Why don't I care that the rich are getting richer?

[Joepublic2]

my post is based off of what i see from the general public. everyone is expecting a handout.
the OWS crowd targets anyone who has more than them. that is who they paint as the enemy.
did you see the video clip of the north side vs south side of the OWS camp at zucotti?
people are just envious of what others have, and too lazy to work for it themselves.

Some of the OWS are just mooches expecting a handout but I wouldn't say it's the majority of them. Most that I've talked too are understandably upset that they're unable to get a job, ANY job and support themselves. It is easy to start a business on paper but in reality it's hard to compete when you have the economies of scale and the tax code working against you at every turn.

 

[Jhhnn]

The way I see it...

For the masses, income is used merely to determine the distribution of scarce goods. The wealthy do consume more than the average person, but there is a limit to the amount that any single person can consume. The actual total consumption of goods by the obscenely wealthy is so small that even if you eliminate that wealth gap and redistribute their "excess" income, the actual lifestyle of the masses would remain unchanged. The prices might change, but the distribution wouldn't. There would still be haves and have nots. Get rid of the wealthy and my purchasing power doesn't change because we still have the same amount of people competing to acquire the same resources.

Where it starts to get murky is that for the capital class, excess money over the amount used for consumption is used as a tool to determine ownership of production. Beyond that it's used as a corrupting influence to purchase control, which is where it does begin to affect me. Lobbying for laws that require me to purchase a company's product, or creating a government mandated monopoly situation forcing me to pay higher prices than the free market would normally bear, or setting up regulatory barriers to entry that prevent competition from every arising. That's when I take issue with concentration of wealth, but it's also why I don't see the problem strictly as one of concentration of wealth but one of the government having too much economic influence.

It's not like consumers had much choice before the trust busters broke up Standard Oil 100 years ago, either, or when the forces of competition ultimately arrive at the economic tyranny of oligopoly. The ultimate goal of capitalism isn't competition at all, but rather control.

Your assumption wrt income distribution is false, as well. If the income distribution of 1980 had been maintained, the middle quintile would currently have ~40% greater income. Income has become very skewed in this country.

 

[Throckmorton]

The reason the rich are getting astronomically richer is because they're taking a bigger piece of the wealth pie for themselves. Productivity has grown in this country, but the wealth created by that growth has gone mostly to the super wealthy since Reagan, at the expense of the rest of us.

 

[Paul98]

Your attitude is a huge problem, that is what allows corruption and these things to happen. You just ignore the problem because you are doing alright, doesn't mean there isn't a problem and won't make it go away. What happens when you have to work more hours and are still unable to stay afloat. What happens when your job gets cut to increase profit percentage, or to ship your job oversees. What happens when you have a hard time finding another good job? This will continue to happen to a large group of people.

 

[leper84]

who allows for the corruption?

You ever heard of the (not so) Federal Reserve?

I think a lot of people in general would be well off to study the history in this country and around the world of (privately owned) central banking.

 

[blankslate]

Think of the game Monopoly. It is a game of laissez-faire capitalism whose object is of course to become the richest person. As you become the richest person the other players go broke.

Expand the game out to the economy as a whole. We still have some economic protections and some have been lost.

A very noticeable protection was the regulation that kept investment banks (which deal with helping people buy and sell stocks) separate from commercial banks (which are the ones most people are familiar with checking and savings accounts as well as loans).

While there are arguable advantages... according to
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/investment-bank-vs-commercial-bank-3450.html

"The problem with mixing investment and commercial banking is that institutions have historically gone too far to prop up weak and undeserving companies, leading to bubbles and disastrous busts."

As economic protections for consumers against, onerous fees from various business, identity theft, monopolies (*heh*), etc. etc. are lost.

Then it becomes easier for the winners of the expanded monopoly game to increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of the players... most likely you and me.

Unless you have an income of the top one percent which was considered to be household incomes of 350k+ according to 2006 census data...

