Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[ElFenix]

They generate the ideas, the engineers design them, the marketers advertise them, the factory workers assemble them, the shipping industry distributes them, the retailers sell them, and the consumers buy them. Each step makes it happen, and each person takes their agreed-upon cut from the total price. The rich person is the guy with the idea that gave all of these other people something to do other than sleep on the couch all day.

the rich guy is usually the guy who funded the guy with the idea. and that rich guy funds a lot of guys with ideas so that if many ideas fail there are enough that work that money is made. it's a numbers game pure and simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

Without capital, what will the laborers do? If you are easily replaced, you don't have a valuable skillset. The workforce is worth exactly what it is paid - the individuals who make up that workforce agreed that this is the case by accepting the wages offered. No one ever has to accept any job. If I didn't get a job, I could start my own company and create my own job. This would require risk on my part, the application of a lot of elbow grease, and the use of a (hopefully valuable) skillset that I have hopefully developed. If you aren't willing to work for the wages offered and you aren't willing to work for yourself, then you simply have an inflated opinion of your own value. If reality matched up with your view, then you could start your own company and make that amount. If you can't do that, then you have obviously overestimated.

What do you think the wages would be for workers who have no need for fool, water, air, or shelter, who could, say photosynthesize everything they needed to live? Don't you think wages are low because some folk will work for next to nothing to survive and the system insures them in great numbers.

 

[Patranus]

the rich guy is usually the guy who funded the guy with the idea. and that rich guy funds a lot of guys with ideas so that if many ideas fail there are enough that work that money is made. it's a numbers game pure and simple.

Exactly, that "rich" guy is taking a risk. Most of the time it doesn't pay off.

 

[Throckmorton]

They generate the ideas, the engineers design them, the marketers advertise them, the factory workers assemble them, the shipping industry distributes them, the retailers sell them, and the consumers buy them. Each step makes it happen, and each person takes their agreed-upon cut from the total price. The rich person is the guy with the idea that gave all of these other people something to do other than sleep on the couch all day.

And reasonable compensation for what they do is 25% of income and 40% of total national wealth?

 

[Throckmorton]

Exactly, that "rich" guy is taking a risk. Most of the time it doesn't pay off.

Is it really risk if you know you'll always be rich no matter what? Check with Donald Trump on the consequences of failing--- apparently you declare bankruptcy and move on.

 

[disappoint]

I'm certainly not disputing the fact that the top 1% are richer than ever. I just don't see a problem with it.

There normally wouldn't be a problem with it. If they had an ounce of moral fiber among the whole lot of them. Instead of using their good fortune responsibly, they use their influence for their own gain, but worse yet, for your misfortune. Right under your nose where you'd be least likely to notice. Probably because you are stupid. Even if you disagree.

Yes they offshore jobs, because they don't care if you get one. They got theirs, who cares about you? They "borrow" from the future by running up the national deficit. Because who cares about your children? Theirs will be taken care of. By them. They bribe the FDA to allow substances that are extremely detrimental to you to pass. Yes in large quantities. They support the military industrial complex because hey, why not make a buck or eleventy billion while thinning the herd at the same time? Right Wrong? what difference does THAT make? Might makes right. Nothing else matters. And don't you dare try and stop them because if it looks like you could (JFK) there's a magic bullet and a bullshit story about magic bullets with your name on it.

 

[wuliheron]

Right Wrong? what difference does THAT make? Might makes right. Nothing else matters. And don't you dare try and stop them because if it looks like you could (JFK) there's a magic bullet and a bullshit story about magic bullets with your name on it.

By many accounts it isn't even about greed so much anymore. The newer generation is increasingly composed of technocrats who can't identify with the common man and who are more focused on their personal pet projects, power, and/or just proving how skilled they are.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists would have us believe the world economy is being manipulated by the Illuminati or whoever, but the truth is its still pretty much a mess out there. Half of all cargo ships have counterfeit cargo, one quarter of all billionaires are drug cartels specializing in illegal trafficking, and monetary systems are so unstable that cargo ships merely exchange one load for another.

 

[theeedude]

the rich guy is usually the guy who funded the guy with the idea. and that rich guy funds a lot of guys with ideas so that if many ideas fail there are enough that work that money is made. it's a numbers game pure and simple.

