It is parents’ responsibility. If the parents fail, then there are child protection services that can take them away. But other than that, no, it is not “society”'s responsibility to provide anyone with nutrition, housing, clothing, entertainment or anything of that nature.
Easy. A simplified example:
100 “poor” married people and 100 “rich” married people. 50+50 couples. Each have 2 kids.
Among the “poor” the “making it” rate of children is 50%. Among the “rich” it’s 80%. For the sake of argument. “Making it” for this calculation means being in the “rich” category.
After one generation: 130 “rich” and 70 “poor” people. 50 (38%) of the “rich” are descended from the “poor”.
After two generations: 139 “rich” and 61 “poor” people. 75 (53%) of the “rich” are descended from the “poor”.
After three generations: 142 “rich” and 58 “poor” people. 82 (57%) or the “rich” are descended from the “poor”.
You can continue the calculation yourself. Do you see increased stratification in the trend?
Your society in which everyone eventually becomes rich is very illuminating. I do agree; in a society in which more than 50% of the population becomes rich every generation, eventually that society will become unstratified. I think you took too many generations to come up with your example, though. Let’s just have 100% of the rich remain rich and 100% (which is weakly less than 100%) of the poor become rich every generation. Problem solved!
Why don’t you try again with an example in which only 5% of the population can remain in the top 5%?
OK, I can admit when I’m wrong–your model does eventually reach equilibrium, in which 71% of the population is in the top 5%
And now is the time for you to admit when you are wrong. “Weakly less than” means “less than or equal to”. In a non-math-failure world, is 100 less than or equal to 100?
The 1%ers may be calling the shots, but it’s the ones they’ve snowed into carrying them out that need to get the bark stripped off 'em. I don’t give a crap what color they are or who their daddies are. The ambition of pecuniary emulators/overclass wannabes is where the exploitative rubber meets the road. Most of you probably work for one or more of them.
Fine, your model starts out with 50% of the population in the top 50% and ends with 71% of the population in the top 50%. In Lake Wobegon there is no stratification of income, and everyone is above average.
It’ll be less embarrassing for you if you just admit your error. (You can just blame society for your math failure)
Speaking of math failures, I ran the equilibrium conditions for your model, and turns out that once you’ve reached equilibrium (in which 71% of your population is in the top 50% ), 80% of the rich in each period will be the formerly rich. Guess what, your own model is a stratified model.
Your error was setting initial conditions in which the share of rich was below equilibrium levels. In that case the poor must initially gain (because your model must over time increase to the point where 71% are rich, but you start out with only 50% of the population being rich). You only looked at the first few generations–try looking at what happens to your society more generations out.
In other words, you think America should be a plutocracy; you think that a direct correlation between wealth and political power not only should be legal, but should be enshrined in the Constitution. And as a direct consequence of that you are saying that the people who aren’t rich deserve no voice in the government. They should just shut up and be good little serfs.
I think this is unfair. Whether he thinks it should be enshrined by the Constitution he did not say. He just said he thinks it is protected by the Constitution. And clearly you go too far when you characterize him as saying that he thinks the non-rich should have no say in government. I imagine he thinks they have the right to vote and contribute what they can to campaigns.
They are expressing frustration in a system that they believe doesn’t work. I would say “doesn’t work for them” but I have to wonder how many of these people, with their iPads and Northface tents are NYU and Columbia students, living off their parent’s dime who have chosen to “opt out” of the system.
The problem isn’t that 5% or 1% or 9.9% make more money than some drum-beating hippies think they need. The problem is that we have created an unsustainable system that uses debt to create a form of indentured servitude to the banks. In order to live the “American Dream” of a house, car, college education and a bunch of stuff to play with, the typical American must incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt in the form or mortgages, credit cards, school, auto and home loans that will take most of their adult life to pay off, if ever.
In order to pay off all this debt, most people are required to work the only jobs that pay well enough to do so for their limited ability and education level - typically low level dead end jobs performing mundane tasks for large corporations. There is typically little hope for advancement because more senior roles tend to be part of a separate career track targeted towards those individuals with the acedemic ability or financial wherewithall to attend the top colleges. In many cases they have little decision making or ability to prove themselves either because projects of any significants would be outsourced to consultants from Accenture, Deloitte, Booze Allen, McKinsey and so on.
Because they can be terminated from these jobs at any time for any reason, post people live in constant fear that if they don’t kowtow to their overlords sufficiently well, they will lose their sole source of income and health care, be viewed as some sort of unhirable pariah and end up destitute.
The government is complicit in this in that their constituents demand jobs and big business provide lots of jobs so they kowtow to the demands of big business.
Ultimately the interest and principal on all that debt is paid to the banks. Banks that produce nothing or invent nothing and essentially do nothing but dole out capital and collect a piece of any wealth created off it.
It’s a direct consequence of equating giving money to free speech, and we can see the effects right now. The rich can easily outvote with their money the entire rest of the population, so we have a government run for their benefit.
Free speech can constitutionally be subject to all kinds of time-place-and-manner restrictions, quite apart from the “Fire!”-lie-in-a-crowded theater aspects. The key and the reversal-demanding point in Buckley v. Valeo was the opinion that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.
In any case, the OWS slogan is more accurate than Lind’s pettifogging. The 95th-98th percentiles simply don’t have the assets to buy politicians, which is the root issue.
), 80% of the rich in each period will be the formerly rich. Guess what, your own model is a stratified model.