And again spool32 wins an argument by oversimplifying what his opponents were trying to say. No arguing with him!
So please stop doing it. You were the silliest of geese, couldn't bring yourself to even walk it back a bit, tried to blame my annoyance on me being Republican, and then threw your hands up as if you were the reasonable one the whole time.
There literally no point in talking to me! Not like you have been, at least.
Once again: Going to college is not a luxury. Going to college for free is.
You still don't get it, do you?
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Than, don't be obtuse. Both sides make this mistake all the time, but that doesn't diminish the wrongness of it. I don't think you'd like to argue that it isn't wrong in either case. There's no reason to try and jump in here to reroute the conversation onto comfortable ground - Let DC take his medicine and you guys can go back to hating rich peoplethe rich later.
"All the time" being "since September" for the 99%, and "since the Reagan era" for the rich.
I'm sick of being criticized for this shit, and there's is no way in fuck the 99% should unilaterally disarm on the class warfare front. If you want disarmament, you first. And then, in thirty years, maybe we'll fucking think about it.
It seems to me this thread could benefit a lot from this Cracked article I read recently, it says it better than I with choice quotes to boot: 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying
#6. "Well, $500,000 a Year Might Sound Like a Lot, but I'm Hardly Rich."
What We Hear:
"When my family's Aruba vacation went over budget, that was exactly like you being unable to afford medication for your child's excruciating chronic illness!"
#5. "Hey, I Worked Hard to Get What I Have!"
What We Hear:
"The only reason I have a hundred times more money than you is because I work a hundred times as hard!"
#4. "If I Can Do It, So Can You!"
What We Hear:
"If everyone at my country club makes good money, it can't be that hard!"
#3. "You're Just Jealous Because I Made It and You Didn't!"
What We Hear:
"All complaints about unfairness in the system are the equivalent of 12-year-old girls spreading mean rumors about the popular ones!"
#2. "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!"
What We Hear:
"I have to pay higher taxes than my gardener! Waaaah!"
#1. "Stop Asking for Handouts! I Never Got Help from Anybody!"
What We Hear:
"Because I didn't inherit millions of dollars, impoverished children don't need food stamps!"
CanadianWolverine on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Wolvie, no one here is actually saying any of those things. Not even close.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Than, don't be obtuse. Both sides make this mistake all the time, but that doesn't diminish the wrongness of it. I don't think you'd like to argue that it isn't wrong in either case. There's no reason to try and jump in here to reroute the conversation onto comfortable ground - Let DC take his medicine and you guys can go back to hating rich peoplethe rich later.
"All the time" being "since September" for the 99%, and "since the Reagan era" for the rich.
I'm sick of being criticized for this shit, and there's is no way in fuck the 99% should unilaterally disarm on the class warfare front. If you want disarmament, you first. And then, in thirty years, maybe we'll fucking think about it.
The rich never hated the poor for being poor, as far as I can see. The idea of the welfare queen and whatnot is directed at behavior. So hating the aloof rich for complaining that they can't afford to simulataneously staff all 7 of their yachts anymore becaise of the economy is fine, and seems like a case of "turnabout is fair play" but hating them just for being rich is going to far.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It seems to me this thread could benefit a lot from this Cracked article I read recently, it says it better than I with choice quotes to boot: 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying
#6. "Well, $500,000 a Year Might Sound Like a Lot, but I'm Hardly Rich."
What We Hear:
"When my family's Aruba vacation went over budget, that was exactly like you being unable to afford medication for your child's excruciating chronic illness!"
#5. "Hey, I Worked Hard to Get What I Have!"
What We Hear:
"The only reason I have a hundred times more money than you is because I work a hundred times as hard!"
#4. "If I Can Do It, So Can You!"
What We Hear:
"If everyone at my country club makes good money, it can't be that hard!"
#3. "You're Just Jealous Because I Made It and You Didn't!"
What We Hear:
"All complaints about unfairness in the system are the equivalent of 12-year-old girls spreading mean rumors about the popular ones!"
#2. "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!"
What We Hear:
"I have to pay higher taxes than my gardener! Waaaah!"
#1. "Stop Asking for Handouts! I Never Got Help from Anybody!"
What We Hear:
"Because I didn't inherit millions of dollars, impoverished children don't need food stamps!"
This article was posted in the primary thread, and this whole discussion actually started when I took issue with 1 and 6 (not the statements, the way he characterizes them in the body of the article)
And I have read Feral's post and he is wrong. The rising costs just means that things our parents took for granted(like cheap college, healthcare) have become luxuries instead of just another part of our lifestyle. We judge luxuries by how well the average person can afford them.
This is a viewpoint that, ultimately, benefits the rich and powerful.
If the average person cannot afford basic medical care, then under your definition, basic medical care is a "luxury."
However, the connotations of "luxury" is that it's something nice, something extra, possibly something a bit extravagant. Calling something a "luxury" implies that it's no great tragedy if you can't have it. "Millions of people can't afford luxuries" doesn't really get the political blood pumping the same way that "millions of people can't afford basic medical care" does.
No, you're offering a descriptive explanation for something that is largely prescriptive. "Luxury" is a normative term - well, normative by exclusion anyway. Luxuries are those things which are not needs and these needs are defined partly by simple human biology (food is a need) and partly by cultural mores (single-family housing, as opposed to a tent city or a homeless shelter, is a need).
