One-Third Of 1 Percenters Fell Back Into 99 Percent During Recession, Report Finds

Getting a spot in the elite one percent club by no means secures your place there.

A sizable minority of those in the one percent shifted between 2007 and 2009, according to a recent Federal Reserve report, cited by the Wall Street Journal. A full third of those in the one percent in 2007 had fallen into the 99 percent by 2009, the report finds, with former members of the 99 percent stepping in to fill the void.

The findings indicate that though the one percent may be an easy symbol of income inequality plaguing many Americans, they're by no means a permanent class. Indeed, the past three recessions hit the one percent the hardest as a percentage of total income, according to a separate report in the WSJ. In addition, since recession, a large number of millionaires have fallen back; those Americans making $1 million or more shrunk by 40 percent between 2007 and 2009 alone.

The fluctuation may explain why most one percenters can't keep track of whether they're still in the club. A recent survey of 100 people making more than $350,000 from wealth marketing firm, HNW Inc. found that half of respondents don't think they're in the top percentile of income earners.

Still, it's undoubtedly good to be king in America today. The top one percent of earners saw their incomes jump 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom one-fifth of earners only saw a 20 percent boost in income during the same period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's good news for some members of Congress, 57 of whom can count themselves as part of the one percent, according to USA Today.

The findings come as Occupy Wall Street celebrates its two month anniversary of protesting income inequality and other topics in cities around the world. The movement claims to represent the 99 percent of ordinary Americans and sets itself up in contrast with the top one percent of earners.

Some prominent one percenters have come out in support of the movement, however. Among them are billionaire George Soros, actor Alec Baldwin, filmmaker Michael Moore and hip hop mogul Russel Simmons.

The slideshow below shows the top 10 occupations of the 1 percent:

 

Comments

[inesison]

07:35 PM on 11/30/2011

Here's the difference, the 1% pretty much have everything they need and probably won't notice the slide back in their lifestyle, whereas the 99% don't have everything they need, they're still struggling, and would notice every penny that's taken from their income. Im sure every dollar is accounted for.

[Astronomy Guy]

01:31 AM on 11/30/2011

Oh dear! How will they get by! They will need to live pay check to pay check I am sure. Cut down on discretionary spending. Is this some kind of joke?

[nh3man]

05:04 PM on 11/28/2011

Shocking! I tell you, just Shocking! Something must be done.

[Despyria]

06:20 PM on 11/23/2011

Ok just a little bit of smoke. Position that mirror just a hair...

This is an attempt to QUALIFY not QUANTIFY what 1% is and then misdirect. So now it is income. Vastly overused and in this day and age, not just stupid, but silly. This is oft used to say how overpriced athletes and artist are and for the purpose of owners/executives claiming poverty.

Remember, of course, that there are compensations that aren't considered income, today more than ever. Capital gains aren't income, allowances charged to business cards aren't income, uses of company assets and more, aren't income. Trust fund allowances (worked right) aren't income.

So the question becomes:

Did the Hilton brats get income this year? If not Paris Hilton is in the 99%.

Anyone really buy that?

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.

Someone is getting WJS to try to blind us with statistics.

[Rugby1]

04:04 PM on 11/21/2011

This is not surprising. One of the good things about the US is that it allows for both upward and downward income mobility. Income mobility discourages the development of a static 1% class, and this poll should highlight that even as some of the 1% heads downward, others are moving up.

[l78lancer]

04:58 PM on 11/19/2011

The portion of the 1% who lost their status can't blame "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth." They can thank their big brothers who are higher in the 1% pecking order for giving them the shaft, and for GOP inaction that helped to grease the skids. Chances are the government didn't take your wealth - big business lost it for you.

But think about it this way - Because you are now part of the 99% at least now you can vote for Obama with a clear conscience because he won't try to raise your taxes. And maybe you now can see that there is a problem with the GOP proletariat rule, so you can be as disgruntled as the rest of the non-GOP world.

[Berettasskeeter]

10:20 AM on 11/21/2011

Nonsense! Your statement presupposes that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, and that one person earning more ensures that another person earns less. This is false. There is NO finite amount of wealth. It increases continuously, and has done so throughout history.
Semper fi

[l78lancer]

02:14 PM on 11/21/2011

Wrong. It makes no supposition of the sort. Your response is completely irrelevant to my statement.

