Citigroup: The rich will continue to get richer at the expense of everyone else

[Lucavi]

I don't think you grasp how rich "rich" really is.

I grasp it just fine, thank you. If you think someone becomes rich just because they don't spend their money, then you are wrong. You have to spend money to make money, most of the time.

If I make $40k a year and don't spend a dime of it, I'm not going to be rich no matter how long I live.

If I make $40k a year, while spending only $15k of it annually and saving the rest, then get a promotion and make $120k a year, while still spending only $15k of it, then get another promotion to $400k, while still spending the same amount, I will eventually become rich.

You don't just become rich by working at the Food Lion and saving your pennies. Living like that is a smart thing to do, but it does not make a man rich.

You need to be lucky, be smart (either works through investments/employment), be born into it, or have contacts (inside the network of those already rich) if you want to be truly rich in this nation.

Its not as black and white as just throwing out "a penny saved is a penny earned" and walking away.

[Beckwin]

ITT: plow engages in massive hero worship

Gates and Buffet don't have to be stupid to still say they've earned a disproportionate amount of money.

For every heartwarming 300k/yr mom-and-pop CEO story, there's at least several hundred people pulling in a million (or in some cases, a billion) a year while the workers in their industries are stagnating.

[Kuya]

Here's what I've never understood about complaints on the wealth gap:

The standard of living in America, particularly among the poor, has increased steadily over the last 200 years. In fact, the only point it really went *down* was during the Great Depression, but everyone pretty much got hit there.

Yes, the wealthy are accounting for a larger percentage of the pie now than ever before. But as long as quality of life continues to *increase* across the board, how is that meaningful? To put it another way...

If America's GDP went from 12T this year, to 15T next year, and the wealthiest 10% went from acquiring 3T to 4T, then their relative share in the economy increased (from 25% to 26.7%), of the GDP. But, the remainder still increased by 2T. That's not insignificant growth, and I am not harmed by the top 10%'s added success. Especially in an economy as driven as America's is by luxuries (and we really are a luxury-and-service based economy), it may have even helped.


Also, when we talk about the wealthiest 10% of Americans, we're talking close to 30 MILLION people. That's a damned lot of people, folks. When people think "the wealthy", they're thinking of maybe 3% of that number. Maybe. Even the wealthiest 1% is three million. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of these people made their own fortunes, and they did it, mostly, but being wise with money. That doesn't mean they were shopping at thrift stores, enjoying ketchup-only sandwiches; it means they had an accurate assessment of their own income and spending habits.

Of those 30 million in question, you can bet your ass that most of them are driving the economy. They are the people who either push the lower-top portion of major businesses, or are running their own successful businesses. These are the people, for the most part, who are keeping the economy running. Forget the top .25% sitting as CEOs of major corporations, or getting lucky in sports lotteries, or the inheritors of Rockefeller's billions. Every single one of you went to high school with a significant portion of those 30 million people. Most of you would not consider them wealthy, and would be surprised to find them in the top 10% of America's richest, simply because "rich" and "wealthy" have become not only negative terms in the media, but are represented by truly unrepresentative individuals of that population.

You're spinning around the issue, especially with that rise in life standards for even the poor in the US.

As any political theorist can tell you, large wealth gaps in any nation are only conducive to political instability, and much more concretely, large wealth gaps means that political influence is polarized, meaning, a small number of people with a larger share of wealth may use this wealth to a much more efficient degree to influence public policy in their favour. This is the central issue, and none of the points you braught up address or ameliorate it.

[Plow]

Disproportionate rise in income in relation to the rise of productivity. In other words, an increase that implies that only the top did something to increase their wealth while the rest were busy sitting in a puddle. I don't even have to argue this with you as it's in the report, now go away.

Since you're really this ignorant despite trying absurdly hard to look otherwise, let me point something out to you:

I grasp it just fine, thank you. If you think someone becomes rich just because they don't spend their money, then you are wrong. You have to spend money to make money, most of the time.

