I think the far right is afraid of class warfare not because it might destroy America - but because it might not.
The reality is, we dominate IT and some other kinds of business BECAUSE we are so business-friendly, and have a relative lack of regulation. I mean, think about it. 99% of the world’s computers run American OS, either Windows or Mac OS. We’re not just dominant…we make everybody else look like cavemen who just discovered computers yesterday. ROFL
If we went nuts and started regulating and taxing like the Europeans, then yes, we’d start to lose some dominance.
However, there’s a middle ground between what we do, and what, for instance, Sweden does.
We could tax quite a bit more, regulate some more, and still be VERY dominant.
You don’t have to be completely agile as a society to dominate in our rapidly-changing business climate…you just have to be more agile than the next guy. We could afford to make college education more affordable, make better/more jobs available for those on welfare who want to work, and STILL balance the budget. It would require some more taxes on the rich and corporations, though.
The real class warfare being waged in America is by the rich against the lower classes. This post is a perfect example of the truth-twisting that occurs to further that war. Can Mr. Stone find a single example of a Doper who said anything even faintly resembling that “rich are ‘bad’ people by definition”? Can Mr. Stone find a Doper – even one of our Marxists – who insists on equality of outcome? (I wrote “Doper” - idiotic comments on Yahoo or Youtube don’t count.)
I’m sure you can find references to specific rich persons (or legal persons 
) – the Koch Brothers really are malicious – but if you search these forums for “evil rich” or “evil corporations” the hits you will find will all be right-wingers pretending the lower classes are making such claims.
There is class warfare being waged in America; it’s by the rich against the lower classes.
If “class” encompasses “race” then affirmative action is an imperfect redress against real “class warfare.” It’s amusing to “learn” that’s backwards. 
The average American does have a higher income. However from here
[ul]
[li]The Dane has 30% less chance of dying in infancy[/li][li]he spends 43% less on healthcare (while having the same life expectancy)[/li][li]he has 13% more free time.[/li][li]and has a 53% more chance of being employed[/li][li]and experiences 35% less of a class divide[/li][/ul]
the last being on topic.
They also use significantly less electricity and probably a lot less gas, considering the number of bicycles in Copenhagen.
However the MAC OS is based on an operating system developed by a regulated monopoly. And which probably would not have been developed if it had been a standard business.
Plus the Internet was invented by the government, and the Web comes from Switzerland.
You mean the original Apple OS, that they practically stole from Xerox? I just read Steve Jobs’ biography, but I’m not enough of an Apple nerd to argue all that with you.
But I agree that, between DARPA and Bell Labs, we really accomplished a lot with government money and regulated-monopoly money.
I think our relative lack of cultural baggage ( compared to Europe and East Asia) have really helped us become dominant as well.
But, getting back to my point about education, we would actually probably do better in the business world if more people could get access to at least SOME free college education. Let people take up to 60 hours of totally free classes, then give them no-interest loans for the second half of their undergrad. That way, they’re not on the hook for the fumbling they do while trying to figure out their major. Plus, if all they wanted was to learn a few useful skills, like programming, or just to network, then let them do that, and then drop out, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.. We shouldn’t FORCE people to go to college or finish their degree…but we should make it cheap to do so, if they want.
And we need BETTER jobs for the working poor. What about some good ol’ infrastructure-building? If you build it, they will come. Remember the CCC? They build some really wonderful stuff, that still stands and is used today.
How about the government pays the poor to dig holes and fill them back up? That’ll create jobs.
Not a bad idea. As an added bonus that will help with our growing obesity problem.
I love it when suggesting the super rich pay closer to their share in taxes is called “class warfare.”
It’s not Class Warfare until the tumbrils start rolling…
Infrastructure and “big works” government projects or urban renewal isn’t breaking windows. See: the New Deal.
“The apologists of any revolution generally try to minimize its horrors; Dickens’s impulse is to exaggerate them–and from a historical point of view he has certainly exaggerated. Even the Reign of Terror was a much smaller thing than he makes it appear. Though he quotes no figures, he gives the impression of a frenzied massacre lasting for years, whereas in reality the whole of the Terror, so far as the number of deaths goes, was a joke compared with one of Napoleon’s battles. But the bloody knives and the tumbrils rolling to and fro create in his mind a special sinister vision which he has succeeded in passing on to generations of readers. Thanks to Dickens, the very word ‘tumbril’ has a murderous sound; one forgets that a tumbril is only a sort of farm-cart.”
