The middle class is not indistinguishable from the poor, that is laughable. The average income for the middle quintile of households is 49K, the average income for the lowest quintile is 11K. That is a huge difference.
Most households have cable tv, internet, two cars, central heating, microwaves, dishwashers, and washing machines. If that is being a peasant, the term has lost all meaning.
I’m not usually with the peasant mob (in fact, I assume I’d be one of the ones with their heads on pikes should the mob break free 
), but just for laffs I was watching a business program (well, it was playing at the gym) and it inadvertantly summed it up:
-
First program was all about economic doom-and-gloom in the US: entitlements are about to grow out of control and nothing is being done to prepare; the economy is flat and stagnant and big, big cuts and hardship all around is comming. Message was that the average working person had better tighten his or her belt and prepare for hard times.
-
Next program: the surprising strength of the luxury automobile market! Feast your eyes on these sexy cars that cost multiples of hundreds of thousands. Why, they are selling like hotcakes - dealers can’t keep 'em in stock!
Neumark must love how often that paper gets cited by people arguing on the internet. Here’s my bigger and better cite, that looks at all the metastudies, including Neumark’s. Let me just give you the conclusion; all the studies in aggregate show no impact of minimum wages on emplyment. But don’t let that stop you from cherrypicking studies that say what you want to hear.
Do they have cake?
You are using the wrong benchmark, which is common in these discussions. “1%” refers to held or controlled wealth, not income. When you use the wealth standard rather than the income standard, the bar tends to move to a much different position, in part because the actual income that the “1%” harvest is not always clearly observable.
Your post raises a number of questions to me.
Who says what “1%” refers to? On what authority? Far as I know, it originated as a general measure of societal dominance as a slogan, as part of the “Occupy” movement. Sure looks like it can refer to ether wealth or income to me, and leans more in the direction of income than wealth:
[Emphasis added]
No doubt income and wealth are different, as wealth is a different measure than income, but on what basis do you allege it shows something different about what I posted? How does it “move the bar”? In what way?
No, it’s about wealth, not income. $500,000 a year is a lot of money (around the top 1%). But what does it matter if some lawyer or investment banker makes 10 times the American household makes? So they get to live in a nicer house or buy more toys.
What they are talking about when they say the 1% are people like the Walton family who have amassed more wealth than the bottom %30 of the country (about $100 billion). But they did create the largest company in history that generates almost $450 billion in revenue a year and employs around 2 million people.
What people are really talking about when they say the 1% is the Wall Street financial system. What is perceived as huge quantities of wealth held and managed by a rigid class of elite Ivy League graduates from similarly wealthy families who do nothing but make trades and produce nothing but lines on a balance sheet (or entries in a database). And what is particularly egregious is the notion that this system is so intertwined with the economy that stopping these people from maintaining their absurd standard of living would wreck it.
I said the middle class is BECOMING indistinguishable from the poor, not that it has reached that point. And frankly, from the viewpoint of the top 10 percent, and ESPECIALLY the top 1 percent, there probably is not a lot to distinguish the middle class from the poor. And the charts clearly show that that is the way we are heading. You’re like a frog in a pot of steaming hot water saying, “Ain’t boiling yet!”
Given that Steve Jobs was earning $1/year, would that put him in the bottom 1%?
I don’t accept the part where you say (of Gates or anyone) the insanely rich “created all that wealth”. It’s become a cliche, but I think it is pretty obvious balderdash, really.
To continue using Gates as an example, I’m sure he’s is a dynamo, but in the end he didn’t create all the wealth. He just got himself, through some talent, some luck etc into a position where vast, vast amounts of other people’s work funnelled value to him.
Ask yourself this: if there had been no Gates, if there had been no MS, would all the collective effort of thousands upon thousands of MS employees over decades have just vanished? Or would they all have worked pretty much just as hard and as creatively on something else? Written software for someone else? Sold something else? Made something like Clippy for someone else?
From what I’ve seen it is close to universally true that the the insanely wealthy aren’t so because they did something of a value equivalent to their wealth. They are insanely wealthy because they somehow by chance or machination got themselves into a position where they could sweep in to themselves the value of other people’s work.
On what basis are you saying “it’s about wealth and not income”? Because you say so?
Looking at the actual movement, it appeared to be about income as much as wealth.
Again, I distrust arguments along the lines of ‘what people say is X, but what they really mean is Y, and if you believe they mean X you are wrong’. It lacks the potential for disproof.
Such examples would no doubt be rife in the 0.01%, not the 1%. Or do you think Steve Jobs is a typical example of someone in the “1%”?
Still looking for some sort of authority for a hard-line definition that is more than “because I say so”.
[quote=“Princhester, post:90, topic:651965”]
From what I’ve seen it is close to universally true that the the insanely wealthy aren’t so because they did something of a value equivalent to their wealth. [ quote]
How are you measuring wealth?