You're committing the common misstep of conflating normal with average. They are related, but they are not necessarily the same.
spacekungfuman said: "instead of saying this is the issue, I think we need to come to a decision. Is membership in the middle class based on being able to obtain a lifestyle that fits the traditional middle class mold, or is it literally the class of people between the poor and the rich?" What we're arguing about is basically, "What is a normal lifestyle?"
We can start by asking, "What is average?" but we need to keep in mind that the average can actually be abnormal.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
spool is semi right, yes. But getting a free ride through Harvard is still a luxury no matter where it comes from, mainly because people without trusts or big money don't usually get in.
This Harvard question is a bit of a red herring, I think. Because even the kids who get into Harvard for free are getting in because rich people are paying for it. It's like saying rich kids aren't rich, because they don't actually own any money and it's their parents who pay for everything. Going to Harvard is still... I'm not sure I'd say it's a luxury, since a luxury would imply that it's a pleasure good, while going to Harvard certainly has practical benefits... but it certainly is luxurious.
Than, don't be obtuse. Both sides make this mistake all the time, but that doesn't diminish the wrongness of it. I don't think you'd like to argue that it isn't wrong in either case. There's no reason to try and jump in here to reroute the conversation onto comfortable ground - Let DC take his medicine and you guys can go back to hating rich peoplethe rich later.
"All the time" being "since September" for the 99%, and "since the Reagan era" for the rich.
I'm sick of being criticized for this shit, and there's is no way in fuck the 99% should unilaterally disarm on the class warfare front. If you want disarmament, you first. And then, in thirty years, maybe we'll fucking think about it.
The rich never hated the poor for being poor, as far as I can see. The idea of the welfare queen and whatnot is directed at behavior. So hating the aloof rich for complaining that they can't afford to simulataneously staff all 7 of their yachts anymore becaise of the economy is fine, and seems like a case of "turnabout is fair play" but hating them just for being rich is going to far.
Except that in the case of the stereotypical rich person, as seen in the current political climate, they believe that the the cause of being poor is behaviour. While you and I know that these two things are not strictly related, in their minds it seems to be, so hating a poor person for their behaviour and saying it's that their behaviour alone that causes them to be poor is essentially tantamount to hating them for being poor.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They certainly do. (given that the rich often have less physically tasking jobs they're able to work long hours, I'd say that most people work about as hard as everybody else)
But a lawyer working 60+ hours is still going to make waaay more than a factory worker working about the same amount of hours. And that difference in pay is almost exclusively due to luck. Not lottery-wining luck, but the luck of education, opportunity and care. Your entire youth and early adulthood shapes your life in an incredible way and you rarely have much power over it. Rich people know how valuable that shit is, why else would they complain about having to pull their kids out of private school?
And the thing is, about three quarters of what OWS advocates for is increasing such luck for children and young adults. The rich are not asked to just hand their money to poor folks, they're asked to pay to provide more people with the opportunities that they (the rich) had. Funding schools and healthcare and helping adults provide for their family (thus indirectly helping the kids) and so on. Any adult with children will put their children first, so if higher taxes on the rich leave poorer adults with more money at the end of the month that money goes directly into the children.
And yeah, maybe the rich will be less rich. But I don't really give a shit.
*also, affordable healthcare might seem like it's not about kids, but most people have dependents and being able to get healthcare and not pay out of your ass will mean that they can provide longer and better for the kids. also, we don't actually want people to die because they can't afford it.
The world is not divided into rich people with desk jobs and everyone else who does back breaking labor. The lawyer working 60 hours a week is definitely working harder (and at a higher stress job) than the customer service representative or secretary working 40 hours a week.
I bolded your claim above because that's exactly what it is. Assuming all adults will put thier kids first, or be responsible towards them, is a stretch, to say the least. If what you said was true, we would not even need child protective services. . .
1.) The lawyer may well do, but is also much better equipped and gets many more benefits than the lad or lady who is one accident away from losing their job forever. There's nothing wrong with this, but it doesn't make their position any less lucky.
2.) What you're implying is that poor people will shit on their kids, that's a fucked up assumption. Most parents will take care of their kids first, so I'm not sure I get your point.
3.)You know what's a great way to end a sentence? A full stop.
And I have read Feral's post and he is wrong. The rising costs just means that things our parents took for granted(like cheap college, healthcare) have become luxuries instead of just another part of our lifestyle. We judge luxuries by how well the average person can afford them.
This is a viewpoint that, ultimately, benefits the rich and powerful.
If the average person cannot afford basic medical care, then under your definition, basic medical care is a "luxury."
However, the connotations of "luxury" is that it's something nice, something extra, possibly something a bit extravagant. Calling something a "luxury" implies that it's no great tragedy if you can't have it. "Millions of people can't afford luxuries" doesn't really get the political blood pumping the same way that "millions of people can't afford basic medical care" does.
No, you're offering a descriptive explanation for something that is largely prescriptive. "Luxury" is a normative term - well, normative by exclusion anyway. Luxuries are those things which are not needs and these needs are defined partly by simple human biology (food is a need) and partly by cultural mores (single-family housing, as opposed to a tent city or a homeless shelter, is a need).
You're committing the common misstep of conflating normal with average. They are related, but they are not necessarily the same.
spacekungfuman said: "instead of saying this is the issue, I think we need to come to a decision. Is membership in the middle class based on being able to obtain a lifestyle that fits the traditional middle class mold, or is it literally the class of people between the poor and the rich?" What we're arguing about is basically, "What is a normal lifestyle?"