If I make $40k a year and don't spend a dime of it, I'm not going to be rich no matter how long I live.

If I make $40k a year, while spending only $15k of it annually and saving the rest, then get a promotion and make $120k a year, while still spending only $15k of it, then get another promotion to $400k, while still spending the same amount, I will eventually become rich.

You don't just become rich by working at the Food Lion and saving your pennies. Living like that is a smart thing to do, but it does not make a man rich.

You need to be lucky, be smart (either works through investments/employment), be born into it, or have contacts (inside the network of those already rich) if you want to be truly rich in this nation.

Its not as black and white as just throwing out "a penny saved is a penny earned" and walking away.

There's people trying to argue that being good with money has nothing to do with it. The most amusing part is that they think "being good with money" = pinching pennies.

And what does it all come down to?

Some fucking retard said this:

No idea. CEOs are just more noticeable because they lack frugality.

and some other one chimed in with:

Well, they do tend to lack frugality, but the main problem relies in their success being less merit-based than top professionals in fields not related to management and/or business, despite being paid significantly more.

But whatever, you go ahead and try to troll it, er, spin it back to them just being bad people all profiting off of slave labor.

It's almost as brilliant as making the argument that for every small business and individual making a few hundred k, there's thousands making millions.

[Plow]

Here's what I've never understood about complaints on the wealth gap:

The standard of living in America, particularly among the poor, has increased steadily over the last 200 years. In fact, the only point it really went *down* was during the Great Depression, but everyone pretty much got hit there.

Yes, the wealthy are accounting for a larger percentage of the pie now than ever before. But as long as quality of life continues to *increase* across the board, how is that meaningful? To put it another way...

If America's GDP went from 12T this year, to 15T next year, and the wealthiest 10% went from acquiring 3T to 4T, then their relative share in the economy increased (from 25% to 26.7%), of the GDP. But, the remainder still increased by 2T. That's not insignificant growth, and I am not harmed by the top 10%'s added success. Especially in an economy as driven as America's is by luxuries (and we really are a luxury-and-service based economy), it may have even helped.


Also, when we talk about the wealthiest 10% of Americans, we're talking close to 30 MILLION people. That's a damned lot of people, folks. When people think "the wealthy", they're thinking of maybe 3% of that number. Maybe. Even the wealthiest 1% is three million. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of these people made their own fortunes, and they did it, mostly, but being wise with money. That doesn't mean they were shopping at thrift stores, enjoying ketchup-only sandwiches; it means they had an accurate assessment of their own income and spending habits.

Of those 30 million in question, you can bet your ass that most of them are driving the economy. They are the people who either push the lower-top portion of major businesses, or are running their own successful businesses. These are the people, for the most part, who are keeping the economy running. Forget the top .25% sitting as CEOs of major corporations, or getting lucky in sports lotteries, or the inheritors of Rockefeller's billions. Every single one of you went to high school with a significant portion of those 30 million people. Most of you would not consider them wealthy, and would be surprised to find them in the top 10% of America's richest, simply because "rich" and "wealthy" have become not only negative terms in the media, but are represented by truly unrepresentative individuals of that population.

Nah man, you're wrong, there's 3 million people in the 400k+ range, and 300k of those are making a million plus.

Simple math tells you that =

For every heartwarming 300k/yr mom-and-pop CEO story, there's at least several hundred people pulling in a million (or in some cases, a billion) a year

3 million - 2.7 million = 2.7 billion times "at least several", duh

[Not not Mattaru]

I will sum up how I see Plow's argument: rich people are not necessarily, and in the majority, dumb and frivolous people or they probably would not be rich. I will agree with that, I will say rich people are generally informed enough and educated enough to know not to waste their money to a dangerous level and if they can not do it a vast number of them hire people to do it for them.

Let us ignore the fact some of the "smartest" people in the financial world were collectively worshiping a giant black box (something similar led to the bubble in Japan to some degree).That being said, it does not mean they are not wasteful or misers categorically.

