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

[sactoking]

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...

Actually, you'll (maybe) see that that's not what I said at all. The simple answer acknowledged the fact that while the "wealth" of the top 1% of the top 1% is increasing, so is the wealth of the other 99% of the top 1%. The problem that that 99% has is that their wealth is growing slower than the wealth of others. In the United States wealth is not a zero-sum game whereby if Warren Buffet gets an extra $1,000,000 then 1,000,000 other people all lost $1. If I have $100 today and tomorrow I have $125 and I am better off and happy, what's wrong with that? The problem is that many people act like petulant children and if they go from $100 to $125 but someone else goes from $100 to $150 then the $125 person is "losing" even though they would be content with $125 in isolation.

The complex answer addressed the very real fact that "the 99%" (really the 99% of the 1%) don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world. Oh, they may say they do but it's completely disingenuous. The Occupiers weren't out there campaigning for water in Africa, food in South America, or vaccines in Asia; they were complaining that their material goods and services, goods and services which 99% of the globe views as extravagant luxuries, were a few pennies or dollars more expensive.

So, to answer the OP's question no it is not necessarily wrong to not care that the rich get richer. If you're happy with what you have why should someone else bother you? Keep in mind too that to the globe you're part of the 1% and should be grateful for what you have.

 

[Cerb]

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.

That is as far from a fact as the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Where's economic mobility? Why is the labor force participation so low? Why does the GDP keep increasing, yet those working to help it keep up not receive any reward for their efforts?

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.

Quality of life is not defined by how powerful your electronics are, but how empowered you are to make economic decisions. You are in fact invalidating your own argument by noting the price of a mid-range tablet, today: it is much lower than most people's costs of living for a couple weeks! How much of your wages are eaten up by food and energy is important, not how cheap a gadget you probably don't need is. The average American's quality of life today is far reduced from what it was 10 years ago.

Anyone else can get rich, and that is fine. It is not fine that people create more wealth, and are rewarded less for it, which has been the case in the US since the 80s.

I believe the cake supply is beginning to run low.

The complex answer addressed the very real fact that "the 99%" (really the 99% of the 1%) don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world.

Red herring, and the US holds more than 1% of the world's population.

they were complaining that their material goods and services, goods and services which 99% of the globe views as extravagant luxuries, were a few pennies or dollars more expensive.

Vegetables, grains, meats, and going to and from places to acquire them, and earn a living, are so completely luxuries. Nobody else in the world cares about such things. That other nations may or may not have the specific goods or services is not relevant, as the cultures and economies are not comparable; that the goods and services in question are important to the health and economic power of the people is what is important.

 

[janas19]

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?

What you are not getting is that it's a social concern. When a society allows large amounts of wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few, while other people may not even have enough to meet their basic necessities, it shows that our society is structured in a way that doesn't peoples needs.

If there was an absolute lack of resources, that would be one thing. But the fact that a small percentage of the population have accumulated excessive amounts of wealth that they don't need is proof that there is abundance, so...

Basically, if it doesn't concern you that lots of Americans are having tough economic times, it doesn't mean you are wrong or anything, it just means you are only thinking about yourself.

 

[rchiu]

What you are not getting is that it's a social concern. When a society allows large amounts of wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few, while other people may not even have enough to meet their basic necessities, it shows that our society is structured in a way that doesn't peoples needs.

If there was an absolute lack of resources, that would be one thing. But the fact that a small percentage of the population have accumulated excessive amounts of wealth that they don't need is proof that there is abundance, so...

Basically, if it doesn't concern you that lots of Americans are having tough economic times, it doesn't mean you are wrong or anything, it just means you are only thinking about yourself.

You people keep complaining about the 1%, but you never answer one fundamental question. When is the 1% too rich? when they average 250k a year? 350k a year? 1million a year? How do you arrived at that number? Who do you compare it to?

There will always be income inequality, the question is when will it become a problem. Looking at Gini Index, US Gini index has rise over time from less than 40 before the 80s to about 46 right now. So is that bad? When does it become bad?

You said a large amount of wealth concentrated in a few, how large is large, how few is a few? Why don't you people show us a data model that shows your alternative is the optimal and better solution? Can you come up with data model (do you even know what that is and how to do those economic analysis)? Nope you cannot.

Sure lots of American are having tough time, but can you say for sure it's the income inequality and not the world wide recession we have now that's causing that tough time?

As I see it, income inequality isn't that big a problem. Over the last 10 years, US gini index has remained pretty much the same at ~46. The real problem is the recent recession and the banking/housing bubbles. Those are the cause of lost of jobs, less income, not the top 1% rich people. But those socialist/leftist simply use this opportunity to push for their platform, and all naive people simply eat it up.

 

[sao123]

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?

there is a large difference between finite and scarce.
Both demand and supply are finite, however at this point in time our supply of many things heavily outweighs the demand, hence all the massive cutting going on around us.

why is our demand so low? Many segments of the population are unemployed and underemployed, and do not have the means to purchase them.


The only way demand is ever going to increase, is if employment and wages increase.

