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

[Plow]

Business owners do that as well (making money off of money) with investments into capital. potayto potahto. But if you're right, he's just being dumb and you should either extend his position for him or give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using the term capitalist correctly, just for the sake of argument. How would your rebuttal change if that was the case?

Didn't I already address that with the Wal-Mart comment anyway?

Gates is a terrible example there as well, as Microsoft "grunts" are the happiest grunts in the world. The Kochs offer a tremendous range of very well paying jobs as well. Same with Oracle and Sun, same with Dell, same with Google, etc. etc.

It's the same pattern: the most successful businesses that create the richest of the rich are, in the vast majority, companies that are really good for their employees all the way down.

It's simple, really, extremist approaches to discourse are rarely effective for a reason. It's generally only around major events that a considerable number of people start to think of them as logical.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Business owners do that as well (making money off of money) with investments into capital. potayto potahto. But if you're right, he's just being dumb and you should either extend his position for him or give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using the term capitalist correctly, just for the sake of argument. How would your rebuttal change if that was the case?

I'll give this a go, first in the ideological sense, then in the real world way it tends to work out.

Ideally, those who have ambitions toward their own dreams or goals spend some time working for someone else as a kind of paid apprenticeship. By working for someone else and seeing how businesses run, learning the costs and hardships, you are better prepared to eventually become your own boss and avoid the pitfalls of just jumping straight in. Again, ideally, most people would have the ambition to create their own wealth, and would, after a time, part ways on friendly terms, and the up-and-comer would fill a new niche in society. In the ideal model, you constantly have the new work force selling labor for experience, who then use that experience to create their own business model and hire the young.

In the real world sense, most people don't have that ambition. They would rather sell their labor and not deal with the headaches of ownership, and even when they have an idea, a new business venture is a risk many are unwilling to take. They would rather remain comfortable with their income. This is not a bad thing, necessarily, as not everyone is really fit to run a business, and not all the ideas and dreams people have are quite worth supporting. By having those who are willing to take risks, who are willing to take on the headaches of business ownership and deal with the administration and extra legal hassles of setting up a new business, people who simply want to get by, can. In this model, those who have ambition and a good work ethic, but who are averse to risk, get promoted through the ranks; it takes surprisingly little ambition or even skill to make it through the ranks to good jobs (and yes, I consider 20 bucks an hour with full medical, dental, vision, 2 weeks vacation and unionized job security a good job).

Spoiler: show

[Anecdote] I used to work for Safeway. I started there making ten cents per hour over minimum wage. I worked in several departments, and in several stores, and in every store, in whichever department I worked, I noticed something that just struck me as odd. Working the check out stands is where non-managers make the most money, and it's not insignificant-- I know it at least goes up to 20 bucks an hour with 4 weeks vacation, but even starting off it's about 14 bucks an hour in my area. But most people wouldn't do it. It doesn't take much; you basically need to have a good attendance record, and then just ask the manager to get stepped up. It's basically a $5.00/hour raise, gives options for more hours, and has slightly better benefits. Yet people wouldn't do it. They would spend their lunch hours bitching about how unfair it is that the Ass.Manager is making 30 bucks an hour, and how they all do about the same amount of work. These people have no idea how much more work the Assistant Managers do. In less than two years, I was department head of customer service and bookkeeping for a new store, which basically meant I was assistant manager #3-- I had to be able to do everything, and in several areas was responsible for training the Ass.Managers in their jobs.

I didn't get the position because I kissed the most ass, or because I was the most qualified person for the job. I got it because I was the most qualified person for the job who *applied*. I was the most qualified person who applied, because only about 8 people in the state applied, and 6 of those 8 people hadn't taken their test to be a cashier. The other person had never done any bookkeeping for Safeway; I had transferred into it at my previous store so that I would be in a position to move up. They had needed a bookkeeper for about 2 months before I moved to that store, but no one there wanted it, even though it came with a pay raise.