There is nothing special about concentrating wealth in few hands that makes it possible to fund ideas. Many middle class workers having money to save in the bank would let banks fund those very same ideas just as well as few wealthy investors holding this money in their bank accounts. If anything, more ideas would be funded if the middle class had more disposable income to increase the TAM to make those ideas profitable. This country more than demonstrated this during postwar years while having top bracket, dividend, and estate tax rates well north of where they are now. It has also demonstrated that lower top bracket tax rates were ineffective in creating economic growth in the last 10 years. Ultimately a striving middle class is what makes for a developed country, having wealth concentrated in few hands makes for a banana republic, which is where GOP is steering us.

 

[disappoint]

For shits and giggles I looked up banana republic on wikipedia and this struck me as funny:

"As a political science term banana republic is a descriptor first used by the American writer O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1904), a book of thematically related short stories derived from his 1896–97 residence in Honduras, where he was hiding from U.S. law for bank embezzlement in the U.S."

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This trend of lionizing investors as drivers of growth is really irritating to me. Investment is largely a consequence of, and not a driver of, growth. Growth that potentially exists does so because of a demand. Investment follows demand. Consumption is the ultimate driver of growth.

 

[theeedude]

This trend of lionizing investors as drivers of growth is really irritating to me. Investment is largely a consequence of, and not a driver of, growth. Growth that potentially exists does so because of a demand. Investment follows demand. Consumption is the ultimate driver of growth.

You obviously don't understand dribble down economics.

 

[CycloWizard]

the rich guy is usually the guy who funded the guy with the idea. and that rich guy funds a lot of guys with ideas so that if many ideas fail there are enough that work that money is made. it's a numbers game pure and simple.

So how did the rich guy get that money in the first place? By funding random projects, or by funding projects which he somehow determined were more likely to succeed? Investing is also a skill.

 

[CycloWizard]

What do you think the wages would be for workers who have no need for fool, water, air, or shelter, who could, say photosynthesize everything they needed to live? Don't you think wages are low because some folk will work for next to nothing to survive and the system insures them in great numbers.

Wages will be whatever they can negotiate with their employer, or minimum wage. That also happens to be how wages are set now. If you are hiring two employees and two are equally qualified applicants are available, but one says that his family is in dire financial straits, are you going to pay him more than the other guy to do the same job? Now, assume the other guy is more qualified. Will you still pay the needy guy more to do an inferior job?

 

[CycloWizard]

And reasonable compensation for what they do is 25% of income and 40% of total national wealth?

That's what other people agreed to compensate them, so apparently it is reasonable. The only time it would not be reasonable is if the government had preferentially awarded them or their companies contracts, tax breaks, or what have you. Wealth is not compensation, so if they sock it away, that's no business of mine.

 

[Mursilis]

That's what other people agreed to compensate them, so apparently it is reasonable.

Except it's not that simple a lot of the time. Look at the explosion of executive pay. The pay of top execs at public companies is usually set by a board of directors, many of whom are themselves top execs, and therefore have incentives to maximize the pay of their fellow execs, and NOT to do their fiduciary duty to shareholders by keeping costs down.

 

[CycloWizard]

Except it's not that simple a lot of the time. Look at the explosion of executive pay. The pay of top execs at public companies is usually set by a board of directors, many of whom are themselves top execs, and therefore have incentives to maximize the pay of their fellow execs, and NOT to do their fiduciary duty to shareholders by keeping costs down.

And how do those companies get away with that? I think I read something about a lot of those companies going under, but then our government decided that it couldn't let that happen. I think the term I heard was "bailout." Large companies now have every reason to behave in stupid ways because there is no downside.

 

[Abwx]

WHO CARES?!

The parent(s)/grandparent(s)/whoever worked hard for the money/wealth/whatever. It is theirs to do with what they wish, since they earned it. And if they desire to give it to their kids as an inheritance, there is totally nothing wrong with that. The government stepping in and taking it "because well the kid didn't work for it" is pure thievery.

If it s about a handfull of dollars , it wouldn t matter, but
what is inherited is power over other people.

Your father works in a factory, and your only choice will
be to work in that very same factory under the orders
of the guy that inherited it, no matter that you are
more skilled, since he can easily buys your talent
for a meager pitance..

 

[Abwx]

So how did the rich guy get that money in the first place? By funding random projects, or by funding projects which he somehow determined were more likely to succeed? Investing is also a skill.