 

[janas19]

You said a large amount of wealth concentrated in a few, how large is large, how few is a few? Why don't you people show us a data model that shows your alternative is the optimal and better solution? Can you come up with data model (do you even know what that is and how to do those economic analysis)? Nope you cannot.

You're right, I cannot.

But then again, the OP's question was "What am I not getting?", which I answered, not "What am I not getting - and I need a sociologist to provide data models."

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

...

Holy fuck what a retard.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, you'll (maybe) see that that's not what I said at all. The simple answer acknowledged the fact that while the "wealth" of the top 1% of the top 1% is increasing, so is the wealth of the other 99% of the top 1%. The problem that that 99% has is that their wealth is growing slower than the wealth of others. In the United States wealth is not a zero-sum game whereby if Warren Buffet gets an extra $1,000,000 then 1,000,000 other people all lost $1. If I have $100 today and tomorrow I have $125 and I am better off and happy, what's wrong with that? The problem is that many people act like petulant children and if they go from $100 to $125 but someone else goes from $100 to $150 then the $125 person is "losing" even though they would be content with $125 in isolation.

The complex answer addressed the very real fact that "the 99%" (really the 99% of the 1%) don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world. Oh, they may say they do but it's completely disingenuous. The Occupiers weren't out there campaigning for water in Africa, food in South America, or vaccines in Asia; they were complaining that their material goods and services, goods and services which 99% of the globe views as extravagant luxuries, were a few pennies or dollars more expensive.

So, to answer the OP's question no it is not necessarily wrong to not care that the rich get richer. If you're happy with what you have why should someone else bother you? Keep in mind too that to the globe you're part of the 1% and should be grateful for what you have.

Your post is utterly wrong and ideological. The ignorance you display is a great danger to our country - many share it.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

No use getting upset over other peoples money.

 

[Ausm]

The 1% effects the policies on the PEONS and themselves by buying off the politicians to get "artificially" wealthier.

 

[Jhhnn]

As I see it, income inequality isn't that big a problem. Over the last 10 years, US gini index has remained pretty much the same at ~46. The real problem is the recent recession and the banking/housing bubbles. Those are the cause of lost of jobs, less income, not the top 1% rich people. But those socialist/leftist simply use this opportunity to push for their platform, and all naive people simply eat it up.

You reverse cause and effect. The housing bubble and the banking crisis are symptoms of too much inequality, of the substitution of credit for earnings among the middle class, and of financial rent seeking & speculation vs honest investment among the financial elite.

The fragility of such a system is obvious. It's not a bug, but rather a feature of Reaganomics. The greater the concentration of wealth & income, the greater the power of those possessing it at the expense of everybody else. That power disparity is most evident in the downward part of the business cycle.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Most of the rich are screwing over America.

They enjoy tax cuts, under the "promise" that they will create jobs - trickle down economics NEVER worked like Regan said they would.

They ship jobs overseas; China and India. They enjoy the decrease in the cost of producing/providing services and products, but still keep the sale price the same.

They use their liquid cash to fuck with the stock market (read: Hedge Funds) - which is what the general populace's retirement plan is dependent on.

They buck social and environmental responsibility for the purposes of making more money for themselves. Again, sending work to China. Hiring illegals. Undermining the financial investor sector.

They do whatever the fuck they want. And, there are 2 - well, now 3 - reactions to all of this:
1) Let them! They earned their money! Don't be a communist/socialist! You can't tell them what to do with their money, you communist! You supporter of communism! So, let them send money and jobs to communist China! If you don't let them support communist China with work and money, you are supporting communism, you communist! How can ANYONE ever support communism in ANY way shape or form?!?!?!?!?!?

//drool

,... duh, duh,... duh.

2) I am angry! The government needs to do something about it, because the masses are too disorganized, short sighted and ineffective to really fuck over the rich.

and now you,...

3) I don't care.

Well, continue on with not caring. We've been shoved into a corner. And, it's getting smaller, because we are growing.

 

[HomerJS]

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?

While as an individual you may not be concerned the 1% are getting richer, you should he concerned the 1% are getting richer while at the same time the 99% are losing ground. The country as a whole moving towards a plutocrasy should alarm everyone.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

How would you feel if I told you that the rich are becoming richer because they are paying you much less than the value of your labor is worth?

Would you feel differently if you knew that the economic forces that are resulting in the rich becoming richer have increased the amount of competition you have for white collar jobs and thus reduced the ease with which you can get a decent wage?

Would you feel differently if you knew that those forces were increasing the amount of poverty and social instability in this country and that they were thus putting stress on local and state governments' ability to provide valuable public services?

 

[Jeff7]

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?

They're not at your door. That'd be too small-scale, too inefficient.
They're off somewhere else using their money to buy politicians and buy legislation that will get them even more money, and make it more difficult for anyone to learn about the corruption.
The government's had a fourth branch grafted onto it, comprised of a fairly small group of unelected people, but it's got very heavy influence over the other branches. That is how extreme wealth is a threat.

