# Why Not View "Super Wealthy" as "Super Greedy", not "Super Successful" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824 "2005-01-09T02:42:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/201 "2005-01-14T04:36:22Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, if you are, then so am I, because I (mostly) agree with Rand. I just acknowledge that though she was a strident and noble warrior against communism (a system I despise thouroughly), she was also a bit of a fruitcake. As much as I enjoyed her books, I have to agree that IRL, she had many fruitcake qualities. > [@](#): > > Anyhoo, simpleminded stereotypes about the rich abound, as about every group. I dislike populist rhethoric generally and the OP served up a big heaping pile o’ crap that suggests not even a slight working notion of Econ 101. I tend to agree, and that’s why I’ve tried to point out to **fessie** a number of times that her (I assume the OP is a she) OP is basically a strawman. She seems more confused than anything else, though. I like the fact that she has said that some of the posts have made her rethink her ideas. You don’t hear that much around here. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/202 "2005-01-14T13:00:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t see the logic here. If you give people a bunch of money, they are more likely to just sit on their asses and do nothing. The key to innovation is the reward you get by taking the risks involved in creating new businesses. In that case, the reward should be as great as possible to encourage the greatest amount of risk taking and innovation. Surely this applies to rich people as well as middle class people. We need to soak the rich, so they’ll work harder and innovate more and take risks! (Hey, this is the best argument for soaking the rich I’ve come across – thanks, John! 😉 Also, where did I advocate simply GIVING middle class people money? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/203 "2005-01-14T13:09:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Probably? You made an assertion about the middle class not being a product of free enterprise. Tell us what created it, and how. If you can’t, then perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to tell us what DIDN’T cause it. > > And I’m still waiting for an answer to my other question. The one about how many companies are run as you described in your earlier post. You can round off to the nearest factor of 10, but be sure to give us cites to back up your claim. It can be argued that many of the things that make for what we consider a comfortable middle-class life were obtained as concessions made by the wealthy when socialism became VERY popular in America during the Depression – and by the rise of labor unions. Things like the eight hour work day, the five day work week and a living wage. These things have been eroding steadily as labor unions have lost support in America, but if the rich get their way too completely, they’ll be back … in spades. ---
**Author:** ![YoudNeverGuess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a587f6/32.png) [@YoudNeverGuess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoudNeverGuess)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/204 "2005-01-14T13:14:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Then you should be able to show a spikey up and down progression of donations as the Super Wealthies ‘whim’ moves them to either donate or not…yes? Instead, afaik, its a steady UPWARD progression of donations to charities by the Super Wealthy…and everyone else. BTW, do you have anything resembling a cite for your “little woolly jackets for poor widdle doggies in winter” assertion? Is this something that happens frequently? Is it a rising problem?? Details details. > > Finally I have to disagree with your assertion that the government is necessarily better at distributing money or fixing social problems than local charities…or that they are better at finding good causes for MY money than I am with reguard to charities. The government, at its best, is a blunt instrument where such things are concerned. > > -XT No I can’t give a cite because I couldn’t be bothered searching for one :rolleyes: It was a _hypothetical_ situation I was using to illustrate the point that the poor shouldn’t have to rely on the charity of wealthy benefactors alone because there’s no guarantee of any help this way. It can be given or not on a whim. It’s great when it happens and yes, wealthy people do sometimes give generaously to charity, but you just can’t rely on it and it _certainly_ should never take the place of government funding. That’s all I was saying. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/205 "2005-01-14T13:15:12Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Surely this applies to rich people as well as middle class people. We need to soak the rich, so they’ll work harder and innovate more and take risks! (Hey, this is the best argument for soaking the rich I’ve come across – thanks, John! 😉 Nice try. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Also, where did I advocate simply GIVING middle class people money? here: > [@Evil Captor](#): > > … We should game the system to give the middle class folks enough money and freedom to step up there and innovate. That’s how the economy really grows. I know you said “game the system to give” and not just “give”, but I don’t see the difference. “Give” doesn’t need to be the operative word. My point was that the more money people have, the less likely they are to bust there ass to get ahead, hence the less likely they are to contribute to any innovation. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/206 "2005-01-14T14:30:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > By what do you claim the poor are getting poorer in the US right now…or that the middle class has less ability for growth and prosperity? And how exactly does this relate to the wealthy tieing up too many resources? I don’t see either claim as being valid, and certainly don’t see a connection between them even if they are true. I cited the Master on the growing inequality of wealth in America. If you wanna challenge, feel free … there’s a whole SECTION of this site devoted to discussion Cecil’s columns. As for the wealth tying up too many resources … look at what is happening right now. Nowadays, BOTH parents in a family have to work to make enough to live on. Frequently, people working low-income jobs have to work TWO full-time jobs just to make ends meet … that is, their every waking moment is devoted to making enough money to keep themselves fed, clothed and sheltered … laudable, to some, I’m sure, but arguably as bad as or worse than slavery (slaves got time off in some cultures). Now, somebody who’s spending ALL their time working for the basic necessities has ver little incentive to advance themselves in life … their interests outside work would consist of eating and sleeping, and very little else. This is Not a Good Thing, as such people aren’t going to get farther up the economic ladder – no opportunity. If their jobs paid enough to let them hold down just one job, they could go to school in their free time, or study, or follow their own weird and invent some new way of doing things that would enrich us all far beyond their ability to say “Would you like fries with that?” 16 hours a day. Such people are victims, and also under-utilized resources. And people deserve more than to be treated as industrial workbots during their every waking hour. And when both parents in a family work, they spend much of THEIR free time doing the chores and so forth that are necessary to make a family work (I know this from personal experience). They’re not nearly so bad off as the person working two jobs, but their free time is limited. Wouldn’t it be better if THEY had free time to come up with new ways of doing things? (Granted, many would just zone out in front of the TV set, beer in hand, but the few that wouldn’t are pure gold – we NEED those people. So while middle clas people have moved to two-working parent mode and lower class people are moving to working two jobs to stay in a place with walls and a ceiling, the wealthy elite are raking in a larger and larger share of our society, as Cecil Adams says: " Having dropped a bit after World War I, the Fortunate One Thousandth’s share spiked up to more than 8 percent in 1928, then declined to less than 3 percent in 1953 and less than 2 percent in 1973. Thereafter it rose again, most sharply in the latter Reagan years, reaching 6 percent by 1998." > [@](#): > > Actually you haven’t. Even if I take these things at face value without good cites, they don’t necessarily mean what you say they mean…i.e. that ‘gaming the system’ by the Super Wealthy is detrimental to the overall system. In other words, as I said above you need to show first off that the system IS being gamed by the Super Wealthy, than you need to show that them gaming it is detrimental to the over all system…as well as your other claim that by doing this there is less wealth available for everyone else. If Cecil’s column about the Gilded Age doesn’t establish that the rich are gaming the system for you, what does? I mean, what level of proof do you need here? Seems to me I’ve put up proof, YOU’RE that one that needs to counter. Now as for the detrimental gaming, I’ve explained that above. The free time and wealth that allowed Gates, Wozniak and others to innovate was a product of middle class affluence. Rich people typically are in a position to do what they want with their time … they don’t NEED a job to live. [quote] All of those things you list could be argued to show just the opposite. Who says CEO’s salaries are ‘hyperinflated’ for instance? Based on what? The companies hireing them? The Stockholders? You? What? [quote] [Read it and weep.](http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-03-31-ceopay2_x.htm) And there’s a ton of other cites on this issue out there. this issue is well known. > [@](#): > > Tax breaks for the rich (and everyone else) can be argued to be a short term boost to a stalled economy…and in fact we HAVE gotten a short term boost to our stalled economy. Granted it could be coincidence too…but it most certainly isn’t a slam dunk for you. Corporate welfare comes more from those folks (both conservative AND liberal) who aren’t free market people I hate to tell you. Its folks concerned with the loss of jobs and not willing to simply let the market handle it…guys like you in fact. Now, you might not agree with this one point, but its silly to claim that this comes from