We can start by asking, "What is average?" but we need to keep in mind that the average can actually be abnormal.
That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, except you left out all the unnecessary personal anecdotes. I think for the rest of this topic I may just take spool's lead and simply refer to whatever your previous post on this topic is.
Wolvie, no one here is actually saying any of those things. Not even close.
I see #6 and #5 used on this page alone, let alone reviewing the entirety of the thread. They are even shown why they are poor statements by other posters on this same page in a not dissimilar fashion as the article, albeit with less goofiness.
Than, don't be obtuse. Both sides make this mistake all the time, but that doesn't diminish the wrongness of it. I don't think you'd like to argue that it isn't wrong in either case. There's no reason to try and jump in here to reroute the conversation onto comfortable ground - Let DC take his medicine and you guys can go back to hating rich peoplethe rich later.
"All the time" being "since September" for the 99%, and "since the Reagan era" for the rich.
I'm sick of being criticized for this shit, and there's is no way in fuck the 99% should unilaterally disarm on the class warfare front. If you want disarmament, you first. And then, in thirty years, maybe we'll fucking think about it.
The rich never hated the poor for being poor, as far as I can see. The idea of the welfare queen and whatnot is directed at behavior. So hating the aloof rich for complaining that they can't afford to simulataneously staff all 7 of their yachts anymore becaise of the economy is fine, and seems like a case of "turnabout is fair play" but hating them just for being rich is going to far.
Stop calling it an idea, and call it what it is: a myth.
And the rich may not say they hate the poor, but when you look at what they lobby for, and what the entities who they give their money to lobby for, the way they actmost definitely hates the poor.
Are we only looking at cash flow to determine rich? Because there's something to be said about wealth, as well. Like, two people, living in NYC, both making 50,000 gross, taking the standard deduction and claiming only themselves for a personal deduction. One might be underwater on their mortgage, and another might be holding onto capital assets to the order of $300,000-400,000. And that's not selling them, that's just holding them and letting them just sit there and accumulate value.
They make the same amount of income but their ability to pay for shit is drastically different. There's something to be said about the differentiation, there. I just am not really smart enough to say it!
Are we only looking at cash flow to determine rich? Because there's something to be said about wealth, as well. Like, two people, living in NYC, both making 50,000 gross, taking the standard deduction and claiming only themselves for a personal deduction. One might be underwater on their mortgage, and another might be holding onto capital assets to the order of $300,000-400,000. And that's not selling them, that's just holding them and letting them just sit there and accumulate value.
They make the same amount of income but their ability to pay for shit is drastically different. There's something to be said about the differentiation, there. I just am not really smart enough to say it!
Are there really a lot of people earning low incomes that have managed to amass a large amount of wealth like that?
I mean, where did that money come from? And why should we care?
Are we only looking at cash flow to determine rich? Because there's something to be said about wealth, as well. Like, two people, living in NYC, both making 50,000 gross, taking the standard deduction and claiming only themselves for a personal deduction. One might be underwater on their mortgage, and another might be holding onto capital assets to the order of $300,000-400,000. And that's not selling them, that's just holding them and letting them just sit there and accumulate value.
They make the same amount of income but their ability to pay for shit is drastically different. There's something to be said about the differentiation, there. I just am not really smart enough to say it!
Are there really a lot of people earning low incomes that have managed to amass a large amount of wealth like that?
I mean, where did that money come from? And why should we care?
You should care because its another factor in determining who is and is not rich, and another argument against drawing an income based line in the sand.
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.
Also, the membership and funding for these guys primarily comes from the people in category three, so I'll go ahead and speak for the rest of the 99% when I say: fuck them.
Thanatos on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.
Also, the membership and funding for these guys primarily comes from the people in category three, so I'll go ahead and speak for the rest of the 99% when I say: fuck them.
Good point. We wouldn't want initiatives like this taking hold, would we?:
Edit: Regardless of the percentages, the point stands that there are many many people out there who did work hard and were lucky, and took on student loan debt and as a result, they made it. Why don't you see that these people are very different from the "villianous" rich that OWS is saying orchastrated the financial crisis, and who lobby the government and buy politicians and never pay any taxes?
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Aren't these guys the same people who want to abolish the national minimum wage? Because if so, they can fuck right the hell off.
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Well I was careful to say not many people have high wealth without high income. The other way around is more likely, sure- but nobody is going to pity someone that earns high income and then blows it all on expensive stuff.
The genius of OWS is that it dodges all of these quibbles like "what about someone who earns 100k but lives in an expensive city" etc and goes straight to the most important issue- some people are really, obscenely, rich and it's unjust. Krugman wrote an article pointing out that it would be more accurate to label them "the 0.1%" but I don't think it matters much. The main point is just to unite the vast majority of non-super-rich people onto one alliance. If they can do that, and stay unified, they'll win. The rich know this, which is why there's so much backlash like "hey you in the 30% should envy people in the 50% that earn a bit more than you lololol". It's classic divide and conquer bullshit.
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.
Also, the membership and funding for these guys primarily comes from the people in category three, so I'll go ahead and speak for the rest of the 99% when I say: fuck them.
Good point. We wouldn't want initiatives like this taking hold, would we?:
Edit: Regardless of the percentages, the point stands that there are many many people out there who did work hard and were lucky, and took on student loan debt and as a result, they made it. Why don't you see that these people are very different from the "villianous" rich that OWS is saying orchastrated the financial crisis, and who lobby the government and buy politicians and never pay any taxes?