"You and I are not in the big club..." George Carlin (had to use that line it's a favorite)




People might say that well 350k is not that much... well it's about 17.6 thousand dollars a month after taxes* (using the highest marginal tax rate during the 90s if I recall correctly) and before deductions

I know that some places in New York are very expensive but I'll have would you have so much trouble living on 17.6k dollars a year after taxes... (remember this is at the low end of the top one percent) that you consider a top marginal tax rate before deductions is onerous?





Consider that we have cut taxes even from that level while we have increased spending partly with initially "off the books" wars. We have lost the small budget surpluses that we had at the end of the 90s and now face ballooning deficits and a huge debt.


As I mentioned before when taxes were at 39.6% we were running a surplus of course if we kept all of the costs on the books and an increased taxes to keep the budget balance then the taxes might've gone as high 50% but even then after taxes with zero deductions the lowest incomes of the top 1 percent in the mid 2000s would have been a still nice sum of $14,500.






Right now spending cuts are pretty much all we can do given that some wealthier members of the top 1% are paying lobbyists to keep taxes lower than 39.6%.

As this debate over taxes becomes a political football spending cuts will most likely harm you and me. Because spending cuts means less policemen, less people to ensure that the water you and I drink is safe and pollution free, less money for FBI and CIA agencies help local law enforcement officials stop terrorist attacks amongst other things.

Then you have to consider how some of the people in the 1% are increasing their incomes..

1) Shipping jobs overseas is a factor that does impact the availability of jobs in the states even if this doesn't affect you directly.
More unemployment might cause an increase in crime.

2) There are so many knowledge jobs that can be had in the states as well. There are controversies over companies hiring educated personnel from overseas because they are willing to work for less which cuts the wages of even educated workers.
I'm sure if you looked you could find more examples.

so I just remembered that maybe the top 1% household income may have been only 250k a year in which case we can ask.... is 12.5k dollars a month after taxes something you can live with without looking for ways to cut taxes?

*for my monthly income estimates I just googled this
((350000-(350000*.396))/12 and ((350000-(350000*.50))/12

 

[Infohawk]

To a large extent it does not matter. What matters is how the middle-class is doing. The middle-class is dying right now so people are thinking more and more about changing the status quo which is how the rich get richer. At the end of the day, people are social animals. If they're just getting by and another American is flying overhead in his private jet, people are not going to put up with it regardless of whether he worked for that jet or not.

At some point you should care though. Wealth can entrench itself and block upward mobility and true democracy.

 

[Fern]

The way I see it...

For the masses, income is used merely to determine the distribution of scarce goods. The wealthy do consume more than the average person, but there is a limit to the amount that any single person can consume. The actual total consumption of goods by the obscenely wealthy is so small that even if you eliminate that wealth gap and redistribute their "excess" income, the actual lifestyle of the masses would remain unchanged. The prices might change, but the distribution wouldn't. There would still be haves and have nots. Get rid of the wealthy and my purchasing power doesn't change because we still have the same amount of people competing to acquire the same resources.

Where it starts to get murky is that for the capital class, excess money over the amount used for consumption is used as a tool to determine ownership of production. Beyond that it's used as a corrupting influence to purchase control, which is where it does begin to affect me. Lobbying for laws that require me to purchase a company's product, or creating a government mandated monopoly situation forcing me to pay higher prices than the free market would normally bear, or setting up regulatory barriers to entry that prevent competition from every arising. That's when I take issue with concentration of wealth, but it's also why I don't see the problem strictly as one of concentration of wealth but one of the government having too much economic influence.

:thumbsup:

Fern

 

[sao123]

The way I see it...

For the masses, income is used merely to determine the distribution of scarce goods. The wealthy do consume more than the average person, but there is a limit to the amount that any single person can consume. The actual total consumption of goods by the obscenely wealthy is so small that even if you eliminate that wealth gap and redistribute their "excess" income, the actual lifestyle of the masses would remain unchanged. The prices might change, but the distribution wouldn't. There would still be haves and have nots. Get rid of the wealthy and my purchasing power doesn't change because we still have the same amount of people competing to acquire the same resources.

