%	166,596

Bottom 5 states by HNWIs (more than $1 million, in 2009)

State	Percentage of millionaire households	Number of millionaire households
South Dakota	3.4%	10,646
Kentucky	3.3%	57,059
West Virginia	3.3%	24,941
Arkansas	3.1%	35,286
Mississippi	3.1%	33,792

We are the 99%

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25

"We are the 99%" poster referencing the Polish Solidarity movement

 

Occupy Wall Street Poster

 

Protesters with the "99%" T-shirts at Occupy Wall Street on November 17, 2011 near the New York City Hall.

 

We are the 99% is a political slogan widely used and coined during the Occupy movement from Gore Vidal's famous and original version "the one percent", meaning the nation's wealthiest 1%, to which the 99% reversely correspond. Though the concept was first mentioned in a 1935 advertisement for the newspaper The American Progress. "The 99%" also adopted as part the name of a Tumblr blog page launched in late August 2011 and is a variation on the phrase "We The 99%" from an August 2011 flyer for the New York City General Assembly. A related statistic, the 1%, refers to the top 1% wealthiest people in society that have a disproportionate share of capital, political influence, and the means of production.

The phrase directly refers to the income and wealth inequality in the United States with a concentration of wealth among the top earning 1%. It reflects an opinion that the "99%" are paying the price for the mistakes of a tiny minority within the upper class. As of 2009, all households with incomes less than $343,927 belonged to the lower 99% of the wage earners. However the 1% is not a reference to top 1% of wage earners, it is a reference to the top 1% net worth individuals of which earned wages are only one of many contributing factors.

Origin

Mainstream accounts

The slogan "We are the 99%" became a unifying slogan of the Occupy movement in August 2011 after a Tumblr blog "wearethe99percent.tumblr.com" was launched in late August 2011 by a 28-year-old New York activist going by the name of "Chris" together with Priscilla Grim.

Chris credited an August 2011 flyer for the NYC assembly "We The 99%" for the term. A 2011 Rolling Stone article attributed to anthropologist David Graeber the suggestion that the Occupy movement represented the 99%.

Joseph Stiglitz

 

Graph showing changes in real US incomes in top 1%, middle 60%, and bottom 20% from 1979 through 2007.

 

The origin of influence of the phrase is regarded in mainstream sources to have derived from economist Joseph Stiglitz's May 2011 article "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" in Vanity Fair, in which he was criticizing the economic inequality present in the United States. In the article Stiglitz spoke of the damaging impact of economic inequality involving 1% of the U.S. population owning a large portion of economic wealth in the country, while 99% of the population hold much less economic wealth than the richest 1%:

[I]n our democracy, 1% of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation's income … In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1% control 40% … [as a result] the top 1% have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn't seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99% live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1% eventually do learn. Too late.

Earlier uses of the term "the one percent" to refer to the wealthiest people in society include the 2006 documentary The One Percent (film) about the growing wealth gap between the wealthy elite compared to the overall population, and a 2001 opinion column in the MIT student newspaper The Tech (newspaper).

Other published accounts

More than one publication dates the concept back much further. For instance, the one percent and the 99 percent were explained in a February 1984 article titled "The USA: Who Owns It? Who Runs It?" in Black Liberation Month News, published in Chicago and available online as of 2020.

Even further back, Howard Zinn used this concept in "The Coming Revolt of the Guards", the final chapter in the first edition of his book A People's History of the United States published in 1980. "I am taking the liberty of uniting those 99 percent as 'the people'. I have been writing a history that attempts to represent their submerged, deflected, common interest. To emphasize the commonality of the 99 percent, to declare deep enmity of interest with the 1 percent, is to do exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them-from the Founding Fathers to now-have tried their best to prevent."