Hamas runs all sorts of charities. Schools, hospitals, helping people after disasters... I guess that means they're not so bad, either, right?
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.
Also, the membership and funding for these guys primarily comes from the people in category three, so I'll go ahead and speak for the rest of the 99% when I say: fuck them.
Good point. We wouldn't want initiatives like this taking hold, would we?:
Edit: Regardless of the percentages, the point stands that there are many many people out there who did work hard and were lucky, and took on student loan debt and as a result, they made it. Why don't you see that these people are very different from the "villianous" rich that OWS is saying orchastrated the financial crisis, and who lobby the government and buy politicians and never pay any taxes?
If one person has a billion dollars while everyone else lives in poverty, does it really matter whether they earned their money "fairly" or from luck/inheritance?
The way I see it, one of the effects of modern technology is to concentrate profit into fewer and fewer hands- a lot of modern industries are just "winner-take-all" which was never true before. So we need to politically organize to prevent rich people just owning everything, and whether it's bill gates or paris hilton it's still bad.
The way I see it, one of the effects of modern technology is to concentrate profit into fewer and fewer hands- a lot of modern industries are just "winner-take-all" which was never true before.
I disagree. This sort of industrial cycle has happened before frequently, most notably with the Industrial Revolution. I suspect that history will show that this is simply a Digital Revolution in the same way. Whenever a labour-changing technological revolution begins, it is primarily only accessible to those who begin with capital, and for a while, it seems that the rich are simply getting richer at the expense of everyone else. But over time, economics restabilize, technological capital costs come down, and the burst of innovative technology peters out. It's just that typically, this sort of event occurs localized to a specific industry - like the airline industry, which first blew up with the post-WWII DC-3s and then again with the jetliner age, or the railroad industry, or assembly line technology - as opposed to an economy-wide shift - like with the Industrial Revolution. I don't think that we're necessarily on an irreversible trend towards a plutocracy.
The way I see it, one of the effects of modern technology is to concentrate profit into fewer and fewer hands- a lot of modern industries are just "winner-take-all" which was never true before.
I disagree. This sort of industrial cycle has happened before frequently, most notably with the Industrial Revolution. I suspect that history will show that this is simply a Digital Revolution in the same way. Whenever a labour-changing technological revolution begins, it is primarily only accessible to those who begin with capital, and for a while, it seems that the rich are simply getting richer at the expense of everyone else. But over time, economics restabilize, technological capital costs come down, and the burst of innovative technology peters out. It's just that typically, this sort of event occurs localized to a specific industry - like the airline industry, which first blew up with the post-WWII DC-3s and then again with the jetliner age, or the railroad industry, or assembly line technology - as opposed to an economy-wide shift - like with the Industrial Revolution. I don't think that we're necessarily on an irreversible trend towards a plutocracy.
Several things.
1) The Industrial Revolution did produce a massive increase in inequality. The only thing that stopped it was political organization like unions and trust-busting, and eventually the great depression. But if didn't have unions or anti-monopoly laws, i'm sure the inequality from industry would be much, much worse.
2) At least in the industrial revolution, factories still needed workers. Expanding their production required more workers. But with digital technology, that's no longer the case... Facebook for example has only 3000 employees, and yet it serves the entire world. Lady Gaga is just one person, but everyone in the world can listen to her songs- there's no need to hire 10 more singers like her to give more concerts.
3) Because of patent laws, we're basically giving tech companies a legal monopoly on their area. It would be almost impossible for any company to enter the smart phone market, for example, simply because all the necessary patents have already been given out. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you try to make a phone with a touch-screen interface apple can sue you and shut you down.
The way I see it, one of the effects of modern technology is to concentrate profit into fewer and fewer hands- a lot of modern industries are just "winner-take-all" which was never true before.
I disagree. This sort of industrial cycle has happened before frequently, most notably with the Industrial Revolution. I suspect that history will show that this is simply a Digital Revolution in the same way. Whenever a labour-changing technological revolution begins, it is primarily only accessible to those who begin with capital, and for a while, it seems that the rich are simply getting richer at the expense of everyone else. But over time, economics restabilize, technological capital costs come down, and the burst of innovative technology peters out. It's just that typically, this sort of event occurs localized to a specific industry - like the airline industry, which first blew up with the post-WWII DC-3s and then again with the jetliner age, or the railroad industry, or assembly line technology - as opposed to an economy-wide shift - like with the Industrial Revolution. I don't think that we're necessarily on an irreversible trend towards a plutocracy.
Several things.
1) The Industrial Revolution did produce a massive increase in inequality. The only thing that stopped it was political organization like unions and trust-busting, and eventually the great depression. But if didn't have unions or anti-monopoly laws, i'm sure the inequality from industry would be much, much worse.
2) At least in the industrial revolution, factories still needed workers. Expanding their production required more workers. But with digital technology, that's no longer the case... Facebook for example has only 3000 employees, and yet it serves the entire world. Lady Gaga is just one person, but everyone in the world can listen to her songs- there's no need to hire 10 more singers like her to give more concerts.
3) Because of patent laws, we're basically giving tech companies a legal monopoly on their area. It would be almost impossible for any company to enter the smart phone market, for example, simply because all the necessary patents have already been given out. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you try to make a phone with a touch-screen interface apple can sue you and shut you down.
Well, on the second point, the Industrial Revolution also make extra human capital redundant, especially in agriculture. Why do you think there's far fewer farmers today than there were ~150 years ago? Though I do agree that income inequality and patent trolling need to be addressed.