the free market types. Most economists think Bush’s tax break for the rich was an economic disaster. YMMV but you’re headed into tinfoil hat territory on this one. I don’t care who backs corporate welfare, I think it’s a bad idea. > [@](#): > > As for ‘perfectly legal tax dodges’…well, they are perfectly legal, aren’t they? And my guess is that they come from both sides of the political spectrum again…and again, not from the free market people who would probably rather have a flat tax system with NO dodges. Reguardless the real world outcome is to provide those business’s getting these ‘perfectly legal tax dodges’ more capital to work with…which means that, while the share holders and others get richer, the companies also have more capital to expand their business with. Greedy capitalists out to make some bucks will always want to expand…and that means more jobs for folks. yes, because when the government gets money, they set fire to it. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Well, you know…I think you missed my point. I’m not asking for YOUR opinions or thoughts on those things…I’m asking for some cites showing both the gaming and how its detrimental to the system as a whole (I know I’m repeating myself here…I hope its clear now what I was asking for). I read through what you wrote and was unconvinced by just your opinion. I’d like to see some substance to back up these claims. I’ve given you cites, all I’ve seen from you is arm-waving. > [@](#): > > I think your understanding of communism is as tenuous as your understanding of capitalism if you think the sum total is ‘communal ownership of property and the means of production’…and certainly socialism is a different beast entirely. Its not ‘communist lite’ you know? I know enough to know that anything other than unfettered free market capitalism doesn’t constitute either socialism or communism. The way these terms are currently being used in this thread is as stupid scare words designed to stop both thought and debate – ADVANCING ignorance instead of fighting it. > [@](#): > > I think I have a pretty good idea of both how a theoretical free market SHOULD and WOULD work, as well as how our actual hybrid system works, thanks. I also think I have a pretty good historical idea of what DOESN’T work very well…i.e. when the government tries to do just what you are advocating the system tends to grind to an eventual halt. I suggest perhaps a review of the various economies in the western world during the 70’s for instance. I think you know a lot of things that aren’t so. And what specific measure that I’ve proposed have led to such economic slowdowns? > [@](#): > > A period of economic downturns, stagflation and heavy government controls you mean. And I seriously doubt that the economic outlook of the nation at that time has anything to do with either of the examples I used…it was more that we were on the verge of a technical revolution and these innovators got in on it. Unless you are claiming that no Super Wealthy have been made since then…something thats blatantly and obviously not true just looking at the founders of companies like eBay and Amazon (who also came from the middle classes afaik). Go back and read that quote about the Gilded Age. It specifically addresses relative share of the economy during the 70s. When come back bring argument. > [@](#): > > _sigh_ There really is no point in continueing this part. Its basic business from both sides of it…the man asking for the discount did nothing wrong at all, he just had more balls than most to push a social meeting like that. Agreed. If you don’t think there are any barriers between personal relationships and commercial relationships, there’s not much we can say to one another. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/207 "2005-01-14T15:08:26Z")
> [@Grits and Hard Toast](#): > > Ok, in reading the replies it seems the changes some would like to make include the following: > > 1. Guaranteed living wage to anyone willing to work. Not necessarily guaranteed, just that this should be the established standard for minimum wage, not just “anything the millionaires in Congress thinks sounds good.” > [@](#): > > 1. Guaranteed living wage to those who want to work, but just can’t find work. Not necessarily a guaranteed living wage, but SOME way of staying fed, clothed and sheltered while searching for work. I’m open to a wide variety of ideas. > [@](#): > > 1. Limit the amount of wealth one person is allowed to accumulate. IE don’t let them have so much they appear greedy in accumulating lots of stuff they don’t really need. I’m OPEN to the idea of doing this, but it’s not really important to the idea of gaming the free market to work to the middle class’ advantage. The rich can get as rich as they want, so long as it does not impede the success of society as a whole. OTOH, I do not hold the idea of unlimited wealth for individuals to be sacred, as some clearly do. > [@](#): > > 1. For those that have “extra” to give, make sure that the charity they chose to give to is important and benefits society as a whole, not just some small segment that isn’t as important. Moot, since that “extra” biz isn’t important to me. > [@](#): > > 1. For those that have “extra” and give to charity, evaluate their motives and make sure they are doing it to help