# Does this article destroy the 99% versus the 1%? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991 "2014-03-31T15:37:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/21 "2014-04-07T22:29:55Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Ah, yes, argument by Founding Father. An excellent way to avoid the question while wrapping oneself in in an invisibility cloak. And I claim extra points for honestly invoking a libertarian icon\*! 😃 - Though not necessarily a FF, since he was not at the Constitutional Convention – that depends on how we define “FF.” **And** I can top it! 🆒 “Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.” “By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.” “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” “We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate … Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate.” “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” “The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy. But the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquility of anybody but themselves.” – Adam Smith ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/22 "2014-04-07T22:34:28Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I had a very good friend whose appearance (fat balding guy, not overly tall), nickname (let’s say it was Gomer) and profession (running a wrecking yard) belied his degree from UCLA, four languages and generally being one of the sharpest tools in any shed I’ve set foot in. One of his favorite stories involved a days-long argument with one of his employees, a nascent socialist-communist type of about 20. (It may be irrelevant, but two of “Gomer’s” languages were Russian and Polish.) Making a long story short, G slowly boxed the guy in until he had to admit that anyone making more than him was the greedy capitalist pig he was always railing about. > > Making him, in the end, one of the few honest examples of people who argue about “income inequality” in generalities. [Here’s another.](http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/) From “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius,” by George Orwell (1941): > [@](#): > > I suggest that the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England’s internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world: > > 1. Nationalisation of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries. > > 2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one. > > 3. Reform of the educational system along democratic lines. > > 4. Immediate Dominion status for India, with power to secede when the war is over. > > 5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented. > > 6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers. > > \ > > 1. INCOMES. Limitation of incomes implies the fixing of a minimum wage, which implies a managed internal currency based simply on the amount of consumption goods available. And this again implies a stricter rationing scheme than is now in operation. It is no use at this stage of the world’s history to suggest that all human beings should have EXACTLY equal incomes. It has been shown over and over again that without some kind of money reward there is no incentive to undertake certain jobs. On the other hand the money reward need not be very large. In practice it is impossible that earnings should be limited quite as rigidly as I have suggested. There will always be anomalies and evasions. But there is no reason why ten to one should not be the maximum normal variation. And within those limits some sense of equality is possible. **A man with £3 a week and a man with £1,500 a year can feel themselves fellow creatures, which the Duke of Westminster and the sleepers on the Embankment benches cannot.** And which Donald Trump and Doreen the Bag Lady cannot. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/23 "2014-04-08T20:50:08Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I used to argue that those who amass huge fortunes only take a small portion of the capital they cause to move in the economy, so the benefits to society far outweigh any disadvantages there may be to having a few extremely wealthy people. > > I’m not sure it happens that way, any more, in the US. Did the process ever require the existence of extremely wealthy people anyway? They’re not the only ones who cause capital to move in the economy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/24 "2014-04-10T02:00:39Z")
Extremely wealthy people are unnecessary. Just as people who have every X-men comic book are unnecessary. Now prove to me that people who want to amass money as their method of pursuing happiness need to be prevented from doing so, as opposed to people who amass comic books, or vintage motorcycles. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/25 "2014-04-10T03:11:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Extremely wealthy people are unnecessary. Just as people who have every X-men comic book are unnecessary. Now prove to me that people who want to amass money as their method of pursuing happiness need to be prevented from doing so, as opposed to people who amass comic books, or vintage motorcycles. Easy. Amassing comic books makes you nobody’s boss. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/26 "2014-04-10T03:36:50Z")
I didn’t know bosses were a problem. Some bosses, of course, but that doesn’t seem to depend on how much money they have. I’ve had a lot more issues with low paid bosses than high paid bosses. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/27 "2014-04-10T04:08:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I didn’t know bosses were a problem. Yes, you did. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/28 "2014-04-10T04:42:30Z")