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Well I was careful to say not many people have high wealth without high income. The other way around is more likely, sure- but nobody is going to pity someone that earns high income and then blows it all on expensive stuff.
The genius of OWS is that it dodges all of these quibbles like "what about someone who earns 100k but lives in an expensive city" etc and goes straight to the most important issue- some people are really, obscenely, rich and it's unjust. Krugman wrote an article pointing out that it would be more accurate to label them "the 0.1%" but I don't think it matters much. The main point is just to unite the vast majority of non-super-rich people onto one alliance. If they can do that, and stay unified, they'll win. The rich know this, which is why there's so much backlash like "hey you in the 30% should envy people in the 50% that earn a bit more than you lololol". It's classic divide and conquer bullshit.
But you are alienating lots of working rich who are at or near the top 1% and who might share OWS's grievances. When I hear "the 1%" I don't think of the insanely rich. I think of my peers and coworkers, many of whom are actually quite sympathetic to the issues OWS is talking about, but who feel ostracized by the labelling and rhetoric. Honestly, I think that the 1% rhetoric is pushing people in this group to identify with the super rich. I know that I never thought of myself as having more in common with Mark Zuckerberg than my secretary, but that is who I am being lumped in with by OWS.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They certainly do. (given that the rich often have less physically tasking jobs they're able to work long hours, I'd say that most people work about as hard as everybody else)
But a lawyer working 60+ hours is still going to make waaay more than a factory worker working about the same amount of hours. And that difference in pay is almost exclusively due to luck. Not lottery-wining luck, but the luck of education, opportunity and care. Your entire youth and early adulthood shapes your life in an incredible way and you rarely have much power over it. Rich people know how valuable that shit is, why else would they complain about having to pull their kids out of private school?
And the thing is, about three quarters of what OWS advocates for is increasing such luck for children and young adults. The rich are not asked to just hand their money to poor folks, they're asked to pay to provide more people with the opportunities that they (the rich) had. Funding schools and healthcare and helping adults provide for their family (thus indirectly helping the kids) and so on. Any adult with children will put their children first, so if higher taxes on the rich leave poorer adults with more money at the end of the month that money goes directly into the children.
And yeah, maybe the rich will be less rich. But I don't really give a shit.
*also, affordable healthcare might seem like it's not about kids, but most people have dependents and being able to get healthcare and not pay out of your ass will mean that they can provide longer and better for the kids. also, we don't actually want people to die because they can't afford it.
The world is not divided into rich people with desk jobs and everyone else who does back breaking labor. The lawyer working 60 hours a week is definitely working harder (and at a higher stress job) than the customer service representative or secretary working 40 hours a week.
I bolded your claim above because that's exactly what it is. Assuming all adults will put thier kids first, or be responsible towards them, is a stretch, to say the least. If what you said was true, we would not even need child protective services. . .
It's true, almost all non-rich people treat their children like shit.
wait what...
Anyway, you should seriously stop fucking drawing comparisons because you're fucking bad at it. YES OF COURSE the very hard working people work harder than whatever people you deem not working hard enough but that is neither true for most people nor particularly relevant for the discussion. People aren't working as secretary or customer service representative because they don't want to earn more money, they work there because their education and opportunities have made that the best job they can get barring extraordinary skills (which I guarantee you most lawyers and other rich people don't have either).
I just can't understand how you can deny the importance of opportunities to move up in the world, particularly because you always talk about how important those things are to you.
If private school doesn't matter for the future of your kids and their success you shouldn't be giving a fuck about having to send them to public school. If it does matter you can't seriously hold up the idea that everyone else just didn't try hard enough.
But you are alienating lots of working rich who are at or near the top 1% and who might share OWS's grievances. When I hear "the 1%" I don't think of the insanely rich. I think of my peers and coworkers, many of whom are actually quite sympathetic to the issues OWS is talking about, but who feel ostracized by the labelling and rhetoric. Honestly, I think that the 1% rhetoric is pushing people in this group to identify with the super rich. I know that I never thought of myself as having more in common with Mark Zuckerberg than my secretary, but that is who I am being lumped in with by OWS.
At some point, this just becomes splitting hairs, doesn't it? I mean, OWS could say, "We are the 99.75%!" but... um.... I mean, Warren Buffet is ACTUALLY in the 0.01%, and he can get over it; I don't really get why someone with a household income of $350 000 is like, "Oh, OH! They're lumping me in with the super-rich! How mean of them!" as though someone who makes $349 999 will be like, "Yeah! I'm the 99%!"
As for "alienating the working rich"... I don't even know what that means. Because OWS is only mad about the non-working rich? Or the working super-rich? Like because they're working, somehow that's a shield that deflects the ire of income inequality? If they're feeling lumped in with the super-rich, it's because they're LUMPING THEMSELVES IN, because they feel like because they work, they deserve the wealth that they have, which may be true, but it's the exact same reasoning that the super-rich use as well. Income inequality, or rather inequity, at its root isn't about how hard someone works; it's about a dangerous and inhumane distribution of wealth in a society.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'd hazard to say that this is a more unsustainable trend than the debt. How are we going to pay down that debt if no one makes anymore ergo no one can pay taxes?
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
The cost of servicing our debt is actually cheaper now than it was back under Bush. We should definitely be focusing on fixing poverty and unemployment first.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Aren't these guys the same people who want to abolish the national minimum wage? Because if so, they can fuck right the hell off.