Where it starts to get murky is that for the capital class, excess money over the amount used for consumption is used as a tool to determine ownership of production. Beyond that it's used as a corrupting influence to purchase control, which is where it does begin to affect me. Lobbying for laws that require me to purchase a company's product, or creating a government mandated monopoly situation forcing me to pay higher prices than the free market would normally bear, or setting up regulatory barriers to entry that prevent competition from every arising. That's when I take issue with concentration of wealth, but it's also why I don't see the problem strictly as one of concentration of wealth but one of the government having too much economic influence.

utter garbage.

There certainly is no shortage op food and vehicles and houses and toasters... and yet we have segments of the population which cannot afford these items.

To a point with luxeries you are correct, but for basic necessities... hell no.

 

[BoberFett]

It's not like consumers had much choice before the trust busters broke up Standard Oil 100 years ago, either, or when the forces of competition ultimately arrive at the economic tyranny of oligopoly. The ultimate goal of capitalism isn't competition at all, but rather control.

Are you contending that it requires massive government spending to combat the tyranny of monopolists?

Or maybe your goal is to go back to a federal government like that of 1911 when it took down Standard Oil? Sounds like a plan to me. The federal budget can be cut by 80% then we'll let them go crazy. They can break up all the abusive corporations they want.

Your assumption wrt income distribution is false, as well. If the income distribution of 1980 had been maintained, the middle quintile would currently have ~40% greater income. Income has become very skewed in this country.

Way to miss the point completely. Greater income spread across the board does nothing. It merely increases prices as there is more competition for the same amount of goods.

 

[BoberFett]

utter garbage.

There certainly is no shortage op food and vehicles and houses and toasters... and yet we have segments of the population which cannot afford these items.

To a point with luxeries you are correct, but for basic necessities... hell no.

Really? So you believe in infinite resources? You don't think oil will ever run out? The more people that want it, the more we can pump from the ground?

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you contending that it requires massive government spending to combat the tyranny of monopolists?

Or maybe your goal is to go back to a federal government like that of 1911 when it took down Standard Oil? Sounds like a plan to me. The federal budget can be cut by 80% then we'll let them go crazy. They can break up all the abusive corporations they want.

Way to miss the point completely. Greater income spread across the board does nothing. It merely increases prices as there is more competition for the same amount of goods.

Current levels of govt spending are the way that top tier incomes get recirculated in the economy. Without it, that money would just disappear down the liquidity trap hole. It just costs us more in the long run to borrow it than to take it as taxes. Your observation is an obvious attempt at duh-version, anyway.

You act as if there is really an economy of scarcity, a common misconception by many, given that classical economics is based on that model. There is no scarcity of goods or services in this country, but rather a scarcity of income among the people who would buy them. That income share has moved strongly to the tippytop over the last 30 years of Reaganomics. Without demand to drive industry, money just accumulates at the top. Without the efforts of the FRB & Treasury, we'd be deep in the throes of a debt/deflation spiral, which benefits only the Wealthy, as in the early 1930's.

At the time, there was no scarcity of food, even though millions went hungry, and no scarcity of housing as millions were homeless, either. Debt/deflation & liquidity traps turn convention economic thinking upside down & inside out- the models don't account for the reality then or now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Really? So you believe in infinite resources? You don't think oil will ever run out? The more people that want it, the more we can pump from the ground?

I don't believe in infinite resources, but I don't believe in infinite demand, either. As has been offered, even very wealthy people can only consume just so much, and that's often more in terms of quality than quantity, anyway.

 

[Sonikku]

Millions of Americans are suffering from insatiable corporate greed and from the corrupt politicians in their pocket.

I am not among these millions and it's not my problem.

What is the big deal?

Just wanted to summarize OP's thoughts to those not getting it.

 

[sactoking]

So many people are upset at the 1%, Wall St., people that inherit wealth, the rich getting richer, etc.

None of that bothers me at all, or I should say... I don't let any of that concern me.
I only worry about myself. I do what I have to do to bring a paycheck home. If I feel like I'm not making enough to support the lifestyle that I want, I'll have to improve myself and not bitch at those who have more than me.