Is “machinations” the new euphemism for hard work? Did Bill Gates just fall into a pile of money? That is not to say many wealthy people simply were born w the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths, but Bill Gates is not a good example of that. His parents were well off but nowhere the level he achieved.
[QUOTE=John Mace;16071158Is “machinations” the new euphemism for hard work? Did Bill Gates just fall into a pile of money? That is not to say many wealthy people simply were born w the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths, but Bill Gates is not a good example of that. His parents were well off but nowhere the level he achieved.[/QUOTE]
Come on now - while I agree that Gates IS a bad example when discussing this particular issue of income inequality – Microsoft has used every loophole on the book and even illegal actions to get venue more of that wealth to itself.
In fact, Gates himself was a much better as an aggressive business schemer than he was engineer. His – and in a good degree Steve Jobs’ innovation – was more in creating new business paradigms and they deserver everything coming their way.
But let’s not kid ourselves – both of them were ruthless in the way they conduct their business. If it wasn’t for certain regulations, existing and improved laws they’d be much. much richer (something like that Mexican dude is).
Having been a part of 3 different companies that the end result was all of the IP was flushed down the toilet - yes - without Bill Gates (and his fellow founders / leaders / Ballmer) a lot of effort by MSFT employees would have created zero wealth.
Hell, I am partially responsible for destroying a few million dollars of someone else’s wealth through my senior level employment at more than one failed start-up. I have destroyed wealth. I have also created some wealth (one IPO, one acquisition, another liquidity event coming in the next couple of years). On a net basis, I am ahead (which is why people keep putting money into companies where I work).
This whole debate of wealth and income (since it has drifted from the original OP because some people can’t seem to keep the two straight in their arguments) should, once again, start with asking what is the minimum amount of effective wealth/income we want for any given American. Then go into the ability to have class mobility (something that the Dope showed me has dropped considerably in the past 20 years or so).
I don’t care if there is a ton of wealth at the top - as long as I have chance to get a piece of it myself. I started lower middle class (family) and have leveraged my way into the top percentages of income and wealth - I want the same opportunity for my kids.
I do disagree with the arguement that the top 1% want to keep everyone down. They want to make a ton of money, but they don’t see this as requiring that they keep others out (and I hang out with enough of them). They just want to make more, and keep what they have, and then they want to give what they have to their families or their favorite charities.
And? Besides, percentage-wise, Carlos Slim is not that much more wealthy than Gates is. Gates is #2 to his #1.
Humans are political animals. Part of being “smart” in a human society is knowing how to manipulate that society. Just like chimps do, or pretty much any social mammal.
Well John, some of us are smarter social animals than others and look at society and say, “how can we manipulate this society for the benefit of all the animals living in it, not just the wealthiest?” And that’s what we are doing, my friend.
I would strongly disagree.
Carlos Slim is extremely smart businessman and he works better and smarter than others.
However, he is in this wealth stratosphere not because of that but because of a monopoly granted by Mexican Government during Telmex privatization. That he just “manipulated” society is a gross understatement.
What went down in Mexico re: Telmex privatization would not fly in any Western country – such monopoly would be deemed a travesty of a free market spirit and would be against national interest.
But, I guess, this is off tangent debate so let’s leave it there.
You spectacularly miss my point, while making it for me. Bill Gate worked hard I’m sure. He worked hard at manipulating his world so that vast amounts of value came to him. He did not create all that value. I’m happy to concede he created more value than most people. I’m happy to concede he worked very hard. But he did not become orders of magnitude wealthier than most because he worked orders of magnitude harder, or made orders of magnitude more value. He became orders of magnitude more wealthy because huge numbers of people’s value creation came to him.
Think of this very simple example of how the world really works:
You design a phone. I design a phone. I work 1% harder than you and make a phone that is very slightly more popular and it becomes the trendy phone and my sales are five times yours. You barely break even. I make a truckload. Did I, personally, really “create” significantly more value than you? Hell no, we both did pretty much the same thing. It’s just that the way markets work out mean that I get the prize and you don’t.
You made a phone more popular. If the market wanted it, you hired sales teams, marketers, and built factories to crank out phones.
You most certainly DID create more value. Value creation is not just baking a pie (the Econ 101 analogy). If you come up with a pie recipe the revolutionizes the world of baking, so that bakeries around the world are opened up leverage your recipe - you have created value.
If you have a system of government that allows you to collect the value of that invention, that creation, that work - then you will reap the rewards. On the flip side, if you are in a nation or system that does NOT allow you to reap the rewards - you will move to the United States or other places that let you collect that value.
I do not begrudge Mr. Gates one penny of his fortune. He created Microsoft, he made computers interoperable, and his office suite makes it easy for me to collaborate with people around the world. His firm has also lost some battles (browser wars, phones) - but without his stewardship - the tens of thousands of MSFT employees would be doing something else for someone else.