There are people with no money at all who squander it, and others who are quite frugal. Same can be said for rich people, the difference is in scale. You could watch a homeless man maybe squander a thousand+ dollars a year on booze, or you could watch a CEO squander a thousand dollars on a hotel room. People are going to point the finger at the CEO because of the scale of the squandering or the scale of their paycheck. The question is is that distinction and criticism justified? I'm sure the CEO is going to look down on the homeless man drinking himself stupid with alcohol....so.

Kuya: I'm not sure every political theorist would say that (considering many of them argue over what democracy is) be more specific. Not disagreeing persay, just curious.

[Lucavi]

I know a lot of rich people (a few millions) that got that way through working their way up, not spending a lot (one is excessively frugal - he asks his 40k a year workers for spare change for drinks at lunch), but I would classify none of them as "ultra rich".

They are not in the 1% that controls half the wealth of the U.S, nor will they ever be. They make $120-250K a year, not 5+ million a year, plus perks.

I'll agree with you Plow, when you say that the rich are typically good with their money. I refuse to agree with your assertion that those in the top bracket - the ultra rich - are either good with their money, nor HAVE to be good with their money at that point.

When you have enough millions stored away in Swiss bank accounts and stuffed into Exxon stocks that you bring in millions on a quarterly basis, you need not be frugal. There's enough yachts the size of mansions in my State alone to prove that.

[dejet]

answer to why everyone is a dick to the rich? the lulzmedia

My family I guess is seen as rich as well, net income of over $1,000,000 a year. We go on a vacation once a year. Guess what? I pay for it out of my own money I make as a bookkeeper for a store. My car I pay for, my mother and father both could give me a BMW if they want to or any other car for that matter. All they supply to me is food and shelter. everything else is up to me.

You only know about shit like this because the media wont get people acting like dicks to the rich(or anyone else) if they told you a nice little story about the family that teaches their sun how to live on their own.

Some of my friends look at me strange, they walk into my house and see all the stuff we have, then look at my car and ask me what I am doing with it.

Their mom/dad/whoever give them far more then mine. I use to get pissed at it, but really now that I look back on it I am somewhat happy they did so.

edit: 90% of the people who I know that make less then my family go on more vacations, buy new cars more then we do and such.

[Hellfury]

You're spinning around the issue, especially with that rise in life standards for even the poor in the US.

As any political theorist can tell you, large wealth gaps in any nation are only conducive to political instability, and much more concretely, large wealth gaps means that political influence is polarized, meaning, a small number of people with a larger share of wealth may use this wealth to a much more efficient degree to influence public policy in their favour. This is the central issue, and none of the points you braught up address or ameliorate it.

This, a gazillion times this.

Funny, slightly related thing. a lot of movies in the late 80s (later as well, but) dealt with dystopian futuristic visions, where megacorporations pretty much called the shots. This actually had roots in very real issues in the early 80s where there were so many hostile takeovers that state and antitakeover legislators felt the need to take steps to intervene. They feared that megacorporations would gain so much power, that they would for all intents and purposes run the show. (movie example: Robocop)

Similar concerns are usually voiced whenever the discussion of direct democracy vs representative democracy is brought up. It is feared that employers and special interest groups will be able to exercise so much pressure that they will in essence decide everything. (not much different from the situation today with lobbying and pressure during elections, only even less controllable.) Highly related to the current concerns voiced regarding no limits on campaign contributions.

The problem with averages is that they're easily not that representative. if you have 100 people, whereas 10 of them make 500k a year, the rest make 40k a year, they make average 86k. Which is true, but not a very good measure for the real picture. official statistics usually account for this presenting median and other measures, but it doesn't change the fact that out of the total population, a massive amount of people very well off.

(and if ANYONE thinks that too much power/influence gathered on too few hands is a good thing, they're either incredibly short sighted, deluded or amongst those very few powerful. Everyone will try to make things the way they believe to be best for themselves (and often don't consider potential long term consequences), and everyone not amongst those calling the shots, should be concerned.)

edit: I can understand why a lot of Americans are worried about big government, considering some of the stories that hit the news. What I don't understand is why you aren't scared shitless of big business?