At multiple stores, in multiple states, I saw the same thing. People found a comfort zone, and they weren't willing to risk a damned thing to push ahead. At each step, I was willing to risk harder work and take more responsibility, and I was rewarded with rapid upward movement. I was never going to become one of the ultra-rich, but there was every possibility that I could have moved into the top 10% of the nation through promotions in the company. I have worked in accounting firms, I've worked in other grocery stores, I've worked at burger joints, I've been in the Marines, I've worked with Freightliner, Nike, Hostess, Georgia Pacific, and Targus. Everywhere I've worked, that model has held true: those who show up on time and ask for more responsibility (and, with it, more pay), get it. Those who demonstrate ambition and a willingness to put in extra work to learn a new aspect of the job are rarely denied, and then usually because they either don't show up on time, or because they were goofing around too much at work. People saw others move up the chain, and blamed others, or complained that their work was never noticed, or belittled those who received promotions... but they rarely took even the risk of *asking* for better. They just wanted it *given*.[/anecdote]

Kuya-- I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps I did not explain myself clearly.

The wealthiest 10% of Americans is not a static group of people, and they are not a set of people who are pushing a unified goal. When you're talking 30 million people, you're looking at incredible diversity of ideas, ideals, background, and motivations. While there are probably some common traits among them-- ambition, discipline, a strong work ethic-- none of those translate into some kind of threat to those who are poorer. The people who make up that 10% are likewise a fluid group-- just because you're 20 years old now and not in it, doesn't mean you won't be when you're 50; likewise, just because you're in that group when you're 50 doesn't mean you'll be in that group when you're 60 or 70.

Extreme concentration of wealth is definitely a bad thing, but this article doesn't hint at that. It hints at mild concentration of wealth, and (based on a previous topic), we already know that those who have that wealth paid a larger percentage of the taxes than they earned as a percentage of the GDP... as such, these are the folks who are paying for everything for everyone.


What is especially interesting (to me, at least), is that the concentration of wealth now is no where near as bad as it was in the times of, say, Astor or Carnegie or Rockefeller. The power of the folks at the *VERY* top to control information is likewise no where near as strong today as it was then-- mediums for exchange of ideas abound now in such a way that unilateral control of information by a very few people is no longer possible. Yet, even then, living conditions were constantly improving over where they had been. Even then, the poor was not powerless and time after time addressed specific grievances and won in elections. And there were specific problems-- hazardous work conditions that didn't need to be hazardous; a total lack of accountability on corporations for the well-being of their employees... these were problems, specific, identifiable problems, and they were fixed quite in spite of the wealthiest's oppositions. Money did not translate into automatically winning then. It doesn't now. It can help-- no question it can help, but it's not the JP Button people seem to think it is.


There's also a question that I never saw addressed: When wealth concentrates, not because the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, but because they get richer *faster* than the poor, who is harmed? If the people who are creating jobs and national wealth move ahead of the curve, but do not retard the progress of those a little further back, why is this a bad thing? The majority of the people in that 30 million are doing the things *now* that makes improved quality of life for the middle-80, and even bottom-10, better *tomorrow*. The rich get a mild head start, but it's not substantial, and it's not, generally, exploitative. In such a case, it's not so much a concentration, as it is a case of unequally distributed growth. Money isn't taken out of the poor, and put into the rich; there's just more money all around, and the rich happened to have bigger buckets when it rained gold.



I feel I've been less than entirely clear in my position here; part of the problem is that I genuinely do not understand the concern you express, Kuya. I grasp that in static class systems, where power is somewhat independent of money, adding wealth to the situation creates great dangers, as the population is vested and unchanging. I grasp that, if you have a *massive* concentration of wealth in the hands of an extraordinary few who share an agenda and a mind-set, it can be a very bad thing. But... I don't see evidence of that here. The current 10% aren't tomorrows 10%, and weren't yesterdays 10%. A few at the top remain there, but most of that 10% aren't leaving a multi-generational legacy, unless their kids maintain the ambition, work-ethic, and personal discipline that drove those people to the top. I see groups championing the poor and the middle class, on the right and on the left, and I see particularly in that top 10% a massive contest between established big business, and up-and-coming entrepreneurs with very different ideas on the needs of business. I just do not see what *you* see as threatening... or rather, I see what you see as threatening, but I do not understand how *this* article demonstrates that that is occurring.



Edit: apologies for the wall o' text

[Kuya]

I'll give this a go, first in the ideological sense, then in the real world way it tends to work out.

