????倘若我告訴你，有一群工作狂——大多擁有高學(xué)歷，在工作中既有頭腦、又有技能——在全球經(jīng)濟中取得高薪，你會怎么想？學(xué)者們發(fā)現(xiàn)，這一群體在雙親家庭中撫養(yǎng)子女的比率高于其他群體。

????你或許會認(rèn)為這個群體一定受人羨慕，被人競相效仿，是吧？情況正好相反。這就是美國飽受非議的最富1%群體，“占領(lǐng)華爾街”抗議聲浪讓他們聲名狼藉，再加上此后奧巴馬總統(tǒng)在連任競選中大打民粹牌，1%群體的反面形象已深入民心。

????對1%俱樂部的批評聲中，包括1%群體占美國收入的比例從1980年以來提升了一倍多。到2007年，這些人已占據(jù)美國總收入的近24%，為美國有史以來第二高水平，僅次于1929年。（2009年，該比例降至17%，說明經(jīng)濟衰退并沒有對富人更仁慈些。）

????對1%富人的責(zé)難，事實上折射了美國民眾對收入差距擴大以及工薪階層現(xiàn)狀的不滿。比如，沒有大學(xué)文憑的男性，薪資水平在過去30年里大降了三分之一。

????這的確令人擔(dān)憂。從社會和政治角度，都有充分的理由擔(dān)心不斷擴大的收入差距。但把怒氣撒在1%富人身上，是找錯了地方。收入不是零和游戲：富人增加的收入并非來自窮人。哈佛大學(xué)（Harvard）的勞倫斯?卡茨通過計算得出，即便把1%富人增加的收入全部給99%，家庭收入的增加也不及如果人人擁有大學(xué)學(xué)歷后收入增加的一半。換言之，高等教育的財務(wù)回報對收入分化的影響更大。

????確實，研究人員表示，富人更富的原因非常復(fù)雜微妙。1%俱樂部是一個龐大多樣的群體，包括138萬個家庭，其中最低家庭收入為34.4萬美元（2009年）（幾乎所有的學(xué)者都依據(jù)收入數(shù)據(jù)，因為難以獲得可信的凈資產(chǎn)數(shù)據(jù)）。不錯，在最富有的1%群體中，金融業(yè)人士不少，但自由職業(yè)者和其他各類專業(yè)人士的比例也很高。而且，芝加哥大學(xué)（University of Chicago）的斯蒂文?卡普蘭稱，雖然CEO收入在上世紀(jì)90年代漲勢驚人，過去10年實際上呈現(xiàn)下降。

????1%富人憑什么獲得更多收入？首先，全球以及科技界的一些變化推高了不同領(lǐng)域內(nèi)超級明星的收入：我們將之稱為馬友友效應(yīng)。在十七世紀(jì)，一位著名大提琴演奏家的事業(yè)巔峰就是為國王演奏。如今，馬友友可以在世界各地舉辦音樂會，賺取巨額收入。1%群體中的明星律師、銀行家、醫(yī)生以及那些不斷開拓新市場的創(chuàng)業(yè)者，也是同樣道理。

????高收入職業(yè)中的女性是另外一個因素。印第安納大學(xué)（Indiana University）和美國財政部的研究者對收入排在前 1%的家庭研究后發(fā)現(xiàn)，2005年納稅人（大部分為男性）配偶也工作的比例增至近40%，大大高于1979年的25%。而且，這樣的配偶往往也是富有的專業(yè)人士。

?

????What if I told you that there was a group of hard-driving workaholics who tend to have advanced degrees and bring a level of talent and skill to their jobs that attracts premium pay in the global economy? Scholars have found that this group is more likely than much of the population to raise their children in two-parent homes.

????You might think this was a group people would admire, even emulate, right? Not so. For this is the much-maligned 1%, whose media infamy via the Occupy Wall Street protests, followed by President Obama's populist reelection message, is now firmly embedded in the American psyche.

????The 1% club stands accused, accurately, of more than doubling its share of the nation's income since 1980. By 2007 it controlled nearly 24% of total income, the second highest in history, after 1929. (In 2009 its share dropped to 17%, suggesting that recessions aren't necessarily kind to the rich.)

????Railing about the 1% club has become shorthand for expressing outrage not only over growing income disparity but also about the state of the nation's working class. Wages of men without college diplomas, for example, have dropped by a whopping third over the past three decades.

????That's deeply troubling. Socially and politically, there are plenty of reasons to worry about the growing income gap. But rage against the 1% is misplaced. Income is not a zero-sum game: The rich aren't getting wealthier at the expense of the poor. Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree. In other words, the financial rewards of higher education are a big contributor to the income gap.

????Indeed, researchers say the reasons for the rich getter richer are complex and nuanced. One-percenters are a large and varied lot, consisting of 1.38 million households, with total household incomes starting at $344,000 in 2009. (Nearly all scholars rely on income figures because of the difficulty in obtaining reliable net-worth data.) Yes, finance is well-represented in the 1% club, but there is also an especially high portion of the self-employed, along with a variety of other professions. And while CEO incomes rose astronomically through the 1990s, their incomes have actually declined over the past decade, according to University of Chicago's Steven N. Kaplan.

????So what is behind the income gains of the 1%? Let's start with the global and technological changes that pump up the salaries of superstars in a range of professions: Call it the Yo-Yo Ma effect. In 1600 a famous cellist would have reached his career peak by playing for the king. Now Ma can stage concerts all over the world, with commensurate earnings. Apply that same concept to the in-demand skills of star lawyers or bankers or doctors in the 1% club, or of hungry entrepreneurs plying new markets.

????Women in high-paying professions are another factor. Researchers from Indiana University and the Treasury Department studied the top 1% of households and found that by 2005 the number of taxpayers (largely men) with working spouses rose to almost 40%, up from 25% in 1979. That spouse tends to be a wealthy professional as well.