[Logain]

I know a lot of rich people (a few millions) that got that way through working their way up, not spending a lot (one is excessively frugal - he asks his 40k a year workers for spare change for drinks at lunch), but I would classify none of them as "ultra rich".

I hate to break a decent debate, but this man needs to be punched in the testicles repeatedly by his employees. I have no words to describe how offended I am at your acquaintance that he would do such a thing. I want to dig his heart out with a spoon...

[Not not Mattaru]

answer to why everyone is a dick to the rich? the lulzmedia

You only know about shit like this because the media wont get people acting like dicks to the rich(or anyone else) if they told you a nice little story about the family that teaches their sun how to live on their own.

Their mom/dad/whoever give them far more then mine. I use to get pissed at it, but really now that I look back on it I am somewhat happy they did so.

edit: 90% of the people who I know that make less then my family go on more vacations, buy new cars more then we do and such.

That is fine and dandy I'm glad your parents don't spoil you and are well...good parents, but I think you are being too one-sided. I don't think you can say "media dun it" because that is to assume that everyone in the media is somehow one-sided all the time, that there is no decent reporting left. Which I disagree with unless you get your news from a mid-city paper or the news.

Honestly it seems by your own admission your family is an exception.

People can have legitimate claims about how the "rich" use their money without it being some brainwashing campaign. Moreover, in context of this thread, people can have legitimate concerns about the growing income gap (which is by no means a new concept).

EDIT: Agree with Logain...so its a good thing he goes to people he knows make less than him and hit them up for some snack money? Wtf lol.

[Lucavi]

I hate to break a decent debate, but this man needs to be punched in the testicles repeatedly by his employees. I have no words to describe how offended I am at your acquaintance that he would do such a thing. I want to dig his heart out with a spoon...

He was extremely poor when he was young, and it messed with his head - he's uber frugal because he's constantly afraid of not having shit tucked away, so he continues to live like he's poor and just socks everything away.

His kids are gonna be millionaires when he dies, simply because he never spent a dime of his cash.

And yeah blame the media for everything - mainstream, that is. You don't see your local papers writing about that kind of shit because it isn't news to them. I know more rich people than not, though, that completely spoil their kids. I had a lot of "friends" growing up that had serious silver spoons in their collective mouths. Frequent vacations, 1k gifts from grandma and grandpa for the most minute of shit (C's on report cards), all the latest toys, games, ect. growing up.

Your folks may treat you strictly to ensure that you don't end up a spoiled brat, but guess what - when they die, all that money is going to you to do whatever you want with. Strict (rich) parents or not, you're still in a much better position than most of your friends, simply by being born into the right family.

Be patient. Eventually you'll be able to use all that money you didn't earn to buy all the hookers and blow you've ever wanted!

[Plow]

That is fine and dandy I'm glad your parents don't spoil you and are well...good parents, but I think you are being too one-sided. I don't think you can say "media dun it" because that is to assume that everyone in the media is somehow one-sided all the time, that there is no decent reporting left. Which I disagree with unless you get your news from a mid-city paper or the news.

Honestly it seems by your own admission your family is an exception.

People can have legitimate claims about how the "rich" use their money without it being some brainwashing campaign.

It's easier to hate the successful if you convince yourself they don't deserve it.

Just like it's easier to hate "Welfare" if you convince yourself it's all worthless leeches.

Moreover, in context of this thread, people can have legitimate concerns about the growing income gap (which is by no means a new concept).

The problem is it's 2 different discussions, that they're attempting to tie together for the emotional appeal. Again, it's easier to argue that they shouldn't have so much money when you portray them as not having earned it and being dumb with it.

Unfortunately, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with real solutions.

[Lucavi]

It's easier to hate the successful if you convince yourself they don't deserve it.

Just like it's easier to hate "Welfare" if you convince yourself it's all worthless leeches.