others, and receive no gain themselves from their giving. Moot, for the same reason. > [@](#): > > 1. Guaranteed living wage to anyone willing to work. How do we determine what a living wage should be? Who sets the standard for an acceptable place to live? And acceptable amount of food? What type of food? We might all agree filet mignon is not needed, but what about top sirloin? That good enough? How many Cokes a day is the acceptable amount? Should workers be forced to cut coupons? How much junk food should they be able to buy each week? What about grapes when not in season, pretty expensive, should workers be forced to do with out? Need money to spend on leisure activities, money to pay for 2 movies a month enough, should they be able to afford tickets to a pro game? A night of drinking and playing pool once a week enough? To come up with guaranteed living wage someone needs to calculate what a person’s acceptable lifestyle would cost. You decide what they actual need, and how much that would cost, then that would determine what they are paid. Will it vary from market to market? When I lived in San Francisco I paid $1,000 a month for a tiny studio, located in the basement of a big apartment complex, and friends were envious I found such a good deal. I moved to Kentucky and I could have not spent $1,000 dollars on an apartment if I tried. $250 a month got me a great one bedroom in a great location. So we need lots of people around the country to calculate the acceptable cost of living in each market. Who qualifies to make such a value judgement? Who says if a cell phone is needed? And if it is, how many minutes of time do they get? The list goes on and on… I know that for the Atlanta metro area, where I live, the living wage has been established at $10.50 an hour. Why is this so impossible to establish nationwide? What good are economists if they can’t do this sort of thing? Their ability as predictors of the economy is famously off, and most of their other activities seem to consist of coming up with rationalizations for not soaking the rich. Another way of promoting a living wage might be to end corporate welfare and “perfectly legal” tax dodges, and substitute tax benefits for those businesses that pay a living wage to the employees. No coercion, then, eh, just carrot? > [@](#): > > 1. Guaranteed living wage to those who say they want work, but just can’t find work. Well every fast food place I know of does a lot of hiring, car washes struggle to find people, how about working in the county jail? Nurse’s aide in a nursing home? Those jobs are available, shall we force the unemployed to pick one? They will be guaranteed their “living wage”, so who decides what job someone must take if there is a job opening somewhere, but no one wants to take the job? Oh, I agree, set the bar low. So long as there is work that needs doing, have people do it. Frankly, government programs like the road building that created the interstate highways are EXCELLENT ways of taking advantage of a labor force that the free market doesn’t. But by ALL means, have people work at whatever if they can, if they want that living wage. The only diffo I would make is, exceptions for the handicapped and reasonable provisos about worker safety, etc. I’m not against work, I’m against waste … of people. > [@](#): > > 1. Limit the amount of wealth one person is allowed to accumulate. This is where the money to fund # 1 and #2 would come from. Now we need a group to study what exactly the cap off of the wealthy should be. Just one house, ok, how large can the house be? 4 bedroom should be plenty big? Well what if they have 6 kids? Formula for so many sq feet allowed per kid? What about when first kid goes to college, must they relocate to smaller house? And what about college? Who decides how much can be spent on education. Sending your kid to Harvard is a luxury, and may give those kids an unfair advantage in the future, maybe they should be allowed to go to just state colleges. And vacations, everyone would agree the employer should be allowed to take a vacation. For how long can they go? A night in a fancy Hotel in NYC is $2,000 a night, well that is too extravagant, how about approving of 5 days at a Holiday Inn in Toledo? And when all those workers at the expensive hotels are unemployed because the high end hotel went out of business, we’ll need another group in place to decide where they will now work. And the suppliers of the hotels and all their employees will be out of work too, need to find them another job. As will the employers of the boat manufacturers, high end car makers, expensive clothes makers, and all the other industries that had been making money off the extravagant expenditures of the rich. So to decide where to cap the rich’s profits, someone must first decide how much is needed for a comfortable, but not excessive lifestyle. So to do that someone must decide what are reasonable uses of extra money, and what uses of money represents greed. The employers are capped off at a reasonable comfortable level, so they can’t have the money that would allow them to make the purchases that a greedy person would make. Sadly, this section is moot, as explained above. However, I guess my issue is … what does one person NEED with hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth? Most of