#you're off on a tangent

[l78lancer]

04:40 PM on 11/19/2011

I have much less of a problem with people attaiing 1% status than I do with how they are deified by the GOP/TP. In America you should have the ability and opportunity to get rich. You just shouldn't have the GOP playing gatekeeper.

[Berettasskeeter]

10:21 AM on 11/21/2011

The GOP/TP has NOT glorified, or deified, the wealthy. What we have done is to defend their absolute Right to attain wealth, and to keep it with as little government confiscation as possible!
Semper fi

[l78lancer]

03:08 PM on 11/21/2011

If the rich have gone to the GOP to tell them that THEIR policy towards the rich is wrong, and the GOP insists on providing them with benefits they don't need that is tantamount to idol worship. While the rich are looking at their own social responsibility the GOP is looking at greed and hoarding.

[JubalTHarshaw]

03:14 PM on 11/19/2011

When will OWS organize protests around the homes of professional sports players and Hollywood celebrities? After all, they are the most obvious 1%ers out there...

[l78lancer]

04:46 PM on 11/19/2011

Because they don't ship jobs over seas, they don't sit on cash and not issue loans, they don't make risky investments with other people's money, they don't make the laws that pick the winners and losers in society, and the only time they get your money is when YOU decide to pay $150 for a ticket to see them.

Besides, none of them are more obvious than Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga or the Kardashians. Why not picket them, too.

[JubalTHarshaw]

06:34 AM on 11/20/2011

Sure. Who provides the investment capital to the "evil 1%" and reaps massive benefits from the investment world? If they are good rich people and Wall Street is evil rich people it looks like OWS needs an internal continuity editor. I know that the whole 99% makes a great bumper sticker but if it falls apart with such a brief analysis, it is nonsense. Oh yeah, Barbara Streisand has thugs on 24 hour patrol outside her San Diego “shack” to make sure that none of the 99% wander onto her beach, even below the high tide mark. Lady Gaga isn't inviting OWS to camp on any of her lawns. Paris Hilton probably thinks OWS is cute but in need of a bath. The Kardashians would sue OWS into the next century if they showed up on any of their properties. Have OWS publish a scorecard of the various subcultures of the 1% and identify which ones you avoid, if only because some bite back...

[nh3man]

05:08 PM on 11/28/2011

Yeah, Yeah. I'm on my way to Lady Gaga's house. I can handle her all by myself, don't anybody follow me.

[fictioneer]

01:55 PM on 11/19/2011

The millionaires are kidding themselves if they think the billionaires are going to be on their side.

[LDnearthesea]

01:59 PM on 11/19/2011

The proof of what you said is the current NBA lockout!

[l78lancer]

04:47 PM on 11/19/2011

I'm glad someone else had the same thoughts!

[l78lancer]

04:48 PM on 11/19/2011

Amen!

[ccdae5]

01:12 PM on 11/19/2011

While I am statistically part of the 99%, I do NOT support the movement and do not wish to be identified with them in any way. I am part of the 40% who prefer crunchy peanut butter though!

[LDnearthesea]

02:07 PM on 11/19/2011

I do! I'm in that 99% and support them 100%!

[JubalTHarshaw]

03:15 PM on 11/19/2011

Do you actually believe that OWS represents 99% of anything? Come on, fess up. It’s a cute bumper sticker but a delusion if professed as fact...

[Basselope]

02:32 PM on 11/19/2011

My micro bio says it all.

[ccdae5]

09:02 AM on 11/20/2011

What's a micro bio? Is it the one-liner below your username? If so, where did you get 53%? As of Friday night, national polls put the public support at 29% and fading fast. Which explains why a long list of Democratic mayors have turned against the "mobment" in the past week, including the ultra-left mayor of Oakland. The Democratic party now realizes that OWS threatens the Dems in 2012 rather than helps it.

[stormpilot]

01:07 PM on 11/19/2011

Staying in the 1% means being better at exploiting, lying, stealing, and destroying.

[LDnearthesea]

02:07 PM on 11/19/2011

And buying Congress and the Senate.

[molare88]

02:17 PM on 11/19/2011

wow generalise much? ataying in welfare means to be a lazy worthless bum..... see how that sounds?

[soli11]

02:46 PM on 11/19/2011

The working poor, by definition, work for a living. The idle rich, by definition do not.