Richness is no more due to talent but to inheritance..
There are far more people that get rich by inheritance
than people getting rich because of their skills.
In europe , the ratio is currently 90% that are rich
becomes so by inheritance..

 

[QuantumPion]

Richness is no more due to talent but to inheritance..
There are far more people that get rich by inheritance
than people getting rich because of their skills.
In europe , the ratio is currently 90% that are rich
becomes so by inheritance..

Well I don't know about socialist Europe, where I can imagine that very well may be the case due to the government holding down the poor and propping up the rich (just like in the old days of fuedalism). But here in America 80% of millionaires earned their wealth from scratch, starting off in lower or middle class. Only a small percentage of the rich here are trust fund babies.

 

[CycloWizard]

Richness is no more due to talent but to inheritance..
There are far more people that get rich by inheritance
than people getting rich because of their skills.
In europe , the ratio is currently 90% that are rich
becomes so by inheritance..

Then why are the richest people in the world all new money?

 

[Abwx]

Then why are the richest people in the world all new money?

They are only the tip of the iceberg and digging
a little, you ll see that they were supported by
banks and venture capital funds, thanks to
their ability in making "usefull" relationships...

Surely that as pointed above, the US has a higher
ratio of people becomming wealthy by their own skills,
but i can assure you that they are the minority.

The system loves to shed light in such successes
because it keep the masses in the myth that
everybody can do the same and to cancel from
their understanding that their PP (purch. power)
is declining since the early 70s.

Indeed, US workers real purchasing power is way
less than in the late 50s...
At the time, a lovely house did cost 10K$
while a blue collar salary was about 200$,
that is, a house was about 50 months of income.

Can you tell that it s currently the same ?....
It s rather about 150 to 200 months.

 

[CycloWizard]

They are only the tip of the iceberg and digging
a little, you ll see that they were supported by
banks and venture capital funds, thanks to
their ability in making "usefull" relationships...

You had me at "their ability."

Surely that as pointed above, the US has a higher
ratio of people becomming wealthy by their own skills,
but i can assure you that they are the minority.

The system loves to shed light in such successes
because it keep the masses in the myth that
everybody can do the same and to cancel from
their understanding that their PP (purch. power)
is declining since the early 70s.

Indeed, US workers real purchasing power is way
less than in the late 50s...
At the time, a lovely house did cost 10K$
while a blue collar salary was about 200$,
that is, a house was about 50 months of income.

Can you tell that it s currently the same ?....
It s rather about 150 to 200 months.

Not everyone can do the same thing, nor was that my argument. You said, "Richness is no more due to talent but to inheritance." I said that that is rubbish and contradicted by reality. You retort by saying that not everyone will get rich due to talent, a claim I've never seen anyone make.

 

[CycloWizard]

Back to basics here: who agrees with the feasibility of this statement from the OP's article?
"People take...the nation's income."

 

[Moonbeam]

Wages will be whatever they can negotiate with their employer, or minimum wage. That also happens to be how wages are set now. If you are hiring two employees and two are equally qualified applicants are available, but one says that his family is in dire financial straits, are you going to pay him more than the other guy to do the same job? Now, assume the other guy is more qualified. Will you still pay the needy guy more to do an inferior job?

You avoid the question. If there is nobody in the world who needs a job, what will the cost be for getting somebody to work who has no need to, as opposed to somebody who has a dire need to support his family.

Again, it is the fact that we live in a society that creates tremendous numbers of folk who need work to live that work can be had on the cheap. This is the reason our society is constructed as it is, to insure cheap labor. It is why all efforts to reduce need are thwarted by folk who make money on other people's labor. It is those who supply who are interested always to insure demand. It is why capital flows to countries with the greatest poverty. Folk there have to work for nothing because they face grinding poverty and starvation.

Human beings need to eat to live. Once human beings cooperated without pay to survive. That is our natural evolutionary state. Now, to live we must work at a job of some kind and have something we call money. In a world where one has to work to live every person has an inalienable right to a job, every single person, and any society which excludes some folk because of market forces is simply evil. You simply do not like the fact that you support a system that is evil because you have an ego that needs to feel it is good. You do not have the intestinal fortitude to see the truth. And you won't. You are complicit and have hardened.

 

[ElFenix]

Is it really risk if you know you'll always be rich no matter what? Check with Donald Trump on the consequences of failing--- apparently you declare bankruptcy and move on.

donald trump has never declared bankruptcy.