Walmart wants the minimum wage to go up because it disproportionately impacts smaller businesses. I personally am in favor of a living minimum wage but there are reasonable arguments to be made against it.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
The structural debt isn't a serious issue if we can start correcting income inequality.
Seriously I'm at full on "tax the fuck out of the rich" mode. I don't understand why middle class Americans will argue fervently for Mitt Romney to have 13% taxes
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The cost of servicing our debt is actually cheaper now than it was back under Bush. We should definitely be focusing on fixing poverty and unemployment first.
Well that's my point, the debt's a false crisis, it's the fact that everyone except a special few are getting poorer and poorer. That's the problem we can fix. The debt is completely sustainable so long as we start curbing future spending (we will turn into Europe when the Boomers all start demanding that free medicine they've bootstrapped their way to) and fixing our goddamn tax code.
Panetta kept bringing up the fact that you can't cut your way to solvency in the Defense budget hearing last week. Him and General Dempsey. Damn good show.
The structural debt isn't a serious issue if we can start correcting income inequality.
Seriously I'm at full on "tax the fuck out of the rich" mode. I don't understand why middle class Americans will argue fervently for Mitt Romney to have 13% taxes
Because everyone thinks they're the one who's going to break into the 1%, and damned if they're going to set the precedent for higher taxes on the rich - that'll cost them money someday! It's fucking idiotic, but it's true. The last I saw something like 50% of Americans either think they ARE in the top income range or believe they WILL BE within the next 5-10 years. So they vote that way.
The real problem is that everyone bought the bullshit when the 'American Dream' went from 'you can support your family and have a good life' to 'you can get fucking rich!' because obviously not everyone can be fucking rich. But their new idea of selling doilies over the Internet is totaly about to take off/they're about to get that record deal/pretty soon they'll get promoted to managment at the WalMart where they work, and they'll be fucked if they'll sign over 9% more of the incredibly high wages they're about to make.
Soon I'll get promoted to salaried management at wal-mart and then I'll get the privilege of working for under minimum wage 70 hours a week just to keep my job!
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%.
Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.
If you're looking at simple percentiles, then yes clearly there are exactly as many people with wealth in the 99th percentile as there are people with income in the 99th percentile, because that's what "percentile" means.
But that's not really a good way of looking at it.
How much income do you have to make to be in the 1%? $250k-$500k/yr depending on what estimates you're looking at.
How much wealth? About $19m.
Think about that for a minute. If you're in the top 1% of income ($500k/yr), and you're putting away 80% of your income into savings every single year ($400k/yr), and if 100% of your savings was untaxed, it would take you 48 years to break into the top 1% of net worth.
It's entirely possible for somebody who was born poor, got into a good college, and got a decent professional position to end up in (or close to) the 1% of income just from their salary.
It takes a bolt of financial lightning to make it to the 1% of net worth.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%.
Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.
If you're looking at simple percentiles, then yes clearly there are exactly as many people with wealth in the 99th percentile as there are people with income in the 99th percentile, because that's what "percentile" means.
But that's not really a good way of looking at it.
How much income do you have to make to be in the 1%? $250k-$500k/yr depending on what estimates you're looking at.
How much wealth? About $19m.
Think about that for a minute. If you're in the top 1% of income ($500k/yr), and you're putting away 80% of your income into savings every single year ($400k/yr), and if 100% of your savings was untaxed, it would take you 48 years to break into the top 1% of net worth.
It's entirely possible for somebody who was born poor, got into a good college, and got a decent professional position to end up in (or close to) the 1% of income just from their salary.
It takes a bolt of financial lightning to make it to the 1% of net worth.
What does it do to this equation if we count capital gains as income
Posts
Once again: Going to college is not a luxury. Going to college for free is.
You still don't get it, do you?
I'm sick of being criticized for this shit, and there's is no way in fuck the 99% should unilaterally disarm on the class warfare front. If you want disarmament, you first. And then, in thirty years, maybe we'll fucking think about it.
It seems to me this thread could benefit a lot from this Cracked article I read recently, it says it better than I with choice quotes to boot:
6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying
The rich never hated the poor for being poor, as far as I can see. The idea of the welfare queen and whatnot is directed at behavior. So hating the aloof rich for complaining that they can't afford to simulataneously staff all 7 of their yachts anymore becaise of the economy is fine, and seems like a case of "turnabout is fair play" but hating them just for being rich is going to far.
This article was posted in the primary thread, and this whole discussion actually started when I took issue with 1 and 6 (not the statements, the way he characterizes them in the body of the article)
This is a viewpoint that, ultimately, benefits the rich and powerful.
If the average person cannot afford basic medical care, then under your definition, basic medical care is a "luxury."
However, the connotations of "luxury" is that it's something nice, something extra, possibly something a bit extravagant. Calling something a "luxury" implies that it's no great tragedy if you can't have it. "Millions of people can't afford luxuries" doesn't really get the political blood pumping the same way that "millions of people can't afford basic medical care" does.
No, you're offering a descriptive explanation for something that is largely prescriptive. "Luxury" is a normative term - well, normative by exclusion anyway. Luxuries are those things which are not needs and these needs are defined partly by simple human biology (food is a need) and partly by cultural mores (single-family housing, as opposed to a tent city or a homeless shelter, is a need).
You're committing the common misstep of conflating normal with average. They are related, but they are not necessarily the same.
spacekungfuman said: "instead of saying this is the issue, I think we need to come to a decision. Is membership in the middle class based on being able to obtain a lifestyle that fits the traditional middle class mold, or is it literally the class of people between the poor and the rich?" What we're arguing about is basically, "What is a normal lifestyle?"