Le Sigh…
This is factually incorrect. It is NOT TRUE. The statement that “A majority of wealthy people in the US inherited their wealth.” is FALSE.
This has been pointed out on this board numerous times.
Link.
Link.
Slee
Yes you have proven I incorrectly used ‘their.’ Most their wealth was not inherited.
It is a problem with our system that the wealthy can generate enormous amounts of wealth from an already wealthy base. It’s a system that perpetuates wealthy getting more wealthy. Being born into wealth is an indicator of ones success. It takes no effort on the part of the child to receive this reward.
Do you have a cite for class mobility? What we are discussing is ones ability to move between social classes. How many wealthy people were not born into wealth?
Even anecdotal examples of people that have rags to riches stories are hard to come by. Where as multimillionaires to even wealthier multimillionaires stories are becoming the norm.
You know, going over those links… I see nothing in there that disputes the idea of the wealthy starting out wealthy. Everything in those links indicates that they’ve made more money since. With smart investing, a small fortune can easily turn into a large fortune. “It takes money to make money.”
The only thing that would indicate otherwise is the response which says “According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited ‘inheritance’ as their source of wealth.” This isn’t too surprising- who wants to admit that they aren’t self-made?
Maybe the paper which the article cites goes into further depth on this… but those articles don’t seem to rule out the concept of inheriting money and turning it into even *more *money.
John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt.
The richest men in American history did not inherit their wealth. They were self-made.
Way to miss the point! Those guys are all dead much like the concept you can work from rags to riches.
See post 25 for a cite on mobility, though it compares ours to Europe.
You are right about the benefits of inherited money (not that I got any.) Someone with inherited money can take more risks than someone working full time to feed a family. Someone with inherited money has contacts to others with money to fund ventures and to get bailed out - look at how Dubya got bailed out from his flops. Someone with a lot of money can afford to put some of it in higher yield but higher risk investments. Not to mention returns. I’m not rich, but some months my investments make more than my daughter’s yearly salary.
In addition to what Voyager pointed out, comparisons using the average are also bad for another reason: Consider a room containing 50 homeless people and Bill Gates. The average net worth of those folks in that room is over a billion dollars…i.e., on average, the folks in the room are billionaires.
Much better to look at medians, so that you can see what is true for a typical family or person, with the results not being skewed by a few people who are doing much better than everyone else.
70% of the Forbes 400 billionaires are self-made.
The vast majority of the ‘wealthy’ are not billionaires or people with vast multi-million dollar fortunes.
The majority of the ‘wealthy’ are people who have started successful small businesses, or professionals like lawyers and doctors. It also includes very common two-income families of professionals - especially older professionals who have had time to build up wealth in the form of retirement assets and real estate.
Look around your region. The wealthy members of the population are largely made up of people like the owners of the big car dealerships, the top realtors, big-name law firm partners, ranchers and farmers, owners of small and medium-sized manufacturing companies…
‘Class Warfare’ means that the wealthy are characterized by the ultra rich who may spend lavishly and be very visible. Your typical millionaire is less visible than that - the owner of a 50 person small manufacturing company isn’t racing yachts or flying around in a personal jet. He may not even have a nice car, choosing instead to drive a work truck. He probably has a nicer house than you, but most of his money is invested in his own company, in his retirement funds, or in his home.
In addition, the biggest chunk of the ‘wealthy’ today is made up of two-person professional households. Two married college professors, a lawyer married to a doctor, that sort of thing. Our neighbors are two school teachers. They live in a large home and retired fairly young. In my province, teachers with 10 years in the system earn an average of $94,000. The top teachers near retirement can make over $100,000. Two married teachers are therefore pulling in close to $200,000 per year. By the time they’re ready to retire, they should have a net worth of at least a million dollars, and probably a lot more unless they just blew everything they made every year they made it.
So when you’re talking about incomes over $250,000, or net worths greater than $1,000,000, you’re talking about a lot of very average people who simply had the forethought to save money and had the ability to get a decent education. Inherited wealth is not a major factor, except that people from middle class homes have a better chance of going to college than children from poor homes.