18

What Americans think about the rich

Occupy Wall Street protestors march down Fifth Avenue towards Union Square during a May Day rally on May 1, 2012 in New York City. Demonstrators have called for nation-wide May Day strikes to protest economic inequality and political corruption.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

Kai Ryssdal: You've got your 1 percent and your 99 percent. And in theory never the 'twain shall meet. That's kind of been the politics of the economy the past six or eight months or so.

Problem is, that's not actually what Americans think. Frank Newport is the editor-in-chief at Gallup. He's here every week to give us a little Attitude Check. Today, how we feel about those who have more than most. Frank, good to talk to you.

Frank Newport: Good to be with you, Kai.

Ryssdal: So something a little bit different this week: We had our Wealth and Poverty folks go out and get a little tape, do a little man-on-the-street survey. Unscientific, to be sure, about this topic. Here's what they said:

I don't like anybody for being rich; if they worked for it and they made it, that's good for them. I'm not mad at anybody.

Maybe someday you'll become hugely wealthy. It's just a pipedream. It's not going to happen for 90 percent of the people in this country.

I don't think the problem is the rich people. As easy as it is to point fingers, I just don't think it's the rich people.

So do they have it right, Frank? I mean, do Americans not hate the rich for all the talk of 1 percent and 99 percent?

Newport: Remarkably, your not-scientific sample there does reflect in the data. This is really interesting. We had asked way back in 1990, Kai, some questions about the rich and we just updated them. And lo and behold, little changed: 63 percent of Americans say the U.S. benefits from having a class of rich people. Back in 1990, lo those many years ago, that was 62 percent -- so actually, that hasn't changed at all, as you say, despite all the discussion of the 1 percent. And 63 percent of Americans, Kai, would like to be rich themselves, and that's actually up from 59 percent 22 years ago. So not only do we think it's good to have rich people -- we wish we could rich.

Ryssdal: Yes we do. There's another thing though, actually, that goes along with that, and that is the self-identification. And here's another bit of tape.

If you're only making $50,000 a year, depending on where you live, you'd just getting by.

$50,000 a year? Yeah, I'll consider that middle-class. I'd even consider myself terribly wealthy at $200,000 a year.

$250,000, I thought, well once we reached that goal, life would be good. But after you deduct mortgage, college, insurance, you know, you're just getting by.

You know, that was interesting, right? We had a $50,000 person and a $250,000 person -- both of whom say, 'yeah I'm in the middle-class.'

Newport: Well, you know, that's not surprising. We have asked Americans how much would it take for you to be rich, and about $200,000 is the average response. But it varies dramatically about how much money you make. If you're sitting there making $25,000 a year, to be able to make $50,000 or $75,000 would make you rich. But if you're making, like you heard, $250,000 a year, you'd say, 'geez, if only I made half a million, then I would be rich.' So everything is relative is what the data shows.

Ryssdal: There's an aspirational part of this too, right? Do Americans, have you asked people: Do they think they will ever be rich?

Newport: Fascinating question: How likely is it that you will rich in your lifetime? And you know, this is a heartening of 18 to 29-year-olds -- almost half, Kai, 47 percent say they say it's at least somewhat likely they will be rich at some point in their lifetime. Now that drops dramatically by the time that you're 65-plus -- only 8 percent. Still, 8 percent of seniors think they'll be rich someday, if they just hold on long enough.

Ryssdal: I want to meet that 8 percent, man.

Newport: Yeah, absolutely. But I think it's heartening that so many young people today are looking ahead and at least dreaming that some day they'll strike it rich.

Ryssdal: Frank Newport, he's the editor-in-chief at Gallup. The partnership we do with them every week is called Attitude Check. Frank, we'll talk to you next week.

Newport: My pleasure.

About the author

Frank Newport, Ph.D., is the editor-in-chief at Gallup and appears regularly on Marketplace.

Pages

C Richard's picture
C Richard - May 11, 2012

For another take on this question, check out the comments at the bottom of the nytimes.com print of Conard's column on why income disparity is good for America, and we need more of it.

You'll find 100% disagreement with that point.