[novabird]

07:16 PM on 11/18/2011

Aww, I feel really, really sorry for them.

[John Kelley 1]

02:27 PM on 11/18/2011

This article is meaningless unless it's noted how far up and down these "transient" 1% folks move on the economic ladder. To say one moved down a single notch to being in the top 2% is not exactly a remarkable change. It's not like you have multi-millionaires switching to middle class or working class existance from year to year. Pretty much any movement up or down within the top 10% of the economic ladder is meaningless to the rest of us who will never break through to that level, and that inability to rise to those heights or even remotely close to that prosperity is why you have people protesting against Wall Street. The folks on the top tier of the US economic ladder are at that level precisely because they are preventing others from rising up the ladder.

[ccdae5]

01:17 PM on 11/19/2011

How are those people preventing you from moving up the economic ladder into the top 10%? This is America, anyone with the work ethic, intelligence, and risk tolerance can start a successful business today that will propel them there in a very short time. However, it is a longshot to get there by working a regular job for someone else, but everybody already knows that, right? So what's the beef?

[LDnearthesea]

02:01 PM on 11/19/2011

You do know that there's a high percentage of small businesses that usually fail.

[soli11]

03:02 PM on 11/19/2011

The beef is that the system is rigged. The risk tolerant need to have something to risk. It is called capital. It is formed by accumulated profit. Profit is formed by selling things for more than it costs to produce them. To maintain profits, companies (owned by the one percent) lobby washington both for direct sales to government (see military industrial complex) and for laws which make it more profitable to extract resources for cheap (drill baby drill) and keep labor costs low (anti-worker/union legislation). Profit is what is left over after wages have been paid, and wages usually not enough to generate capital. Moreover, it is ILLEGAL currently for workers to obtain capital to form small businesses by asking their friends and neighbors for small investments without spending thousands on attorney fees to comply with SEC regulations. Google "crowdfunding" for a logical alternative to the monopoly of the 1PC. It's time for US to build our OWN ladders, not climb up someone elses! In the meantime, I call BS on the notion that the working class currently enjoys a level playing field.

[Birddog13]

01:48 PM on 11/18/2011

Just because someone fell out of the top 1% does not mean that they are still not very wealthy. If all they are measuring is annual income, it is not surprising their would be some significant fluctuation in the members of the group. What percent are high paid CEO'swho decide to retire or got a huge bonus one year that did not repeat the next year? How many are professional athletes whose high paying contract ends and is not replaced by another one, or entertainers who are not earning what they did the year before because they are not as popular or just want to slow down for a year? Most of these people, if they are reasonably taking care of their money, would still be very wealthy from a net worth perspective. I don't see this stat as being terribly informative.

[LDnearthesea]

02:02 PM on 11/19/2011

Exactly. Two summers ago I read an ad on EBay that was proof of what you said. Someone selling their sail boat for under $4K so as to make their mortgage payment.

[Cream Rises to the top]

12:24 PM on 11/18/2011

This is always what has been great about America.. You are not guaranteed anything but the pursuit of happiness. And those who are willing to risk, work and take steps to increase their wealth are given the opportunities to do so.. In the Euro models, not so much..There is so much restriction and taxes it is far more unlikely you will ever get ahead as you have to work for those who choose not to work so hard and to give them all the same benefits that you get. The "free" education and "free" healthcare comes at a cost of giving 60% of your income to the government for life in places like Finland.

[loveis22984]

01:24 PM on 11/18/2011

Do you believe is studies? If you answer "no" then I will have to ask you how do you know what you know. There was a study done that says it is harder for people to rise their socioecnomic status in America compared to wealthy Eroupean nations. Americas economy works very similar to the way it did in feudal europe.

[John Kelley 1]

04:36 PM on 11/18/2011

However, more people overall enjoy a higher standard of living in Western Europe than we do here in the United States. It may be harder to rise to the very pinnacle of power and wealth in Europe if you are starting at the bottom, but then most people never rise to that level in any society including the United States. On the other hand, it is far easier for someone in Europe to enjoy a rise from the bottom to a moderately successful life, i.e. middle class, compared to the United States.

[ChuckAllen]

12:12 PM on 11/19/2011

you're actually wrong, it's easier to move up the ladder in Europe.