Ideally, those who have ambitions toward their own dreams or goals spend some time working for someone else as a kind of paid apprenticeship. By working for someone else and seeing how businesses run, learning the costs and hardships, you are better prepared to eventually become your own boss and avoid the pitfalls of just jumping straight in. Again, ideally, most people would have the ambition to create their own wealth, and would, after a time, part ways on friendly terms, and the up-and-comer would fill a new niche in society. In the ideal model, you constantly have the new work force selling labor for experience, who then use that experience to create their own business model and hire the young.

In the real world sense, most people don't have that ambition. They would rather sell their labor and not deal with the headaches of ownership, and even when they have an idea, a new business venture is a risk many are unwilling to take. They would rather remain comfortable with their income. This is not a bad thing, necessarily, as not everyone is really fit to run a business, and not all the ideas and dreams people have are quite worth supporting. By having those who are willing to take risks, who are willing to take on the headaches of business ownership and deal with the administration and extra legal hassles of setting up a new business, people who simply want to get by, can. In this model, those who have ambition and a good work ethic, but who are averse to risk, get promoted through the ranks; it takes surprisingly little ambition or even skill to make it through the ranks to good jobs (and yes, I consider 20 bucks an hour with full medical, dental, vision, 2 weeks vacation and unionized job security a good job).

Spoiler: show

[Anecdote] I used to work for Safeway. I started there making ten cents per hour over minimum wage. I worked in several departments, and in several stores, and in every store, in whichever department I worked, I noticed something that just struck me as odd. Working the check out stands is where non-managers make the most money, and it's not insignificant-- I know it at least goes up to 20 bucks an hour with 4 weeks vacation, but even starting off it's about 14 bucks an hour in my area. But most people wouldn't do it. It doesn't take much; you basically need to have a good attendance record, and then just ask the manager to get stepped up. It's basically a $5.00/hour raise, gives options for more hours, and has slightly better benefits. Yet people wouldn't do it. They would spend their lunch hours bitching about how unfair it is that the Ass.Manager is making 30 bucks an hour, and how they all do about the same amount of work. These people have no idea how much more work the Assistant Managers do. In less than two years, I was department head of customer service and bookkeeping for a new store, which basically meant I was assistant manager #3-- I had to be able to do everything, and in several areas was responsible for training the Ass.Managers in their jobs.

I didn't get the position because I kissed the most ass, or because I was the most qualified person for the job. I got it because I was the most qualified person for the job who *applied*. I was the most qualified person who applied, because only about 8 people in the state applied, and 6 of those 8 people hadn't taken their test to be a cashier. The other person had never done any bookkeeping for Safeway; I had transferred into it at my previous store so that I would be in a position to move up. They had needed a bookkeeper for about 2 months before I moved to that store, but no one there wanted it, even though it came with a pay raise.

At multiple stores, in multiple states, I saw the same thing. People found a comfort zone, and they weren't willing to risk a damned thing to push ahead. At each step, I was willing to risk harder work and take more responsibility, and I was rewarded with rapid upward movement. I was never going to become one of the ultra-rich, but there was every possibility that I could have moved into the top 10% of the nation through promotions in the company. I have worked in accounting firms, I've worked in other grocery stores, I've worked at burger joints, I've been in the Marines, I've worked with Freightliner, Nike, Hostess, Georgia Pacific, and Targus. Everywhere I've worked, that model has held true: those who show up on time and ask for more responsibility (and, with it, more pay), get it. Those who demonstrate ambition and a willingness to put in extra work to learn a new aspect of the job are rarely denied, and then usually because they either don't show up on time, or because they were goofing around too much at work. People saw others move up the chain, and blamed others, or complained that their work was never noticed, or belittled those who received promotions... but they rarely took even the risk of *asking* for better. They just wanted it *given*.[/anecdote]

Kuya-- I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps I did not explain myself clearly.

The wealthiest 10% of Americans is not a static group of people, and they are not a set of people who are pushing a unified goal. When you're talking 30 million people, you're looking at incredible diversity of ideas, ideals, background, and motivations. While there are probably some common traits among them-- ambition, discipline, a strong work ethic-- none of those translate into some kind of threat to those who are poorer. The people who make up that 10% are likewise a fluid group-- just because you're 20 years old now and not in it, doesn't mean you won't be when you're 50; likewise, just because you're in that group when you're 50 doesn't mean you'll be in that group when you're 60 or 70.