WorldHistoricalGenius's picture
WorldHistorical... - May 11, 2012

The most interesting aspect of this poll has to do with a person's concept of their own wealth. With the exception of the high and low extremes, a measure of whether or not you are "rich" is perhaps better conceived as a RATIO between your financial obligations and your income. Thus, the person making $50k and the person making $250k can have equally valid claims for "just getting by" in pure economic terms. Put another way, someone with an income above the median has equal ability to impoverish themselves with debt and spending. The 47% of 18-29 year-olds who think they will end up rich are not so much guilty of overestimating their earning potential as they are of underestimating the expenses they will probably choose to take on. They will index their future spending to their future income and end up no better off. I would argue that a better definition of poor, middle-class and rich would be achieved by defining ranges. For instance, in the middle class, someone's residual income might be 0.05 to 0.25 of their gross income once you've deducted mortgages, car payments, utilities, taxes, ordinary spending on consumable goods, etc. Thus, someone making $250k who has tens of thousands in regular monthly expenses can be less "rich" than someone making $50k who saves $2k a month because they have very little debt to service. At the risk of sounding anti-consumeristic (I'm not endeavoring to evaluate the quality of any spending choices, only their magnitude), defining wealth as the volume or nature of possessions rather than as an abundance of income in favor of the ability to invest, save or give away - an abundance achievable by increasing income, reducing expenses or a combination of both, will forever mire the concept of "rich" in equivocation and irreconcilably subjective frames of reference.

dmulliga's picture
dmulliga - May 10, 2012

Kai and APM are finally “getting it”. There is no 99%. Those who claim the speak for the rest of us are just an overly vocal, under educated, ill informed, overly whiny minority. It is way past about time the media understood this. The 99% is actually made up of a vast diversity of opinions; most of which do not correspond to the superficial shallow views of the so called occupy movement.

Frankidadio's picture
Frankidadio - May 10, 2012

It is pieces like this that make me wonder about intentional obfuscation. The question never was do the 99% DISLIKE the super rich... and who cares either way really? No, the question is WHY do the 99% believe the 1% should pay more in taxes? Do you really think the tax issue is motivated out of dislike and jealousy? If so, then that itself is insulting and ignorant. If not, then there is a real chance this piece was meant to deflect the argument away from taxing the wealthy more.

taojones's picture
taojones - May 10, 2012

ok lets really look at the situation of the rich . say I'm Mit Romney according to my tax return my money makes me 54 thousand DOLLARS A DAY whether i need it or not! lets say i blow a thousand on breakfast and coffee another thousand or 2 on a movie and candy then i play golf and waste away another 4 grand on a tip for the caddy lunch costs me 2 thousand and i spend some on drinks and dinner and go through another 5 grand that leaves me 1o grand more in the bank today than i started with which means tomorrow I make 54 thousand and a few hundred more . every day i make more and more ! I long ago ran out of things to buy . if i take a day off and stay home its even worse for me! so much money so little time to spend it!

my point is taxing the super rich has no effect on them except to slow their rate of capital growth , taking grandmas food stamps is just wrong . bain capital is probably a bank that gives Mit the right to create money at 8 to 13 times his capital on hand this gives him the leveraged buying power to buy a company break it up and move on . how does this experience allow him to govern in our free society where the rich as well as the poor are free to sleep under bridges and diddle in doorways ?

my bank has a tool to stop trickle down they plug my bankbook with extra zeros when my account threatens to overflow .
also by not taxing me i keep getting richer! if you tax me and I'm not getting richer i will have to start a business and make some more money by getting people to work for me !that would suck for me i hate those unwashed needy human beings , if i have so much money working for me who needs workers? am i truly the only person who can see this?

JustBobF's picture
JustBobF - May 11, 2012

Great thoughts! A new aspect on taxes. Love it!

JoanL's picture
JoanL - May 10, 2012

I bet your respondents would have felt more 99%-ish if you had asked them what they think about how the 1% GOT there. Treating the rest of us as “consumers” or “human resources” (that is, units of profit) instead of as peers, being willing to sell us addictive products or pollute as a cost of doing business, even buying our elections with political contributions and gambling away our economic stability. Then paying taxes at a lower rate than WB’s secretary. Not so much the American dream.

SpenceB's picture
SpenceB - May 10, 2012

I wish a question had been: How much more wealth should the rich have?

Pages