We can start by asking, "What is average?" but we need to keep in mind that the average can actually be abnormal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This Harvard question is a bit of a red herring, I think. Because even the kids who get into Harvard for free are getting in because rich people are paying for it. It's like saying rich kids aren't rich, because they don't actually own any money and it's their parents who pay for everything. Going to Harvard is still... I'm not sure I'd say it's a luxury, since a luxury would imply that it's a pleasure good, while going to Harvard certainly has practical benefits... but it certainly is luxurious.
Except that in the case of the stereotypical rich person, as seen in the current political climate, they believe that the the cause of being poor is behaviour. While you and I know that these two things are not strictly related, in their minds it seems to be, so hating a poor person for their behaviour and saying it's that their behaviour alone that causes them to be poor is essentially tantamount to hating them for being poor.
1.) The lawyer may well do, but is also much better equipped and gets many more benefits than the lad or lady who is one accident away from losing their job forever. There's nothing wrong with this, but it doesn't make their position any less lucky.
2.) What you're implying is that poor people will shit on their kids, that's a fucked up assumption. Most parents will take care of their kids first, so I'm not sure I get your point.
3.)You know what's a great way to end a sentence? A full stop.
That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, except you left out all the unnecessary personal anecdotes. I think for the rest of this topic I may just take spool's lead and simply refer to whatever your previous post on this topic is.
And the rich may not say they hate the poor, but when you look at what they lobby for, and what the entities who they give their money to lobby for, the way they act most definitely hates the poor.
And actions speak far louder than words.
They make the same amount of income but their ability to pay for shit is drastically different. There's something to be said about the differentiation, there. I just am not really smart enough to say it!
I mean, where did that money come from? And why should we care?
You should care because its another factor in determining who is and is not rich, and another argument against drawing an income based line in the sand.
I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%. Right now, OWS seems to be raging at (1) people with inherited wealth (2) people who made a killing in the financial markets and (3) people who worked hard and made a lot of money. The anger at (1) seems to be the unfairness of status and wealth being tied to birth. (2) seems to be about a lack of government regulation, and predatory mindsets. (3) seems to be because they were lucky (although not as lucky as in (1)) and have money (although not as much money as in (2)). I don't have statistics, but I would wager that most of the 1% (or people near it who identify with the 1%) fall into (3) and most of the .01% fall into 1 or 2. I would also wager that a lot of people in (3) are not exactly thrilled with people in (1) or (2). What I can't figure out is why OWS would choose to alienate potential allies in class (3) when the real problems OWS is concerned with were caused by (2) and many of the people in (1) are just beneficiaries of people in (2). Is it because they "don't acknowledge their luck?" Is it because they have money but are not as rich as (1) and (2) but don't act like they are the same as the much richer people in (1) and (2)? The working rich are not the ones lobbying congress to maintain the status quo. They are not the ones paying almost no taxes thanks to capital gains. So why does OWS try so hard to ostracize them, when they may very well agree with OWS's substantive complaints?
Also, the membership and funding for these guys primarily comes from the people in category three, so I'll go ahead and speak for the rest of the 99% when I say: fuck them.
Good point. We wouldn't want initiatives like this taking hold, would we?:
http://www.freeenterprise.com/homeland-security/hiring-our-heroes-100-fairs-and-counting
Edit: Regardless of the percentages, the point stands that there are many many people out there who did work hard and were lucky, and took on student loan debt and as a result, they made it. Why don't you see that these people are very different from the "villianous" rich that OWS is saying orchastrated the financial crisis, and who lobby the government and buy politicians and never pay any taxes?
The genius of OWS is that it dodges all of these quibbles like "what about someone who earns 100k but lives in an expensive city" etc and goes straight to the most important issue- some people are really, obscenely, rich and it's unjust. Krugman wrote an article pointing out that it would be more accurate to label them "the 0.1%" but I don't think it matters much. The main point is just to unite the vast majority of non-super-rich people onto one alliance. If they can do that, and stay unified, they'll win. The rich know this, which is why there's so much backlash like "hey you in the 30% should envy people in the 50% that earn a bit more than you lololol". It's classic divide and conquer bullshit.
But you don't have to take my word for it.
They are fucking vile, and the fact that you pretend otherwise is exactly the fucking problem.
If one person has a billion dollars while everyone else lives in poverty, does it really matter whether they earned their money "fairly" or from luck/inheritance?
The way I see it, one of the effects of modern technology is to concentrate profit into fewer and fewer hands- a lot of modern industries are just "winner-take-all" which was never true before. So we need to politically organize to prevent rich people just owning everything, and whether it's bill gates or paris hilton it's still bad.
I disagree. This sort of industrial cycle has happened before frequently, most notably with the Industrial Revolution. I suspect that history will show that this is simply a Digital Revolution in the same way. Whenever a labour-changing technological revolution begins, it is primarily only accessible to those who begin with capital, and for a while, it seems that the rich are simply getting richer at the expense of everyone else. But over time, economics restabilize, technological capital costs come down, and the burst of innovative technology peters out. It's just that typically, this sort of event occurs localized to a specific industry - like the airline industry, which first blew up with the post-WWII DC-3s and then again with the jetliner age, or the railroad industry, or assembly line technology - as opposed to an economy-wide shift - like with the Industrial Revolution. I don't think that we're necessarily on an irreversible trend towards a plutocracy.
