August 03, 2012
Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
From PolitiFact.com:
Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:
No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion
That’s a grand total of $102.7 billion for the whole family.
Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California-Berkeley, compared the Waltons’ cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Survey of Consumer Finances. (She used the Waltons’ wealth from 2010, which was valued at $89.5 billion.)
Allegretto found that in 2007, the wealth held by the six Waltons was equal to that of the bottom 30.5 percent of families in the U.S. In 2010, the Waltons’ share equaled the entire bottom 41.5 percent of families.
That 41.5 percent represents nearly 49 million families, notes Josh Bivens at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. While median family wealth fell by 38.8 percent, Bivens wrote, the wealth of the Walton family members rose from $73.3 billion in 2007 to $89.5 billion in 2010, or about 22 percent growth.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 10:55 AM | Permalink






















Comments
It is called a plutocracy.
Posted by: Dredd | Aug 3, 2012 2:52:57 PM
This is stupid. The bottom 25% has negative wealth.
Anyone not in debt owns more than the entire bottom quarter.
Posted by: derp | Aug 3, 2012 3:31:29 PM
Sounds like slavery to me.
Posted by: reader | Aug 3, 2012 3:56:59 PM
Yeah, well, I am in the bottom 25 percent and it ain't that stupid to me buddy. (I love how many people use that as an argument. . .if anything it makes it WORSE)
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Aug 3, 2012 4:47:15 PM
The point is, you could pick lots of people that aren't that rich and use them as examples.
There's definitely lots of inequality, and it's definitely increasing, but this is a misleading measure.
Posted by: derp | Aug 3, 2012 5:55:11 PM
this is capitalist inequity. no wonder, the US economy is on the decline. In contrast, socialist equity sounds sensible. no wonder, the Chinese economy is on the rise.
Posted by: rohana | Aug 4, 2012 11:28:00 AM
Post a comment