Extreme concentration of wealth is definitely a bad thing, but this article doesn't hint at that. It hints at mild concentration of wealth, and (based on a previous topic), we already know that those who have that wealth paid a larger percentage of the taxes than they earned as a percentage of the GDP... as such, these are the folks who are paying for everything for everyone.


What is especially interesting (to me, at least), is that the concentration of wealth now is no where near as bad as it was in the times of, say, Astor or Carnegie or Rockefeller. The power of the folks at the *VERY* top to control information is likewise no where near as strong today as it was then-- mediums for exchange of ideas abound now in such a way that unilateral control of information by a very few people is no longer possible. Yet, even then, living conditions were constantly improving over where they had been. Even then, the poor was not powerless and time after time addressed specific grievances and won in elections. And there were specific problems-- hazardous work conditions that didn't need to be hazardous; a total lack of accountability on corporations for the well-being of their employees... these were problems, specific, identifiable problems, and they were fixed quite in spite of the wealthiest's oppositions. Money did not translate into automatically winning then. It doesn't now. It can help-- no question it can help, but it's not the JP Button people seem to think it is.


There's also a question that I never saw addressed: When wealth concentrates, not because the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, but because they get richer *faster* than the poor, who is harmed? If the people who are creating jobs and national wealth move ahead of the curve, but do not retard the progress of those a little further back, why is this a bad thing? The majority of the people in that 30 million are doing the things *now* that makes improved quality of life for the middle-80, and even bottom-10, better *tomorrow*. The rich get a mild head start, but it's not substantial, and it's not, generally, exploitative. In such a case, it's not so much a concentration, as it is a case of unequally distributed growth. Money isn't taken out of the poor, and put into the rich; there's just more money all around, and the rich happened to have bigger buckets when it rained gold.



I feel I've been less than entirely clear in my position here; part of the problem is that I genuinely do not understand the concern you express, Kuya. I grasp that in static class systems, where power is somewhat independent of money, adding wealth to the situation creates great dangers, as the population is vested and unchanging. I grasp that, if you have a *massive* concentration of wealth in the hands of an extraordinary few who share an agenda and a mind-set, it can be a very bad thing. But... I don't see evidence of that here. The current 10% aren't tomorrows 10%, and weren't yesterdays 10%. A few at the top remain there, but most of that 10% aren't leaving a multi-generational legacy, unless their kids maintain the ambition, work-ethic, and personal discipline that drove those people to the top. I see groups championing the poor and the middle class, on the right and on the left, and I see particularly in that top 10% a massive contest between established big business, and up-and-coming entrepreneurs with very different ideas on the needs of business. I just do not see what *you* see as threatening... or rather, I see what you see as threatening, but I do not understand how *this* article demonstrates that that is occurring.



Edit: apologies for the wall o' text

You seem intent on framing the issue as if we were talking about some nefarious group of people looking to use their bags of money to play nasty pranks on everyone else. Let's focus on concrete examples to see if you understand.

In the health care debate one side wanted a comprehensive reform that included a government run system where care could be provided to as many people as possible, and one side that was against this was the health care industry and, as it is often called, big pharma. Now, there are plenty of reasons why the public option or single payer or many of these sorts of programs lost, lobbying not being the only one, but the influence of these monied groups was felt. Particularly because in this debate the Democrats were far more interested in preventing money from heading towards the Republicans during elections than they were with actual reform. Concrete examples were the trading away of importation of generic drugs from Canada, and the trading away of the public option in exchange of cooperation from the health care industry. It was really no contest.

You see the same kind of influence exerted by contractor companies involved in the military industrial complex, although part of their strenght lies in what is called the "revolving door", their vast coffers nonetheless help them secure favourable offers from government, even if they have a history of providing poor service, or a history of abuses in the battlefield(such as rape or murder).

Financial regulation is also a fine example of the vast amount of power that money exerts over government. Much of what led to the crisis in 2008 was exactly because of the deregulation campaign they lobbied for in previous years, and their ability to neutralize what little was left of regulation with their influence. Even now financial reform is looking quite uncertain considering what it's up against.