While as an individual you may not be concerned the 1% are getting richer, you should he concerned the 1% are getting richer while at the same time the 99% are losing ground. The country as a whole moving towards a plutocrasy should alarm everyone.

Moving?

 

[First]

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

It's not bogus if you're at all informed about reality. This isn't really up for debate or partisan, as even respected conservative economists note the income disparity and it's troubling trend of the past 30 years.

 

[Joepublic2]

Also it should be mentioned that I wouldn't care if the richest person in the world was a fricking quadrillionaire as long as they earned/created that wealth in a socially responsible fashion, like say they invented and patented a way to fission any ordinary baryonic matter and power a the entire world for a week with a rock the size of my fist or finally sussed out and patented how to create flexible room temperature superconductors. I only have a problem with the rich getting more bread the way they've been doing it lately in america which is to snatch all the crumbs from the poor.

 

[sm625]

None of that bothers me at all, or I should say... I don't let any of that concern me.

...

What am I not getting?

The reason you dont care is because the rich own the media and most of the sources of your entertainment, and they have painstakingly used that ownership control to mold and craft a benevolent image of them in your mind. Obviously it has worked very well on you.

They have conditioned you to laugh every time they eviscerate the classical male role model on a modern tv sitcom. They condition you to not feel a thing when someone dies a brutal death, or even to laugh at it. They even condition you to not seek understanding on how vast or deep their power of conditioning goes.

50 years ago they would flash images across the screen. I'm talking about images totally unrelated to the program you'd be watching. Just one frame was all it took. It was enough to plant an image in your subconscious powerful enough to affect your judgement. By the time we had VCRs and could capture these sort of manipulations, they had already moved on to more advanced forms. In 50 years, it has gotten infinitely more advanced. The average person cannot, and does not stand a chance against it.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason you dont care is because the rich own the media and most of the sources of your entertainment, and they have painstakingly used that ownership control to mold and craft a benevolent image of them in your mind. Obviously it has worked very well on you.

They have conditioned you to laugh every time they eviscerate the classical male role model on a modern tv sitcom. They condition you to not feel a thing when someone dies a brutal death, or even to laugh at it. They even condition you to not seek understanding on how vast or deep their power of conditioning goes.

50 years ago they would flash images across the screen. I'm talking about images totally unrelated to the program you'd be watching. Just one frame was all it took. It was enough to plant an image in your subconscious powerful enough to affect your judgement. By the time we had VCRs and could capture these sort of manipulations, they had already moved on to more advanced forms. In 50 years, it has gotten infinitely more advanced. The average person cannot, and does not stand a chance against it.

Can you provide us to links with explanations and examples of their new mind control technology?

 

[Joepublic2]

Can you provide us to links with explanations and examples of their new mind control technology?

http://bit.ly/wxQ8qn

 

[sm625]

Can you provide us to links with explanations and examples of their new mind control technology?

Dude its everywhere. Just go to apple's website. Havent you seen the latest ads? "What should I eat for breakfast today?" "Should I wipe my butt?" They're literally trying to release a product that attempts to process people's mundane thoughts. For what point and to what end? People are now being conditioned to hand almost their entire consciousness over to some worthless soulless fad trinket company who sends all their jobs to overseas. wtf? And you are looking for proof? Sorry, if you dont see it, it is just too late for you.

"Should I walk into that gas chamber?" A soft female computer voice responds "yes, walk in". This is hyperbole of course, but in a way, that is exactly what these companies are conditioning us for. Death. An uncontested surrender of life and liberty. And they will get their way.

 

[fskimospy]

http://bit.ly/wxQ8qn

Yeah, I've read it. Sorry, but orbital mind control lasers it ain't.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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?

You are working for your money, they(DA RICH) mostly don't. And pay(most of them)a smaller percentage(or none at all)of taxes then you. Yes they are just more equal then you.

 

[Joepublic2]

Yeah, I've read it. Sorry, but orbital mind control lasers it ain't.

No it's not because this actually works and even a petawatt orbital laser would be scattered by the atmosphere long before it could mind control anything.

 

[Cerb]

You people keep complaining about the 1%, but you never answer one fundamental question. When is the 1% too rich?

When the other 99% cannot reasonably choose to quit their jobs, if they have any, and must choose what bills can't be paid this month, so that they can keep themselves fed and working.

It's not a number that can be pinned down. Even 1% v. 99% is an arbitrary choice. It sounds good. The people that should receive French Revolution style treatment might only amount 0.004% of the population, for all we know.

In terms of disparity, there is a problem when you are producing (I'm pulling the actual numbers from thin air, here), on average, 20% more than 10 years ago, are being paid 10% less, need 30% more for COL increases, and yet your bosses pay themselves 200% more. Now, if it were the global recession, then the bosses should also be making 10% less, and there would be much less a social problem, even though their 10% cut would affect them much less.

Being 'too rich' is about how poor the working people (who support the rich by buying their goods and services, and working for them) are, in comparison, not about how much money the 'too rich' actually have or are making. It's just hard to make a quick sound bite of out that, however, because there are a plethora of causes, and places the blame rests, including on those people now being so adversely affected.