Bosses are like the government. You need them, and how much money they make doesn’t make them more or less likely to be dicks. I don’t think this idea that rich people having too much money is going to get you very far. The idea that a person can accumulate as much wealth as they desire is pretty well established as a basic human right. It’s called pursuing happiness. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/29 "2014-04-10T05:22:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Here’s another.](http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/) From “The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius,” by George Orwell (1941 Curious title, does that allude to the Rothschild family? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/30 "2014-04-10T14:32:53Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Curious title, does that allude to the Rothschild family? 😕 It alludes to [the lion and the unicorn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/31 "2014-04-10T14:34:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The idea that a person can accumulate as much wealth as they desire is pretty well established as a basic human right. Then why has no one in human history ever managed to do it? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/32 "2014-04-10T14:55:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The idea that a person can accumulate as much wealth as they desire is pretty well established as a basic human right. It’s called pursuing happiness. [del]Cutting people’s heads off with a rusty hacksaw blade[/del] [del]Taking artistic shits in people’s living rooms[/del] [del]Setting fire to apartment buildings[/del] Playing AC/DC in my back yard at concert volume 24/7 makes me indescribably happy. Does that mean I have a basic human right to do so? At what point does “acquiring wealth” and all that inescapably accompanies that notion cross the line from “pursuing happiness” to, well, the kind of transgressions I snarked above? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/33 "2014-04-10T16:54:30Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > At what point does “acquiring wealth” and all that inescapably accompanies that notion cross the line from “pursuing happiness” to, well, the kind of transgressions I snarked above? What makes you think they are on the same continuum? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/34 "2014-04-10T17:14:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then why has no one in human history ever managed to do it? I am thinking that “wealth” is a non-static thing that cannot literally be “accumulated” in a useful way. If you hoard a resource, everyone else will simply seek other ways to address the need that that resource serves, hence, for wealth to have actual value, it must be fluid. For you to obtain the benefit of wealth, you must manage its flow, simply accumulating it is not enough. I suspect that dozens of books could be written on the subject without anyone ever getting it quite right (if there is a “right”). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/35 "2014-04-10T18:12:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then why has no one in human history ever managed to do it? Except for religious ascetics, perhaps – but they satisfy their desire for wealth only by rejecting the desire. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/36 "2014-04-10T18:15:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What makes you think they are on the same continuum? Where does it say “pursuit of happiness” is anything but one continuum? (Okay, I could one-question this back at you, but I won’t. 🙂 ) Unless you’re going to make a fairly arbitrary division between forms of personal happiness that take nothing from any other individual or community and ones that do take something as the source or “cost” of the happiness, there’s only one continuum. I’d posit that some truly overwhelming percentage of “happiness” requires taking something that potentially diminishes someone else’s potential for happiness. It’s all a matter of scale from there. While “wealth” is not a zero-sum concept outside of board games and econ classrooms, it is somewhere approaching totality that wealth is acquired at someone else’s expense, or everyone’s cost. When the gradient reaches certain levels, those with very large amounts of “happiness” almost certainly have it at the cost of someone else’s. (I am excluding silly extensions here, such as unhappiness from envy of someone else’s wealth. A big pile of pelf probably cost some significant human pain and loss on someone else’s part, or many someone elses’ parts.) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/37 "2014-04-10T19:27:45Z")
IMHO, there are two separate questions here. Whether large income inequalities are necessarily a bad thing is just the first one. Studies have shown (no, I’m not going to go looking for them) that large income inequalities lead to higher social tensions and a generally less happy society, and, obviously, if the discrepancies are large enough lead to poverty and destitution in the lowest echelons even in a nation of plenty. Conversely, people in countries with relatively low GDPs score higher in general happiness surveys if there are no really huge systemic income disparities, as long as they have enough to sustain a reasonable if modest quality of life. But the second, separate question is the extent to which the wealthiest echelons of the population are able to use their wealth to influence the political process and disproportionately direct it to their own best interests, basically usurping democracy by propagandizing the masses and exploiting the fact that there are few meaningful limits on advocacy spending and campaign finance. To me that’s what the metaphorical “1%” really means – whether it’s numerically 1% or 0.01% or 0.001%, it most significantly refers to the tiny minority that has overwhelming political power and influence on the political process. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/38 "2014-04-11T00:10:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 It alludes to [the lion and the unicorn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg). That makes the song by Genesis much easier to understand, thanks! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/39 "2014-04-11T00:15:29Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > That makes the song by Genesis much easier to understand, thanks! Not familiar with it. What’s it got to do with the Rothschilds? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991/40 "2014-04-11T00:30:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not familiar with it. What’s it got to do with the Rothschilds? The [Rothschild Family Coat of arms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Coat_of_arms) has kind of a similar design, with the same supporters in the same positions (I was looking for some material yesterday to beat down some CT nuts with, so that phrase kind of struck a synchronicity chord with name at the time). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-article-destroy-the-99-versus-the-1/684991.md?page=3)