the things you can buy that are enormously expensive are more reasonably rented or leased. Frex, I can BUY a luxury yacht as a rich industrialist, but I probably won’t be spending a lot of time on it, so why not just RENT one when I need one, for considerably less money? Same with beach homes, etc. Perhaps it’s a product of my middle class lifestyle, but I find the amount of wealth some people seem to require to be ridiculous overkill. As one wealthy person put it, “After you make your first million, the lifestyle doesn’t change much.” > [@](#): > > 1. For those that have “extra” to give, make sure that the charity they chose to give to is important enough and benefits society as a whole, not just some small segment that isn’t as important Now we need to have a group to decided which benefits society more, helping the blind function autonomously, or the deaf? Spinal injury research more important than research into curing aids? Should we fund housing for the mentally ill, or old people? Humane society, you are just out of luck, everyone agrees a human life is more important than that of an animal, so you are not a priority. Moot again, but actually, some objective thought along these lines sounds like a good idea. > [@](#): > > 1. For those that have “extra” and give to charity, evaluate their motives and make sure they are doing it to help others, and receive no gain themselves from their giving. > > Please believe me when I say I am not just trying to find fault with any ideas that would change the status quo and would put my accumulated wealth and nice lifestyle at risk. I will try, but frankly, it isn’t easy. > [@](#): > > I think Fessie truly is interested in how someone could support a system in which so many remain poor. It is convenient to say the rich just don’t care, as long as they have theirs. My point is is, that to make the above changes, major restrictions and regulations would have to put in place. Your problem is that you seem to think that the only alternative to a free market economy is imposing a demand economy on superficial capitalism – something I do not advocate. I am afraid much of your effort has been wasted because you are arguing against something I do not advocate. Tax incentives for corporations could help with the living wage. A single-payer health insurance system could bring health costs down, way down. Givng the poor access to preventive medical treatment as well as emergency room services would pay for itself many times over, by allowing them to avoid illnesses cheaply, rather than treating them expensively in emergency rooms. There is a LOT we could do that we are not doing because too many people are psychologically bound to our present inefficeint system. > [@](#): > > I don’t view the poor as whole as just a bunch of lazy people who deserve to live in poverty because they didn’t work hard like I did to get out of it. People are free to have different priorities, I am not going judge them harshly because of the choices they make. But I do think our system is set up in a way that allows them to rise, if they want to badly enough. Actually, most of my aim is at the middle class. The poor will rapidly and easily integrate into the middle class, if the middle class is robust. THAT’S the real solution to the problem, rather than handouts, along with an effective safety net during the transitional phase. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/208 "2005-01-14T16:38:55Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I cited the Master on the growing inequality of wealth in America. If you wanna challenge, feel free … there’s a whole SECTION of this site devoted to discussion Cecil’s columns. As for the wealth tying up too many resources … look at what is happening right now. Nowadays, BOTH parents in a family have to work to make enough to live on. Frequently, people working low-income jobs have to work TWO full-time jobs just to make ends meet … that is, their every waking moment is devoted to making enough money to keep themselves fed, clothed and sheltered … laudable, to some, I’m sure, but arguably as bad as or worse than slavery (slaves got time off in some cultures). I did a search of the Straight Dope archive on gilded age. I assume you mean [this](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031219.html) article? > [@Cecil Adams](#): > > Right off the bat we run into more ambiguity: What do we mean by “Gilded Age”? According to the Britannica, the phrase refers to the 1870s, a “period of gross materialism and blatant political corruption in U.S. history.” Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner christened the era in a book of that name published in 1873. > > Setting aside the question of what period in U.S. history has not been characterized by gross materialism and blatant political corruption, we note that a lot of people construe the term to cover a much longer period than the 1870s. Krugman is one of them. If we judge from his writings on the Web, he thinks the Gilded Age properly ended with the stock market crash of 1929. Understood in this way, Krugman’s thesis is . . . well, a bit of a reach, but not flat wrong. He cites a 2001 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998.” Using federal income tax data, Piketty and Saez have compiled a tall stack of charts, one of which tracks the share of national income earned by the top 0.1 percent of the population. It shows that the superrich went home with almost 10 percent of the national take (less capital gains) in 1916, the modern peak. Having dropped a bit after World War I, the Fortunate One Thousandth’s share spiked up to more than 8 percent in 1928, then declined to less than 3 percent in 1953 and less than 2 percent in 1973. Thereafter it rose again, most sharply in the latter Reagan years, reaching 6 percent by 1998. > > Well, 6 percent is a lot more than 2 percent. In France and the UK, which had concentrations of wealth similar to ours in the early 20th century, the superrich have done nowhere near as well–they take home a steady 2 percent of the national income in France, 3 percent (and climbing) in the UK. On the other hand, 6 percent is still well shy of 10 percent, and merely gets us back to the circumstances that prevailed in 1938. > > You may say I’m quibbling. Look, I said if you defined the Gilded Age broadly enough, Krugman wasn’t flat wrong. Ignoring the peak years, today we’re roughly where we were in the interval between the first and second world wars, when plenty of Americans were dirt poor. Is that the Gilded Age, though? I don’t think so. One big difference is that Bill Gates and company have to contend with federal income tax, whereas 19th-century robber barons didn’t. (It was instituted in 1913.) Piketty and Saez write, “Top capital incomes are still lower in the late 1990s than before World War I. A plausible explanation is . . . steep progressive taxation.” > > Other differences include 20th-century antitrust policies and the vastly increased scale and complexity of modern American business. The robber barons weren’t just rich, they controlled the U.S. economy to an extent that today’s superrich can only dream about. Today Microsoft may dominate the operating-system market with Windows, but in the context of the total U.S. economy the company’s a drop in the bucket. In contrast, when Standard Oil had a 64 percent market share in 1911, John D. Rockefeller’s net worth amounted to more than 2 percent of annual U.S. output and in inflation-corrected dollars was more than twice that of Bill Gates. That’s not to sugarcoat the present situation. As Krugman points out, since 1979, while executive compensation has soared, the income of the bottom fifth of Americans has fallen slightly in constant dollars, which hardly contributes to the stability of the republic. Still, today’s tycoons aren’t in the same league–yet–with the giants of the past. Hey, I’m as big a fan of Cecil and the Straight Dope as anyone…but this article doesn’t say what you think it says. Not only that, you are shifting the arguement away from the points I made…I never claimed that the gap between the poor and the rich wasn’t widening…in fact I acknowledged that earlier in this thread. This article is talking about a widening gap between rich and poor…no where does he say in here that the poor are getting poorer (which was the point you made and the one I called you on)…just that the gap between the richest and poorest is widening. Or, if I’m wrong, kindly point out where it says the poor (or the middle class for that matter) are getting poorer…I must have missed it. And look at the last paragraph…here, let me quote something that addresses your issue of the rich controlling more of the system today: “Other differences include 20th-century antitrust policies and the vastly increased scale and complexity of modern American business. The robber barons weren’t just rich, \*\*they controlled the U.S. economy to an extent that today’s superrich can only dream about. \*\* Today Microsoft may dominate the operating-system market with Windows, but in the context of the total U.S. economy the company’s a drop in the bucket. In contrast, when Standard Oil had a 64 percent market share in 1911, John D. Rockefeller’s net worth amounted to more than 2 percent of annual U.S. output and in inflation-corrected dollars was more than twice that of Bill Gates.” > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Go back and read that quote about the Gilded Age. It specifically addresses relative share of the economy during the 70s. When come back bring argument. My bolding. Plainly put, you are wrong and this ‘cite’ doesn’t help your case. When come back, bring real cite mkay? As for your assertions that people are having to work harder today than in the past to make ends meet…its ridiculous. You obviously don’t know that in the past there were no mandatory 40 hour weeks, nor 5 day work schedules. The ‘poor’ in your gilded age worked a HELL of a lot harder even than someone holding down two jobs today works…and they DID work for just the basics, as opposed to todays poor who work for a better standard of living (car, TV, cable, etc…not exactly the ‘basics’ like merely food and shelter). No? Then perhaps, again, you could back this up? And its NOT in the Cecil Adams article you’ve ‘cited’ so you need to look elsewhere. All I want is a cite showing that people are working more today than ever before for less money…and that primarily the ‘poor’ are working multiple jobs just to make enough for the basic cost of living, and not for other material desires…like a better standard of living. Well, that and