Unless the 1% are standing at the door, personally restraining me from job interviews, stopping me from working harder to make myself more marketable, I couldn't care less what they're doing.

What am I not getting?

The simple answer: You define your material self by what you have and the Occupiers define their material selves by what someone else has that they don't. You can cherry-pick specific items in an attempt to disprove the notion, but that fact is that quality of life for the average American is higher now than it has even been. Some people look around and say "Damn, it's a good time to be alive" and others are too busy complaining that they don't have a diamond-crusted crackpipe to notice that their $199 Kindle Fire is more powerful than any computer that existed prior to 1995.

The complex answer: If you make more than $34,000/year you are part of the global 1%. 99% of the people on the planet make less than 34,000 US dollars per year. To them, our Occupy movements are akin to how we viewed the NFL and NBA lockouts (millionaires v billionaires). Arguing about losing your retirement money and not being able to afford your Grande Mocha Frappuccino Chai Triple Lowfat No-whip Cinnamon Peppermint Macchiato doesn't move the 99 out 100 people on the planet who wonder where their next meal will come from, if they'll have clean water to drink, or whether they can wake up in the morning after sleeping outside in freezing temperatures.

 

[Jhhnn]

The simple answer: You define your material self by what you have and the Occupiers define their material selves by what someone else has that they don't. You can cherry-pick specific items in an attempt to disprove the notion, but that fact is that quality of life for the average American is higher now than it has even been. Some people look around and say "Damn, it's a good time to be alive" and others are too busy complaining that they don't have a diamond-crusted crackpipe to notice that their $199 Kindle Fire is more powerful than any computer that existed prior to 1995.

The complex answer: If you make more than $34,000/year you are part of the global 1%. 99% of the people on the planet make less than 34,000 US dollars per year. To them, our Occupy movements are akin to how we viewed the NFL and NBA lockouts (millionaires v billionaires). Arguing about losing your retirement money and not being able to afford your Grande Mocha Frappuccino Chai Triple Lowfat No-whip Cinnamon Peppermint Macchiato doesn't move the 99 out 100 people on the planet who wonder where their next meal will come from, if they'll have clean water to drink, or whether they can wake up in the morning after sleeping outside in freezing temperatures.

So the real answer is just to let the world's wealthiest .00001% squeeze the american public into the same status as third world workers, right?

I thought the goal was to raise their status, not sacrifice our own on the altar of greed at the top...

 

[blankslate]

The simple answer: You define your material self by what you have and the Occupiers define their material selves by what someone else has that they don't. You can cherry-pick specific items in an attempt to disprove the notion, but that fact is that quality of life for the average American is higher now than it has even been. Some people look around and say "Damn, it's a good time to be alive" and others are too busy complaining that they don't have a diamond-crusted crackpipe to notice that their $199 Kindle Fire is more powerful than any computer that existed prior to 1995.

The complex answer: If you make more than $34,000/year you are part of the global 1%. 99% of the people on the planet make less than 34,000 US dollars per year. To them, our Occupy movements are akin to how we viewed the NFL and NBA lockouts (millionaires v billionaires). Arguing about losing your retirement money and not being able to afford your Grande Mocha Frappuccino Chai Triple Lowfat No-whip Cinnamon Peppermint Macchiato doesn't move the 99 out 100 people on the planet who wonder where their next meal will come from, if they'll have clean water to drink, or whether they can wake up in the morning after sleeping outside in freezing temperatures.

What the OP is not getting is that if this trend continues then either he/she will eventually become part of the millions who have seen their prospects decline heavily or that they will see their children flounder....

If the OP is so old that they won't live long enough to see this and has no children whose future(s) that they care to worry about...

Then the OP can just bury is head in the sand and keep on saying "What am I missing?"

 

[Fern]

The reports I've seen indicate wealth concentration peaked around 1994 IIRC.

Given tech developments, cable TV, corporate consolidations wealth concentration is entirely expected.