All these examples are not just due to the wealth gap obviously, but the relationship to my argument is that the wealth gap only enhances these grirevous situations. It is true that the top 10% or top 1% have different ideologies and different interests, but not all interests are represented in these brackets. The more polarized the wealth distribution becomes, the more likely it becomes that some interests end up prevailing over others because they count on a much larger pool of capital. The point is to maintain an agonistic environment by keeping the wealth distribution as well spread as one can possibly make it so some interests (such as interests in public run health care, or a winding down of the war establishment or regulation of financial institutions) have a better chance of fighting against interests that tend to congregate at the higher income brackets. Where do you think, for example, the intests of labor tend to congregate? In the higher income brackets or in the lower income brackets? As income becomes more polarized, do you think that the interests of labor weaken? For someone whose interests are labor, that is a problem.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Here's where my "wait, what?" comes in, though...

Those concrete examples are an extraordinarily poor representation of the 10%; when you are talking the MegaCorps, you're talking a much, much smaller group of people. And, really, I see MegaCorps as a problem, too (though I probably have different ideas of how to deal with it). The flaw I see is this assumption that the 10% are inherently capable of the kind of influence you're talking about. Granted, part of that 10% represent MegaCorps and such, but the reverse correlation is also true: while I think that most unions do a fair job of representing labor forces, and truly want to do what's best for everyone, thee are also examples who use aggressive tactics, and pursue agendas that are harmful overall to the economy, but potentially beneficial to the unions or, in the worst cases, the union heads.

What I see you arguing is not the top 10%, but the highest-of-the-high. If, as I content, the vast bulk of the top thirty million are not MegaCorp elites, but rather doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and entrepreneurs, people who own their own small, but successful, business, then does that change your contention? Moreover, if the bulk of that growth-of-concentration is in the *bottom* end of the top-10%, such that the MegaCorps (who do have more-or-less unified business agendas), lost relative standing, but the 2-10% group (who are potentially quite anti-conglomerate interests and pro-individualist) *gained* relative standing, what happens to your argument?

My suspicion is strongly that it was the "lower upper class" in question whose assets mostly grew, rather than the mega elite, particularly since many of the mega-elite lost massive fortunes (at least on paper) in the last 5 years. If, on the other hand, that concentration has been pushed *mostly* to the top of the top, then I begin to share some more concern with the situation. I just think that if that had been the case, then the article would likely have further expanded on that. It would provide both a better case, and clarify that wealth concentration is, indeed, truly concentrating. I mean, if I'm out there with the message that the link has, I want the absolute smallest % group that fits my case; by having to sink away from the stereo-typical wealthy, and include corporate wealth (is that included in this mix?), it just seems like a larger group are being attacked and lumped together than the situation really deserves.

[Kuya]

Honestly, i am very tired of arguing with you. Your point that unions can be bad is completely irrelevant to what i've been saying assuming you've been paying attention. I don't particularly care whether it's the top 10%, 1%, top 000.5%; this debate has grown stale. I don't know of every single person who composes these brackets, and probably, neither do you. You make issues out of small details, and especially considering that you've already agreed that large wealth gaps are not good, thus i don't see why you continue to argue.

What i posted in the OP is a report, and it is a report by a company that is suggesting that due to changes in income distribution, it might be a good idea to invest in companies that cater to the rich. If you want to look for more details, knock yourself out.

[Plow]

Here's where my "wait, what?" comes in, though...

Let me sum it up for you:

He's one giant talking point troll who posts anything and everything other people write that he can find to prove how terrible America is. The little he posts that's not copypasta might as well be.


His trolling is so effective because he will completely ignore everything you say. It's kind of like he's doing Leif the way Colbert does O'Reilly, except he trolls from the opposite end.


The other option is that he's honestly retarded enough to believe that anything and everything he disagrees with is entirely the responsibility of the super rich and the general populace's impact ends with their finances.

I choose not to believe that, but, he is mexican.


For further evidence of his troll level, see: "I'm tired of arguing with you" coming out before he ever addresses any of your actual content.

