Nonsense, this is an easy one. The definition of a wealthy person who doesn’t pay his/her share is: anyone who has more money than me.
It is time for the bottom 50% to stop accepting the dominance of the undeserving upper 50%. Aux barricades!
Come to think of it, the top 70% have been crushing the bottom 30% for too long and must pay the price. Or is it 80-20?
What’s that you were saying again, Malthus?
Well this is a new argument..
The great depression had an indirect influence on the majorities newly developed hatred for marijuana. With unemployment rising, resentment towards Mexican immigrants grew because of the possibility of immigrants taking available jobs from Americans. Marijuana�s association with Mexican immigrants made it an easy target for concern. Research on the plant started at a rapid pace and reported findings linked marijuana with �violence, crime, and other socially deviant behaviors primarily committed by �racially inferior� or underclass communities.� By 1931, it was illegal in 29 states.
Some amazing parallels between that statement and yours..http://www.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/nawrot/Courses/465Projects11/Cannabis/Page3.htm
Illiteracy isn’t a new invention, either. Literate parents tend to have literate children.
Agreed. There are limits, in many cases, on being able to afford or get “the best”, particularly where services are concerned - obviously not everyone can afford “the best” lawyer, for example.
However, there are many factors in the modern world that eat away at these limits - technology for example multiplies the reach of “the best” in many cases, and barriers to entry such as fees for education exclude many from competition (or make the price for failure a crushing debt impossible to pay).
That’s one example.
But how did that affect the price of butter in Denmark?
But the question is 'What’s keeping them down?" and the OP answers it in terms of social class barriers. Isn’t it possible that what is keeping them down is not class markers of arbitrary value, such as whether you go to football games or the orchestra, but behaviors with direct economic consequences, like whether you get married before having a kid? If you’re working class, it is very hard to project an upper-class image, but to adopt upper-class values is almost as easy for you as it is for the upper class to maintain those values.
I just want to weigh in on something.
I’m certainly one of the 5%-ers, and I sympathize with the OWS folks. BUT, from a disinterested, armchair point of view, I don’t think they hate the rich, or hate corporations, or want to see capitalism dismantled. That’s not the sense I get, and if it were, I would not be sympathetic.
No, I think what is making them crazy is that:
-Power seems to be ever-concentrating in the hands of an elite few, who have access to the levers of power and manage to get lots of goodies for themselves (i.e., all capital gains at 15%)
-That same elite, both individual and corporate, seems to soak up an ever greater share of the pie. Economic growth is not zero sum, of course, but if the growth is distributed in a lopsided manner, that won’t matter to the ever-growing group who is receiving an ever-shrinking slice.
-The costs of simply getting established keep increasing relative to wages. To most people, at least middle class people, I suspect that acquiring a car, education, and home are seen as the foundation of the middle class life. And to be honest, that seems reasonable to me. Not that these things should be granted, of course, but if they keep getting more expensive relative to wages, then they become more difficult to obtain. And if you look at all those items relative to inflation, they have gone up much faster (admittedly housing has taken a beating recently).
-Even as the government came to the rescue of banks (necessarily so, IMO), their efforts to help homeowners have been a joke. The argument that this isn’t the government’s responsibility is a valid one, but “if you help them- with my money- you ought to help me too”
-US businesses are sitting on record piles of cash. And yet, they won’t invest. At a number of companies I know personally, including my own, there have been layoffs only to boost the bottom line, with corresponding increased demands on peoples’ time. True or not, there is a perception that they want to squeeze ever more out of people without compensation. Productivity goes up but wages do not.
-Related to the above, people want jobs. I can guarantee you that these protests would not be occurring if the unemployment rate was substantially lower.
In the end, the movement is about fairness. The world isn’t fair. We know that, and most of us accept it. Life too, is not fair. IT IS NOT govenment’s job to enforce fair. HOWEVER, when you have enough people feeling like they aren’t getting a fair shake: the opportunity to excel at a job, the opportunity to get an education, the opportunities to reach for the reward (nee: middle class life), they will get fed up and start causing trouble. And that can range from a few dirty hippies in the park to full on revolution, depending on how many are how fed up. The 1% might want to recognize that a little concession now could preserve their positions in the long run.
Just my opinions. No cites for opinions.
They stay where they were born, like most of us. Whaddaya mean “What’s keeping them down?” You’re setting some pretty high standards for energy there. It is class advancement that is remarkable in any time and place. It always takes a lot more work than holding still.
point of information: “née” means “born,” not “read as.”
Other than that, great post, OldOlds.