The first mention of the concept may very well be found in a poster (circa 1935) advertising the newspaper created by the populist Louisiana politician Huey Long called The American Progress. The second paragraph mentioned the one percent and the ninety-nine percent: "With 1% of our people owning nearly twice as much as all the other 99%, how is a country ever to have permanent progress unless there is a correction of this evil?" 

Variations on the slogan

• "We are the 1 percent; we stand with the 99 percent": by members of the "one percent" who wish to express their support for higher taxes, such as nonprofit organizations Resource Generation and Wealth for the Common Good.
• "We are the 99.9%": by Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman in an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that the original slogan sets the bar too low when considering recent changes in distribution of income. In particular, Krugman cited a 2005 Congressional Budget Office report indicating that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income for the middle of the income distribution rose 21%, while for the top 0.1% it rose by 400%.
• "We are the 53%": by conservative RedState.com blogger Erick Erickson along with Josh Treviño, communications director for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and filmmaker Mike Wilson launched in October 2011, in response to the 99% slogan. Erikson referred to the 53% of American workers who pay federal income taxes, and criticizing the 47% of workers who do not pay federal income tax for what Erikson describes as being "subsidized" by those who pay taxes. The Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution both reported that roughly half of the workers who do not pay Federal income tax earn below the tax threshold while the other half pay no income tax due to "provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children."
• "We are the 48%": by those who supported the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union after the 2016 referendum on membership, highlighting the relatively even split between supporters of remaining in and withdrawing from the EU.
• "We are the 87%" (German language: "Wir Sind 87 Prozent") : by the German people who did not vote for the far-right Alternative for Germany party in the 2017 German federal election.

Economic context

Occupy protesters in Oakland holding "We are the 99%"-themed signs

 

"We are the 99%" is a political slogan and an implicit economic claim of "Occupy" protesters. It refers to the increased concentration of income and wealth since the 1970s among the top 1% of income earners in the United States.

It also reflects an opinion that the "99%" are paying the price for the mistakes of a tiny minority within the upper class.

Studies by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),the US Department of Commerce, and Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality has grown significantly since the late 1970s, after several decades of stability. Between 1979 and 2007, the top earning 1 percent of Americans have seen their after-tax-and-benefit incomes grow by an average of 275%, compared to around 40–60% for the lower 99 percent. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000. This imbalance became further exacerbated by changes making federal income taxes less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927. In 2007 the top 1% had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. This is in stark contrast with surveys of US populations that indicate an "ideal" distribution that is much more equal, and a widespread ignorance of the true income inequality and wealth inequality. In 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15% in 2007. Financial inequality measured as the total net worth minus the value of one's home was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7% per Forbes in 2011. After the Great Recession started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. Median household wealth dropped by 36.1% compared to a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap. During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% had grown 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90% and 66% of total income gains went to the 1%. 

As of 2009, all households with incomes less than $343,927 belonged to the lower 99% of household income in the United States, according to IRS reports.

Data on the minimum yearly income to be considered among the 1% vary per source, ranging from about $500,000 to $1.3 million. This is somewhat below the average compensation range of CEOs whose salaries average $3.9 million according to the AFL-CIO. CEOs salaries average $10.6 million for those whose companies are in the S&P 500 and $19.8 million for companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters. CBO data shows that in 1980, the top 1% earned 9.1% of all income, while in 2006 they earned 18.8% of all income.

 

Following the recession of the late 2000s (decade), the economy in the US continued to experience a jobless recovery. New York Times columnist Anne-Marie Slaughter described pictures on the "We are the 99" website as "page after page of testimonials from members of the middle class who took out loans to pay for education, took out mortgages to buy their houses and a piece of the American dream, worked hard at the jobs they could find, and ended up unemployed or radically underemployed and on the precipice of financial and social ruin." With market uncertainty due to fears of a double-dip recession and the downgrade of the US credit rating in the summer of 2011, the topics of how much the rich pay in taxes and how to solve the nation's economic crisis dominated media commentary. When Congress returned from break, proposed policy solutions came from both major parties as the 2012 Republican presidential debates occurred almost simultaneously with President Obama's September 9 proposal of the American Jobs Act. On September 17, 2011 President Obama announced an economic policy proposal for taxing millionaires known as the Buffett Rule. This immediately led to public statements by House Speaker John Boehner, President Obama, and Republican Mitt Romney over whether the Democrats were fomenting "class warfare".