[Kuya]

it just seems like a larger group are being attacked and lumped together than the situation really deserves.

is entirely the responsibility of the super rich

My point made clear. I am arguing one thing- others bring up a point i'm not even debating.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I wasn't pushing for an argument; I was trying to understand your position, and in the process try to explain why I'm not sure your position, as I understand it, is at all relevant to the link you gave.

What I saw in bringing up major corporate interests, was stereotyping an entire group based on a small percentage of the group; hence me bringing up unions, where most are probably good, a few are bad, but the bad, sensationalist-media-friendly-examples give some people an immediately hostile reaction to the very concept of unions. Both groups represent a minority of Americans, and both unions and major corporations try to represent themselves as representative of labor at large, and businesses at large, respectively. Neither does, though. The comparison gains added weight, when you realize that only about one in ten Americans are members of unions, so we're talking a similar force in numbers, and one that has certainly not-insignificant lobbying power. Bad apples, though, lead others to demonize the group as a whole, and would see them lose relative power.


I do grasp that your concern is wealth concentration. I'm just trying to understand how a 10% chunk of the population with money but widely diverging ideas and interests is somehow undesirable, so long as the general trend for the other 90% is also upwardly mobile, as it is today. Is it simply and completely a matter of any case of unequal distribution across the entire spectrum of the population is bad?

[Plow]

I think it has more to do with tax cuts, anti-union tactics, and lobbying for favourable legislation, rather than whether the position they hold derserves the salary or not. Meaning, the money they possess together, allows them to more easily manipulate legislation in their favour. Not to mention idealogues.

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.

3- This is bad, as i have argued, because it means that a smaller group has much much more of the income, and thus potentially, much more influence in government, which, coincidentally, may create the same situation that led to the bloating of the top.

This argument isn't very sound at all. You're saying that the top 10% is actually a very large number, 30 million, thus it really doesn't constitute a concentration of wealth, but we're not talking about just those 30 million. In relation to the rest of the country, 90%, 270million, they are in fact a very small minority. The assumption is that economic power equals political power, and that if 30 million have economic power that exceeds that of say, 100 million or 200 million, then that means that these 30 million have 5, 6, 7 times the political power than the rest. This is not conducive to a democratic order much less a stable one, unless you want to contend that economic power does not equal political power or that contributions don't in fact affect politicians, but i don't think that's been a strong position for anyone other than classical liberals.

In the health care debate one side wanted a comprehensive reform that included a government run system where care could be provided to as many people as possible, and one side that was against this was the health care industry and, as it is often called, big pharma. Now, there are plenty of reasons why the public option or single payer or many of these sorts of programs lost, lobbying not being the only one, but the influence of these monied groups was felt. Particularly because in this debate the Democrats were far more interested in preventing money from heading towards the Republicans during elections than they were with actual reform. Concrete examples were the trading away of importation of generic drugs from Canada, and the trading away of the public option in exchange of cooperation from the health care industry. It was really no contest.

Clearly you haven't spent the entire fucking thread harping on about how people being rich means they control the government and therefore people being rich is bad.

Not at all.


Definitely not by completely ignoring the reality that there are a shitton of people that disagree with you, either.

[Kuya]

I wasn't pushing for an argument; I was trying to understand your position, and in the process try to explain why I'm not sure your position, as I understand it, is at all relevant to the link you gave.

What I saw in bringing up major corporate interests, was stereotyping an entire group based on a small percentage of the group; hence me bringing up unions, where most are probably good, a few are bad, but the bad, sensationalist-media-friendly-examples give some people an immediately hostile reaction to the very concept of unions. Both groups represent a minority of Americans, and both unions and major corporations try to represent themselves as representative of labor at large, and businesses at large, respectively. Neither does, though. The comparison gains added weight, when you realize that only about one in ten Americans are members of unions, so we're talking a similar force in numbers, and one that has certainly not-insignificant lobbying power. Bad apples, though, lead others to demonize the group as a whole, and would see them lose relative power.


I do grasp that your concern is wealth concentration. I'm just trying to understand how a 10% chunk of the population with money but widely diverging ideas and interests is somehow undesirable, so long as the general trend for the other 90% is also upwardly mobile, as it is today. Is it simply and completely a matter of any case of unequal distribution across the entire spectrum of the population is bad?