Well, its like this. If whoever made the original point that in the 1950’s there was greater income equality and lower crime rates than today, if we go to the 1930’s, when I can assure you there was great disparity in income and also apparently a greater amount of crime in the lower classes, then an assumption could be made that income inequality leads to crime. Or maybe marijuana or anything else the poor do causes crime. Or causes them to be poor, since its their fault.
I happen to agree with what OldOlds said.
You know, I knew that, but I thought it also had a meaning along the lines of vis a vis.
As they say around here, ignorance fought.
It’s not equal-opportunity Jewish, either. Male Jews from the northeast have the best shot at overclass status. They’re also much more eligible to intermarry, because of their high social mobility.
Female Jews are less eligible to intermarry? 
Regarding that and everything else you listed that the protesters are complaining about, what are your opinions as to what government or anybody else might do to make things better?
[insert your own JAP joke here]
My mother and I were talking about black v white & ‘class’ yesterday. The gist of our convo was this:
That in the 1960s, a poor black family and a poor white family had enough in common that seeing across one’s prejudices was easier. Everyone seemed to have the same ethic. Work hard, play nice, keep your nose clean, go to church. Both sides thought they were better than the other group, but they at least could understand each other.
And for whatever reasons, the social mobility that came with the new middle class just wasn’t seen in black America, but it wasn’t just the fault of the majority, or the 1 per cent, or ______. It was also the failure of the black community. Now, a poor white (Midwestern) family looks at a poor black family and goes, “What the* hell*?”
Poverty is typically a cycle, but it doesn’t always have to be. And here, it shouldn’t be.
actually it’s not so much the 1% as the .1% but Americans can math do = false. If you’re not in the .1% you may serve elites at some high level but you’re not one of the ones really controlling things.
Apart from real campaign-finance reform, one thing the OWSers might consider getting behind, at this point, is putting at least the discussion of a wealth tax amendment on the table seriously and continually. On the assumption that such a tax should be steeply progressive and intentionally redistributive. That’ll get right at the .1% first.
Sorry for the delayed response, busy weekend.
Anyway, I never claimed to have all the answers. A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is the conflict between legal and ethical. A lot of the complaints by the OWS crowd are not going to be easily solved by a law. For instance, if capital gains rates are low because people who benefit have the access and power to influence the legislative process, then simply a rectifying law doesn’t attack the root issue. So what then, a law that prohibits the wealthy for lobbying in their own interest? A law that requires Congress to consider the greatest good? It all gets a bit silly.
And here I must rant: We expect ethical behavior from our fellow citizens, and by and large we get it. But corporations hide behind their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. This is a legitimate position, of course, but it does not excuse any and all behavior. I could steal your parking space at a crowded mall, and claim my responsibility to my family. I could cheat on my wife and claim my responsibility to spread my genes. But those actions, while not illegal, are considered unacceptable by our society. We are part of that society, and as such are expected to behave in a proper manner. But for some reason we do not have the same expectations of corporations. I have no idea how to drive that one. Clearly the Business Ethics classes at the B-Schools aren’t doing it.
One thing that can be done towards limiting the concentration of power is to recognize that money, power, and speech are all inextricably linked. I am aware of the recent court rulings, and so I don’t know what can be done to rectify this. Would it require a constitutional amendment? Perhaps one of our legal scholars can say. Nonetheless, there must be a recognition that the average person’s voice can not begin to be heard over those which have the big money behind them. It disenfranchises anyone who is part of a poor group. While it has always been true that the constitution guarantees a free press but not a printing press, I think the advent of mass media has revealed the true potential that money has for communicating, and in a way that was unfathomable 70 or 100 years ago. As proof of my point consider this: If Warren Buffett and I were to enter a no holds barred contest, where we were trying to get the most Americans to know our respective birthdays, who would win? The most I could put to the effort would be what, $20,000? Even if I liquidated everything and threw my entire net worth at it, the best I could probably do would be to carry one small city. Warren could buy every slot in the superbowl without breaking a sweat.
As for unequal share of economic growth, I guess I don’t know why this has occurred. I certainly hear the statistics all the time, that greater share funnels to the wealthy, but I don’t know why that is. I have some hypotheses, but these are just a layman’s guesses.
When I started writing this, my intent was to look back at my previous post and provide brilliant insight into how we could address each of the concerns, saving the world in a methodic manner right here on the SDMB. But the truth is, there are not really any straightforward answers that I can see, mostly because the core problem seems to be that nobody is (effectively) advocating for the average person.
Sorry. I really wish I had something better.
Abandon all hope ye who were born here(Earth).