Several things.
1) The Industrial Revolution did produce a massive increase in inequality. The only thing that stopped it was political organization like unions and trust-busting, and eventually the great depression. But if didn't have unions or anti-monopoly laws, i'm sure the inequality from industry would be much, much worse.
2) At least in the industrial revolution, factories still needed workers. Expanding their production required more workers. But with digital technology, that's no longer the case... Facebook for example has only 3000 employees, and yet it serves the entire world. Lady Gaga is just one person, but everyone in the world can listen to her songs- there's no need to hire 10 more singers like her to give more concerts.
3) Because of patent laws, we're basically giving tech companies a legal monopoly on their area. It would be almost impossible for any company to enter the smart phone market, for example, simply because all the necessary patents have already been given out. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you try to make a phone with a touch-screen interface apple can sue you and shut you down.
Well, on the second point, the Industrial Revolution also make extra human capital redundant, especially in agriculture. Why do you think there's far fewer farmers today than there were ~150 years ago? Though I do agree that income inequality and patent trolling need to be addressed.
Steam: pazython
But you are alienating lots of working rich who are at or near the top 1% and who might share OWS's grievances. When I hear "the 1%" I don't think of the insanely rich. I think of my peers and coworkers, many of whom are actually quite sympathetic to the issues OWS is talking about, but who feel ostracized by the labelling and rhetoric. Honestly, I think that the 1% rhetoric is pushing people in this group to identify with the super rich. I know that I never thought of myself as having more in common with Mark Zuckerberg than my secretary, but that is who I am being lumped in with by OWS.
It's true, almost all non-rich people treat their children like shit.
wait what...
Anyway, you should seriously stop fucking drawing comparisons because you're fucking bad at it. YES OF COURSE the very hard working people work harder than whatever people you deem not working hard enough but that is neither true for most people nor particularly relevant for the discussion. People aren't working as secretary or customer service representative because they don't want to earn more money, they work there because their education and opportunities have made that the best job they can get barring extraordinary skills (which I guarantee you most lawyers and other rich people don't have either).
I just can't understand how you can deny the importance of opportunities to move up in the world, particularly because you always talk about how important those things are to you.
If private school doesn't matter for the future of your kids and their success you shouldn't be giving a fuck about having to send them to public school. If it does matter you can't seriously hold up the idea that everyone else just didn't try hard enough.
At some point, this just becomes splitting hairs, doesn't it? I mean, OWS could say, "We are the 99.75%!" but... um.... I mean, Warren Buffet is ACTUALLY in the 0.01%, and he can get over it; I don't really get why someone with a household income of $350 000 is like, "Oh, OH! They're lumping me in with the super-rich! How mean of them!" as though someone who makes $349 999 will be like, "Yeah! I'm the 99%!"
As for "alienating the working rich"... I don't even know what that means. Because OWS is only mad about the non-working rich? Or the working super-rich? Like because they're working, somehow that's a shield that deflects the ire of income inequality? If they're feeling lumped in with the super-rich, it's because they're LUMPING THEMSELVES IN, because they feel like because they work, they deserve the wealth that they have, which may be true, but it's the exact same reasoning that the super-rich use as well. Income inequality, or rather inequity, at its root isn't about how hard someone works; it's about a dangerous and inhumane distribution of wealth in a society.
I'd hazard to say that this is a more unsustainable trend than the debt. How are we going to pay down that debt if no one makes anymore ergo no one can pay taxes?
Walmart wants the minimum wage to go up because it disproportionately impacts smaller businesses. I personally am in favor of a living minimum wage but there are reasonable arguments to be made against it.
Seriously I'm at full on "tax the fuck out of the rich" mode. I don't understand why middle class Americans will argue fervently for Mitt Romney to have 13% taxes
Well that's my point, the debt's a false crisis, it's the fact that everyone except a special few are getting poorer and poorer. That's the problem we can fix. The debt is completely sustainable so long as we start curbing future spending (we will turn into Europe when the Boomers all start demanding that free medicine they've bootstrapped their way to) and fixing our goddamn tax code.
Panetta kept bringing up the fact that you can't cut your way to solvency in the Defense budget hearing last week. Him and General Dempsey. Damn good show.
The real problem is that everyone bought the bullshit when the 'American Dream' went from 'you can support your family and have a good life' to 'you can get fucking rich!' because obviously not everyone can be fucking rich. But their new idea of selling doilies over the Internet is totaly about to take off/they're about to get that record deal/pretty soon they'll get promoted to managment at the WalMart where they work, and they'll be fucked if they'll sign over 9% more of the incredibly high wages they're about to make.
If you're looking at simple percentiles, then yes clearly there are exactly as many people with wealth in the 99th percentile as there are people with income in the 99th percentile, because that's what "percentile" means.
But that's not really a good way of looking at it.
How much income do you have to make to be in the 1%? $250k-$500k/yr depending on what estimates you're looking at.
How much wealth? About $19m.
Think about that for a minute. If you're in the top 1% of income ($500k/yr), and you're putting away 80% of your income into savings every single year ($400k/yr), and if 100% of your savings was untaxed, it would take you 48 years to break into the top 1% of net worth.
It's entirely possible for somebody who was born poor, got into a good college, and got a decent professional position to end up in (or close to) the 1% of income just from their salary.
It takes a bolt of financial lightning to make it to the 1% of net worth.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What does it do to this equation if we count capital gains as income