something to back up your claim that the poor are getting poorer. Should be easy enough, no? You are making a lot of assertions in this thread and then getting pissy when you are called on them and back them up with a Straight Dope article which doesn’t really get into anything specific. Its a popularist article, writting for the masses, and devoid of any meat. I love them, but they aren’t exactly good cites. You claim people are working harder than ever (with references to slavery and other blather) but you don’t back that up. You don’t even go into the possibility that people work 2 jobs or have both parents work not because they can’t afford food, clothing and shelther but because they want OTHER material things (like 2 nice cars, a boat, a bigger house, vacations, a pool in the back , a big screen TV, etc etc)…you merely state that this ‘proves’ that the poor and middle classes are getting poorer and the rich are gaming the system…two statements that just don’t combined no matter how much glue you attempt to use. Certainly you haven’t PROVED it by any stretch with the ‘cites’ you’ve given. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/209 "2005-01-14T16:45:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think their employees should find other jobs that don’t pay peanuts. > > If they can’t, then perhaps “peanuts” is precisely what their labor is worth. > > Labor, like any commodity, is worth what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. An employer that is truly underpaying his employees will soon have no employees left; they will flock to those that pay them more. If no one is willing to pay more… then their labor isn’t worth more. And there it is. Well stated, Bricker. Economics 101. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2023, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/210 "2023-11-10T02:13:48Z")
I’ve thought about this thread occasionally and wondered how it aged. Any replies? ---
**Author:** ![Cmyers1980](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyers1980/32/11814_2.png) [@Cmyers1980](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cmyers1980)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2023, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/211 "2023-11-14T23:13:02Z")
It’s immoral to be wealthy because other than the fact that extraction of surplus labor value as profit is theft it isn’t right that a relative few have more than they could feasibly need or spend while billions of people live in poverty and millions die every year from preventable causes. No one needs or deserves millions of dollars in a world of such deprivation and needless suffering. Obviously the answer is a fundamental restructuring of society rather than just asking the wealthy to donate more. The necessity of charity is in and of itself a failure of the state and wouldn’t exist in an ideal society. ---
**Author:** ![LivingGhost371](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9e5f3/32.png) [@LivingGhost371](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LivingGhost371)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/212 "2023-12-04T16:54:46Z")
I guess I view greed as a state of mind, and thus not something you can put a dollar value on. Something everyone does and not exclusive to billionaires. Is a billionaire that sort of wants another house when he already has four more or less greedy than a 6 year old that really, really, and I mean really, wants another lollipop when he already has four? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/213 "2023-12-04T17:10:37Z")
I think greed is a driving force behind the accumulation of wealth. Attaining a goal of wealth makes a person successful and greedy. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/214 "2023-12-04T17:59:48Z")
It’s not a proximate problem that there are super wealthy people, it is that to become super wealthy one must at the very least be a capitalist pig. No one became a billionaire by toiling away in a bio lab trying to cure cancer, or by working 12-hour days in a non-profit that feeds the world’s poor. I personally know people who turned down 8-figure salaries (and of course the sky is the limit) but also people who didn’t… ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/215 "2023-12-04T21:45:45Z")
I used to think so too, minus the “capitalist pig” part. If we cherry pick only the best from the past 100 or so years of industrialized democracies, we could have a healthy welfare state and healthy labor rights and an adequately high tax structure to support them without impinging on the capitalist structure of most businesses. No need to demonize people at any moment in their life as long as they pay their fair share. But then Elon Musk came and proved that individuals can have a dangerous level of power simply by their wealth. He single handedly changed my mind about the wealth tax, in that before him, it was simply an exercise in my mind about how to tackle the deficit, but now, it would have the added impetus and relevance of breaking up the vast concentrations of wealth that can be directly used to push dangerous agendas. It’s never going to happen, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2023, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/216 "2023-12-08T14:42:38Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > It’s