In November 2011 economist Paul Krugman wrote, that the We are the 99% slogan "correctly defines the issue as being the middle class versus the elite and also gets past the common but wrong notion that rising inequality is mainly about the well educated doing better than the less educated." He questioned whether the slogan ought to refer to the 99.9 percent, as a large fraction of the top 1 percent's gains have actually gone to an even smaller group, the top 0.1 percent—the richest one-thousandth of the population. Krugman argued against the idea that the very rich make a special contribution to the economy as "job creators" as few were new economy innovators like Steve Jobs. He quoted a recent analysis having found that 43% of the top 0.1 percent were executives at non-financial companies, 18% in finance, and another 12% are lawyers or in real estate. Commenting on the ongoing economic crisis he wrote, "[the] seemingly high returns before the crisis simply reflected increased risk-taking—risk that was mostly borne not by the wheeler-dealers themselves, but either by naïve investors or by taxpayers, who ended up holding the bag when it all went wrong".

In general, empirical researches have shown the accuracy of this slogan. Per an Oxfam report, just ahead of the 2015 World Economic Forum: "The combined wealth of the world's richest 1 percent will overtake that of everyone else by next year [2016] given the current trend of rising inequality".

Criticism

We are the 99% protester at Occupy London

 

CNBC senior markets writer Jeff Cox reacted negatively to the protest movement, calling the 1% are "the most vilified members of American society" who protesters fail to realize includes not only corporate CEOs (31% of the top earning one percent), bankers and stock traders (13.9%), but also doctors (1.85%), real estate professionals (3.2%), entertainers in arts, media and sports (1.6%), professors and scientists (1.8%), lawyers (1.22%), farmers and ranchers (0.5%), and pilots (0.2%). Cox claimed that 1 Percenters pay a disproportionate amount of their incomes to taxes. He stated the phenomenon of wealth concentration among a small segment of the population is a century old, and argued a direct correlation between wealth concentration and the health of the stock market, stating that 36.7% of the United States' wealth was controlled by the 1% in 1922, 44.2% when the stock market crashed in 1929, 19.9% in 1976, and has increased since then. Cox wrote that wealth concentration intensified at the same time that the US changed from a manufacturing leader to a financial services leader. Cox took issue with protesters' focus on income and wealth, and with their embrace of rich allies such as actress Susan Sarandon and Russell Simmons, who are themselves in the 1%. Joseph Barro of National Review offered similar arguments, asserting that the 1% includes those with incomes beginning at $593,000, which would exclude most Wall Street bankers.

In the US, Republicans have generally been critical of the movement accusing protesters and their supporters of class warfare. Newt Gingrich called the "concept of the 99 and the one" both divisive and "un-American". Democrats have offered "cautious support", using the "99%" slogan to argue for the passage of President Obama's jobs act, Internet access rules, voter identification laws, mine safety, and other issues. Both parties agree that the movement has changed public debate. In December 2011, the New York Times reported that "Whatever the long-term effects of the Occupy Movement, protesters succeeded in implanting "we are the 99 percent" ... into the cultural and political lexicon." Economic professor Sean Mulholland has argued that the idea that the richer have become richer while the poor have become poorer is false because data showing that the richest income earners grew significantly richer over the same period that members of poorer classes maintained a fairly constant income rate does not account for the upward and downward economic mobility of particular households over recent decades.

New Continental Congress

After the Occupy movement activists' camps started getting uprooted, the Occupy movement came back online proposing a new United States Declaration of Independence from corporations, along with a new Continental Congress in Philadelphia.