We just had a thread here with info showing this poor economy has somewhat reversed the concentration too.

This is a bogus issue.

Fern

 

[Joepublic2]

This is a bogus issue.

I wouldn't say it's bogus because vast disparities in wealth make everybody poorer over time, even the ultra rich, because it introduces a lot of economic inefficiencies.

 

[Gintaras]

So many people are upset at the 1%, Wall St., people that inherit wealth, the rich getting richer, etc.

None of that bothers me at all, or I should say... I don't let any of that concern me.
I only worry about myself. I do what I have to do to bring a paycheck home. If I feel like I'm not making enough to support the lifestyle that I want, I'll have to improve myself and not bitch at those who have more than me.

Unless the 1% are standing at the door, personally restraining me from job interviews, stopping me from working harder to make myself more marketable, I couldn't care less what they're doing.

What am I not getting?

"The monkey sat on a pile of stone

And he stared at the broken bone in his hand

Strains of a Viennese quartet rang out across the land

The monkey looked up at the stars

And he thought to himself

Memory is a stranger

History is for fools

And he cleaned his hands in a pool of holy writing

Turned his back on the garden and set out for the nearest town"

 

[Jhhnn]

The reports I've seen indicate wealth concentration peaked around 1994 IIRC.

Given tech developments, cable TV, corporate consolidations wealth concentration is entirely expected.

We just had a thread here with info showing this poor economy has somewhat reversed the concentration too.

This is a bogus issue.

Fern

Hogwash. You didn't expect a looting opportunity like the peak of the credit bubble to last forever, did you?

When the market peaks, the wealthy sell for profit. When the market declines, they hold & buy. It's a ratchet action, where they get to tighten their grip periodically.

Let us know when their share of income decreases to 1980 levels, OK?

Check the taxable income shares of the top .1% to see what I mean-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

[Doppel]

So many people are upset at the 1%, Wall St., people that inherit wealth, the rich getting richer, etc.

None of that bothers me at all, or I should say... I don't let any of that concern me.
I only worry about myself. I do what I have to do to bring a paycheck home. If I feel like I'm not making enough to support the lifestyle that I want, I'll have to improve myself and not bitch at those who have more than me.

Unless the 1% are standing at the door, personally restraining me from job interviews, stopping me from working harder to make myself more marketable, I couldn't care less what they're doing.

What am I not getting?

Maybe you aren't struggling, or seeing a future for your kids that maybe isn't the one you want, who knows, could be a number of reasons, but if you're young it's not surprising that things that concern wage earners providing for a family don't bother you.

 

[Rainsford]

The reports I've seen indicate wealth concentration peaked around 1994 IIRC.

Given tech developments, cable TV, corporate consolidations wealth concentration is entirely expected.

We just had a thread here with info showing this poor economy has somewhat reversed the concentration too.

This is a bogus issue.

Fern

I don't see how it's a bogus issue. Yes, the problem hasn't peaked right this very second, but there has been a long term trend of wealth and income being increasingly concentrated at the top of the economic ladder. Our economy has grown by a large amount over the last several decades, yet real wages for the middle class have been more or less stagnant. I don't believe that the top few percent are the only people contributing to growing our economy, why are they the only people really seeing any of the benefits?

 

[Rainsford]

So many people are upset at the 1%, Wall St., people that inherit wealth, the rich getting richer, etc.

None of that bothers me at all, or I should say... I don't let any of that concern me.
I only worry about myself. I do what I have to do to bring a paycheck home. If I feel like I'm not making enough to support the lifestyle that I want, I'll have to improve myself and not bitch at those who have more than me.

Unless the 1% are standing at the door, personally restraining me from job interviews, stopping me from working harder to make myself more marketable, I couldn't care less what they're doing.

What am I not getting?

The increasing concentration of wealth at the top suggests to me that either the average person is getting much lazier, or it's not as simple to "improve yourself" as you seem to think.

 

[Gintaras]

Given tech developments, cable TV, corporate consolidations wealth concentration is entirely expected.

Fern

Care to explain more about all your bullshit?