not a proximate problem that there are super wealthy people, it is that to become super wealthy one must at the very least be a capitalist pig. No one became a billionaire by toiling away in a bio lab trying to cure cancer, or by working 12-hour days in a non-profit that feeds the world’s poor. I personally know people who turned down 8-figure salaries (and of course the sky is the limit) but also people who didn’t… Is Taylor Swift a “capitalist pig”? What is a “capitalist pig” anyone, aside from a leftist term used to derisively describe wealthy business people? Are we to assume there is something inherently amoral about raising capital and running a multi-billion company that provides the lab and other infrastructure for scientists to research cancer cures? Is it amoral for the company to want to turn a profit from those drugs so they can pay their employees and fund other drugs? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2023, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/217 "2023-12-08T14:58:24Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Is it amoral for the company to want to turn a profit from those drugs so they can pay their employees and fund other drugs? Businesses do not make a profit for the purpose of paying employees, or funding other projects. They pay employees and fund new projects for the purpose of making more profit. The instant they can make more profit without paying employees, they will do that. Managers might lay awake at night feeling bad about the layoffs, but those layoffs will happen, because that’s how business is done. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2023, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/218 "2023-12-08T15:17:43Z")
Thanks for the business lesson. Yeah, that’s how a business works. If the business is not making enough money, it will let go of the employees it thinks are not adding enough value. Much in the same way when Taylor Swift’s tour ends, I’m pretty sure she doesn’t keep paying all the dancers and lighting guys and stage hands. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2023, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/219 "2023-12-08T15:18:12Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > > [@DPRK](#): > > > > It’s not a proximate problem that there are super wealthy people, it is that to become super wealthy one must at the very least be a capitalist pig. No one became a billionaire by toiling away in a bio lab trying to cure cancer, or by working 12-hour days in a non-profit that feeds the world’s poor. I personally know people who turned down 8-figure salaries (and of course the sky is the limit) but also people who didn’t… > > Is Taylor Swift a “capitalist pig”? > > What is a “capitalist pig” anyone, aside from a leftist term used to derisively describe wealthy business people? Are we to assume there is something inherently amoral about raising capital and running a multi-billion company that provides the lab and other infrastructure for scientists to research cancer cures? Is it amoral for the company to want to turn a profit from those drugs so they can pay their employees and fund other drugs? I was actually thinking of Wall-Street-type microsecond arbitrage as not contributing that much to the long-term benefit of the human race. It is a stressful work environment, at least when you are starting out, but some people view it simply as an interesting game, which is fine with me if that is what they want to do. I have no problem with arts and entertainment (except that many talented people often fail even to make a basic living at it). Is it amoral for a company (and/or the capitalists that run it) to want to turn a profit from drugs? There is something inherently amoral about for-profit corporate entities; they are not operating for the sake of humanity or even for their own employees. For proof you can, for example, ask any sick patient whose price for insulin has been jacked up, and compare that to the (IMO correct and only moral) actions of the discoverers of insulin, who declared, “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world”, refused multiple offers of dump-trucks full of money from Wall Street capitalists, and arranged a symbolic patent (Banting deliberately left his name _off_ the patent) so that no one could exploit the rights. I apologise for using a provocative word like “pig”, that is not the level of discussion we need, but, no, it is not moral to make money off of sick people. Even if you throw a few millions here and there at random state universities in the name of research. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2023, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/220 "2023-12-08T15:30:05Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > If the business is not making enough money, it will let go of the employees it thinks are not adding enough value. There’s no such thing as “enough money”. Businesses will let go of anyone they can let go of, cut any cost they can cut, regardless of how much money they’re currently making, because that’s how business works. That’s not evil, it’s just business. It’s competition. If I don’t keep improving, the next guy will and my business is sunk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824.md?page=12)