As you've already acknowledged, i don't care whether "the rich" or what have you get demonized. Since i am not arguing that they're diabolical, i do not care. It does not matter to me whether they're stereotyped. Bring that concern to someone else. You seem to be telling me that we should pin-point exactly who is it i'm talking about, like the groups i mentioned in my examples, so we don't unfairly characterize others, but i do not care about that. Next, whether the people i am referring to in my example are in the 10% or the top 1% is irrelevant to me, since i am assuming that they're part of the top that have seen the disproportionate gains, and if you want to counter that, then invite you to find out whether it's true or not. Not just because of what i just mentioned, but also because i only gave examples.

I am going to repeat this again, then i am done. Particularly because my points you are not refuting, and you trying to argue with be about something that is not my concern. I am not interested in getting lost in the details. What i consider bad, this is from a perspective over interest groups, is that with wealth polarization, this means that certain intersts receive an advantage over other interests, this wouldn't be absolutely bad if it happened "naturally" but there is reason to believe that part of this change in income distribution is due to specific policies on the part of government. This is why the discussion over whether it's the top 10 or the top 1, or whos is in these brackets is irrelevant to my point of contention. If you find this argument too abstract or inmaterial, then that's your problem. I think i have made my point clear, and repeating this to you is frustrating.

Now to specifically reply to certain parts of your post: How is 10% getting much more money is bad when they have diverging ideas and interests and the other 90% sees mobility? Simple, i am not arguing whether the 90% sees mobility or not. I am coming from the point of view that not all interests or rather, concentrate in the top 10%. That is, top whatever, is not a microcosm and representative of the rest. If more income accumulates in the top, then that means the intersests in that top gain an advantage, and those interests not in the top are at disadvantage. The link i gave and how it is relevant to what i am saying? I am using it as proof that wealth has been increasingly concentrating in the top, nothing more. I am using it because it seems more legitimate coming from a bank involved in recent events.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Now to specifically reply to certain parts of your post: How is 10% getting much more money is bad when they have diverging ideas and interests and the other 90% sees mobility? Simple, i am not arguing whether the 90% sees mobility or not. I am coming from the point of view that not all interests or rather, concentrate in the top 10%. That is, top whatever, is not a microcosm and representative of the rest. If more income accumulates in the top, then that means the intersests in that top gain an advantage, and those interests not in the top are at disadvantage. The link i gave and how it is relevant to what i am saying? I am using it as proof that wealth has been increasingly concentrating in the top, nothing more. I am using it because it seems more legitimate coming from a bank involved in recent events.

This part is clearer than what you have said before, and less inflammatory. I think it's dead wrong, but at least I understand where you are coming from now. Thank you.

[Kuya]

I assume that the part where you disagree is where you think the top 10 or top 1 are a microcosm of the rest.

[Plow]

Hey check it out, I can go talking point mode, too.

I can't believe it took 19 years 2 wars a Bush and a massive recession to realize that a certain person was right: "It's the economy, stupid."


If you eat the rich you'll get a meal. If you allow the rich to give you the opportunity to earn food, you'll get a whole lot more.


If 270 million mobilize, 30 million with more money don't win. It's their own fault if they don't act.

If 300 million work together, everyone wins.


Guess what? Both sides have legitimate arguments.

Very rarely (health care and other basic social welfare, education, similar projects) is an extreme left or extreme right solution even remotely viable or logical.


That said, what exactly are you proposing?



Or do you just want to keep screaming "Hey! Don't discuss my facts/evidence, my point is valid because I say so no matter what reality is!"

[Beckwin]

Business owners do that as well (making money off of money) with investments into capital. potayto potahto.

Bingo.

also pretty ridiculous for Plow to say I'm demonizing Gates when I've constantly pointed out the good things he does, already mentioning the good treatment of Microsoft employees, Gates' charitable work, and so on before he tries to rebut me with those exact same things, lol.