How is being born into something "deserving" it? I ask that question on both fronts: born into being rich and born into welfare.

[Not not Mattaru]

It's easier to hate the successful if you convince yourself they don't deserve it.

Just like it's easier to hate "Welfare" if you convince yourself it's all worthless leeches.

Yeah, see my post where I sum up how I feel about your argument. Basically said the same.

The problem is it's 2 different discussions, that they're attempting to tie together for the emotional appeal. Again, it's easier to argue that they shouldn't have so much money when you portray them as not having earned it and being dumb with it.

Unfortunately, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with real solutions.

Said emotional appeal happens on both sides, I try to steer away from it, would like it if people who I generally agreed with steered clear of it as well, but as of late people are not too far fetched for thinking the richest people are not reasonable with their and other people's money. Namely on Wall Street.

[Beckwin]

plow, I said the "heartwarming mom-and-pop 300k'ers", not every person who makes around that. Since heartwarming and mom-and-pop are pretty subjective in and of themselves, you kinda look like a dumbass trying to tear about a highly subjective/illustrative statement with numbers.

basically, I'm saying there's relatively few "inspiring" (or whatever) stories of frugal people who build up a little 300k/yr empire compared to the millionaires (and billionaires) out there who are far from your painted picture of frugal, homey small-business owners.

I think Bill Gates is a pretty good guy and is certainly doing wonderful things with his fortune. Microsoft, for all their previous legal troubles involving monopoly, does have a pretty good reputation for treating employees well. But Bill Gates still built a house with 95 windows.

[Beckwin]

oh, and when the wealthy just got through crashing our economy, bankrupting their companies, and then getting a get-out-of-jail-free card, it's pretty easy to justify a lot of them not deserving it.

[Lucavi]

American dream, baby.

[Plow]

Yeah, see my post where I sum up how I feel about your argument. Basically said the same.



Said emotional appeal happens on both sides, I try to steer away from it, would like it if people who I generally agreed with steered clear of it as well, but as of late people are not too far fetched for thinking the richest people are not reasonable with their and other people's money. Namely on Wall Street.

Do you understand who the richest Americans really are?

It goes something like:

Microsoft
Berkshire Hathaway (who is beyond extraordinarily good with other people's money)
Oracle

The next like 5 are the Wal-Mart kids each having less than half that.

Then there's the l'Oreal chick, Bloomberg, the Google guys, the Kochs, the other microsoft guys, Dell, the Amazon guy, Bren...

And then finally you get to the first real shithead, John Paulson.

Do you see the pattern here?

The U.S. is not a long-established hierarchy dominated by centuries old fortunes. The old families exist and thrive, but not on the level of the new business world since the industrial revolution, and especially now through the technological.

The reality of the current situation is that even the bulk of the inherited fortunes are first generation and built on relatively new concepts in the big picture.


When you expand that down to the top 1% total, you're looking at huge numbers of doctors, lawyers, high level technology developers, property developers/managers, successful investors in things like local McDonald's chain ownership, and, yes, even people that literally just invested intelligently and saved effectively. I'm not just talking about money movement investment, either.

Example: I used to date a girl whose grandpa was worth a few million. He had an entire floor of an extremely expensive apartment building on the plaza in KC.

He bought it decades ago for an absurdly low price. He was a freelance photographer when he was younger (read: broke). He eventually started a tiny restaurant called the Tenderloin Grill. They serve burgers, pork tenderloins, and pig's feet. That's all he's done for the last 40ish years.

He literally is rich as fuck because he was smart about where he bought a home, and didn't waste his small income. It does help that his recipes are fucking fantastic, and extremely well kept secrets, and therefore worth a huge amount in themselves.

I'm not saying that particular example is a large portion, just pointing out how ridiculous it is that people think that's some fantasy ideal that doesn't exist.

It's a part, however, of a *huge* group of people that makes up the top end through legitimate and "fair" means.

[Plow]

Funny how I perfectly covered Beckwin's before I read it while responding to someone with a clue.