Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.)
Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys).
Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tech, most of the US seems pretty happy with the self-made uber rich. In fact, I think people are downright fond of these people. The real discomfort comes when those oligarchs look to preserve dynastic wealth and power for generation after generation using trusts and other tax avoidance strategies.
Then they should stop saying they are concerned about "inequality" and start saying they are concerned with "dynastic wealth". This sloppy rhetoric makes it easy for opponents to attack. See, e.g.,
And she is absolutely right. Because if "inequality" is the problem then a solution is to shape society so that everyone has $1 rather than the rich having $3 and the poor having $2. If that's not a desirable solution then "inequality" is not the problem.
Disregarding the fact that it's more like $1M of wealth for rich vs $2 for poor: Why is $1 for everyone not desirable in that case? Of course it's pure speculation, but a complete wealth reset like this would have to result in either: inflation where new $1 means old $2.01, crazy taxation where country keeps most wealth (but has to then spend on social support), or complete economy collapse.
Two of those results may be quite desirable actually.
People are concerned about egregious opulence while others are barely middling along or are impoverished; there is currently no other configuration in which income inequality exists.
The other stuff is a distraction until that isn't the case.
Americans and publics in Africa are less dissatisfied, but they are hardly happy about the way things are going. More than half of Americans (56%) say the U.S. economy is doing poorly. In the nine African nations surveyed, a median of 51% believe economic conditions are bad. Within Africa there is a particularly wide divergence of opinion. More than seven-in-ten Ghanaians (73%) judge their economy to be performing poorly, while nearly nine-in-ten Ethiopians (89%) believe their economy is in good condition.
Down here at the pedestrian level, between 2010 and 2014 poverty increased in one third of America’s 3,000 counties, when compared to the 2005 to 2009 period, according to the U.S. Census’s American Community Survey. In fact, the “recovery,” that pastel-colored unicorn, was only seen in the 4 percent of the nation’s counties where poverty actually declined. The rest remained stagnant.
It should come as no surprise. Millions of Americans lost their homes, and with them the foundation of their household wealth. During the “recovery,” census data documents that the median U.S. household income has actually declined for three years in a row and remains below its peak in 1999.
And the fact that the middle class has been hollowed out:
You are obviously biased. Im sure those tech gods affect politics as much as the Kochs -- but it is the kind of political choices that you are ok with. Therefore, they are the good guys and the Kochs are the bad guys. Not so sure things are that simple. E.g. Bill Gates and patents.
Well if those people are concerned about inherited wealth, I have good news for them; the wealthiest individuals are increasingly self-made.
Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money. Our new metric, the self-made scores developed for the Forbes 400, shows that increasingly we find self-made billionaires among the ranks of the richest people in the country. This has accompanied the incredible increase in wealth of the members of the Forbes 400, which has jumped 1,832% times since 1984, when the total net worth of our list was $125 billion, compared with $2.29 trillion today.[0]
Income inequality, unemployment etc. are necessities for that dynastic wealth as well.
If you're not going to make money by working and creating wealth, you have to make it as a rentier, expropriating wealth created during surplus labor time of those who do work.
It causes a struggle for where the money goes - the worker who created the wealth by their labor, or to the heir in the profit of that expropriated labor time.
Poverty and unemployment are backbones of pushing that wealth towards the heir and away from the worker creating the wealth. That's why his note on ending poverty etc. is so phony. Heirs aren't trying to lower unemployment or end poverty, they work hard to create it.
It's not a secret. It's said openly in Businessweek - http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_44/b3653163.htm . The problem as they see it is when unemployment gets too low. It puts a crimp on their parasitism on those of us who work and create wealth.
The problem is that, with the exception of the very small minority who give it all away before they die, these self-made billionaires are the first generation in a dynasty.
Comments
Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.)
Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys).
Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tech, most of the US seems pretty happy with the self-made uber rich. In fact, I think people are downright fond of these people. The real discomfort comes when those oligarchs look to preserve dynastic wealth and power for generation after generation using trusts and other tax avoidance strategies.
Then they should stop saying they are concerned about "inequality" and start saying they are concerned with "dynastic wealth". This sloppy rhetoric makes it easy for opponents to attack. See, e.g.,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
And she is absolutely right. Because if "inequality" is the problem then a solution is to shape society so that everyone has $1 rather than the rich having $3 and the poor having $2. If that's not a desirable solution then "inequality" is not the problem.
Disregarding the fact that it's more like $1M of wealth for rich vs $2 for poor: Why is $1 for everyone not desirable in that case? Of course it's pure speculation, but a complete wealth reset like this would have to result in either: inflation where new $1 means old $2.01, crazy taxation where country keeps most wealth (but has to then spend on social support), or complete economy collapse.
Two of those results may be quite desirable actually.
People are concerned about egregious opulence while others are barely middling along or are impoverished; there is currently no other configuration in which income inequality exists.
The other stuff is a distraction until that isn't the case.
It would be wise to remember that we only speak for ourselves.
Except, cryoshon simply echos what a large proportion of the population feels.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/around-the-w...
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/03/the_middle_class_is_just_th...
And the fact that the middle class has been hollowed out:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/...
You are obviously biased. Im sure those tech gods affect politics as much as the Kochs -- but it is the kind of political choices that you are ok with. Therefore, they are the good guys and the Kochs are the bad guys. Not so sure things are that simple. E.g. Bill Gates and patents.
Haha, I cannot believe I defended the Kochs.
The name Koch is all over NYC arts philanthropy, but don't tell anyone.
You and parent both make excellent points.
Well if those people are concerned about inherited wealth, I have good news for them; the wealthiest individuals are increasingly self-made.
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/03/there-a...
Income inequality, unemployment etc. are necessities for that dynastic wealth as well.
If you're not going to make money by working and creating wealth, you have to make it as a rentier, expropriating wealth created during surplus labor time of those who do work.
It causes a struggle for where the money goes - the worker who created the wealth by their labor, or to the heir in the profit of that expropriated labor time.
Poverty and unemployment are backbones of pushing that wealth towards the heir and away from the worker creating the wealth. That's why his note on ending poverty etc. is so phony. Heirs aren't trying to lower unemployment or end poverty, they work hard to create it.
It's not a secret. It's said openly in Businessweek - http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_44/b3653163.htm . The problem as they see it is when unemployment gets too low. It puts a crimp on their parasitism on those of us who work and create wealth.
Labor creates all wealth.
The problem is that, with the exception of the very small minority who give it all away before they die, these self-made billionaires are the first generation in a dynasty.