With Oracle and MS, they do produce something, but the wealth in those companies is generally concentrated among those who tend to do little in the way of producing (or less in the way of producing). Those who manage labor and capital (and if you consider it, employing labor is a capital investment, and we see it wheeled and dealed like other investments) are the ones seeing the biggest gains across the board, hence the most successful/lucrative profession in capitalism is the capitalist. Gates and the Oracle guys started as producers, but once they hit it big they shifted roles (pre-emptive fuck you if you find some old ass article about Gates' personal input for Windows Vista or w/e).

I don't care about the mom and businesses right now. We're talking about the big boys and large corporations.

[#686578]

plow, you kinda look like a dumbass with numbers.

Why does everyone in this thread hate me Q_Q

[Marootsoobutsu]

I assume that the part where you disagree is where you think the top 10 or top 1 are a microcosm of the rest.

No, though I think they are a better representation of the whole than you probably do. While there are invariably some groups left out, any glance at 10% will show you people from every major demographic in the country. Yes, even the poor are represented in the rich, because a good chunk of the top 10% started out in much farther down the economic ladder. It's not perfect representation, but you'll never have a perfect representation of the population in a 10% swath of class-specific demographics.

The main part that I think you're dead wrong about, is that any concentration of wealth inherently translates into disenfranchisement of the poor. It is certainly a possibility, but concentration of wealth to the extent shown in this article is not alarming, unless one is deliberately class-baiting.

There is a potential for it to be negative, but the reality of the situation (insofar as I see it), is that some degree of concentration is healthy. It is especially good when it is concentrated in those who are creating small businesses, or who are being rewarded for specific, vital functions. You want the capital for investment-- particularly investment in employees-- to be in the hands of those with the talent and ability to create new niches in the economy, to satisfy needs and wants of the market. In a nation where there is no hereditary class, this tends to mean that those who are efficient with money, or who are creating economic potential, are rewarded. As we've seen, these same people pay a higher portion of taxes-- it's been shown that, while these top 10% are earning 26% of the wages, they are paying 65-70% of the federal income tax (and even more once capital gains, payroll, and other taxes are applied)-- so it's hard to argue that they are not also funding many projects for which they receive no direct benefit.

As long as neither the potential for upward mobility of the poor is not harmed (to this point, it is not, and is easier than ever to achieve), and the standard of living for the middle-80 is on the rise (it is), then the concentration described is healthy, and to be appreciated. It's when wealth concentration equates to oppression that it's something to comment on and be alarmed about.

In short, the part where I think you're dead wrong is in looking at this, and jumping to a conclusion without searching for more evidence. I'm not saying that this information is evidence of good, mind you. I'm just saying that it doesn't say one way or another. It could be very bad; it could be a positive indication of an economy starting to recover. We just don't know.

[Cadsuane]

Didn't I already address that with the Wal-Mart comment anyway

Not really. Generally you're going on about the moral tenability of being rich which is sort of a knee jerk thing to do in this case and it's not really the best way to look at this issue.

[archibaldcrane]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this link primarily is showing that a "rising tide" is not lifting all boats, only the boats of the wealthy disproportionately, right?

[Not not Mattaru]

Thought this was somewhat relevant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_559032.html

[Marootsoobutsu]

I don't care about the mom and businesses right now. We're talking about the big boys and large corporations.

Why? Are you under the impression that small businesses do not make up the bulk of the population of the top 10%? Big boys and large corporations make up a minute percentage of that 30 million population. Do you have some evidence that the wealth of the 10% is even more concentrated exclusively at the top? I don't think the math supports it; by pure volume, the bulk of that 30 million-- y'know, about 29 million of them-- are pulling in more than the mega-rich and the CEOs are. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it to have a better understanding of things, but all of the research I have ever done has indicated that successful small businesses account for far more of the top income bracket.


Archibaldcrane-- No; it's not showing that only the rich are getting richer. It is showing that the rich are getting richer relative to the GDP, but it's not showing that the lower 90% are not getting richer in absolute terms. It's a blurb; that's the problem. The *only* thing it has shown is that the top 10% have a higher percentage of America's wealth, but it does not indicate whether that's because they've taken part of the pie from the lower classes, or whether they have simply taken a larger chunk out of a larger pie. If everyone gained two dollars, but one guy gained three, everyone is better off; it's just that one guy is a little more better off. It's not a problem until everyone else *stops* gaining, or even starts losing.