Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An interesting article, but it misses the point because it dances around the issues being discussed.
When people call out against the "1%" very few of them are actually specifically targeting the top 1% - no more, no less - nor are they universally painting all of them with the same brush.
We all know the people who are really being rightfully called out as being greedy sociopaths who are destroying this nation. It's the super-wealthy who, in the need to get more, send a few thousand more jobs overseas. It's the worthless, failed executives who still get millions of dollars per year, no matter how badly they screw up, and then, even when fired, get separate packages that give them more money then can be spent in a lifetime... while the working class who lost their careers end up in unemployment hell for months or years while being seen as "useless bums" by society. Nobody holds the elite accountable.
The problem is that somewhere along the line, the phrase "the 1 percent" became what was used to define the criminal elite, and then plenty of conservative groups stepped up to specifically defend the 1% using a cute mix of technical arguments about how many of them work for a living, how many earn what exact salary, etc. It's a cute argument, but it fails since it misses the point - we as a nation are tired of the criminal elite destroying our economy just so they can be even richer.
The rally against the "1 percent" is NOT about some specific income bracket - it's about criminal elite sociopaths ruining a nation.
I also take issue with the article's cheery summary:
"The shift in incomes in favor of the wealthy has been due to several large forces, including a world-wide boom in asset prices, the rise of global markets, and technological innovation that has increased the earning power of the well educated. These have been positive—not negative—forces that have elevated living standards around the globe."
This has a few flat-out inaccurate statements:
1) Acting as if the increase in asset prices "happened on its own" and the wealthy just got lucky and benefited from it. Who drives asset prices? In most cases, the wealthy drive those prices up through everything from just bidding up the price of assets to market manipulation.
2) Claiming that "earning power of the well educated has increased." Tell that to the vast number of well-educated Americans that are out of work because their jobs have been set overseas or simply eliminated entirely. No, the wealthy are not there just because of their education - connections, luck, and often a lack of humanity have gotten many of them where they are.
3) Claiming that the new economy has "Elevated living standards around the globe." Sure, on average, but it is intellectually dishonest to say this without also noting that living standards have fallen in developed nations such as America. It was once possible to have a life-long career with a company in this nation, buy a nice house, and raise a family and then retire... all on 1 income and often without college education. Now, you need 2 incomes - both college educated - to have any hope of doing the same, and you'll probably still fail since job security - along with many good jobs - no longer exists, and prices for everything have skyrocketed while wages have gone nowhere. Sure... the benefit is China now has a middle class... that's nice, but given the damage done to this nation's middle class, "living standards around the globe" have NOT moved only upwards.
3) Claiming that the new economy has "Elevated living standards around the globe." Sure, on average, but it is intellectually dishonest to say this without also noting that living standards have fallen in developed nations such as America. It was once possible to have a life-long career with a company in this nation, buy a nice house, and raise a family and then retire... all on 1 income and often without college education. Now, you need 2 incomes - both college educated - to have any hope of doing the same, and you'll probably still fail since job security - along with many good jobs - no longer exists, and prices for everything have skyrocketed while wages have gone nowhere. Sure... the benefit is China now has a middle class... that's nice, but given the damage done to this nation's middle class, "living standards around the globe" have NOT moved only upwards.
What dishonest is misrepresenting the statement about living standards. No one said the new economy elevated living standards around the globe. It elevated those in many developing nations and reduced the disparity among nations. This is rather remarkable given the brutal colonial behaviors of the so called "developed nations." The West's donations and charity would have never achieved such a shortening of wealth distance. This is what capitalism does. It rewards those who are willing and able to take advantage of the opportunities.
You think it's nice that China has a middle class. Talk to some people on this thread. They are still stuck in their mindset of China being nothing more than a sweatshop. They do so because they want the story to be American businesses are hurting China so that there is nothing good about the new economy. Nice try. The Chinese don't share the same interests as the American middle-class. The illusion that the American middle class and the Chinese middle class are united to fight businesses is completely wishful thinking. The Chinese will never be in the same labor union as us.
The American middle class still refuse to realize that the new global economy is much more competitive and now it's time to buckle up for the competition. The illusion around here is that somehow we can get back to where we were. That world is gone. The later we adjust, the more difficult it will be.
Those who will come out successful focus on adjusting and bettering their prospects.
Those who linger and wait around will likely get less.
This is where you miss the point. It's about working smart, not "hard." When you're wealthy, you usually build a great team and delegate the management of your investments to that team.
When persons *work* they receive compensation based upon the perceived value of their contribution. There are lawyers who rack up five or six million per year, others barely earn 60K. Actors can receive tens or hundreds of millions for a picture, or contract for say a television series. Even some news readers/reporters make enough to be in the *One Percent* or darn close to it. That one on GMA, Robin what is her name? She just received a two year contract for twenty million for each. Assuming she remains and her value continues you're looking at nearly 100 million over five years.
Most persons who have built amassed great wealth from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Zuckerberg were good at whatever it was they did and enjoyed doing so as well. The fortunes built were or are nice but almost a second thought.
The woman who invented "Spanx" got the idea from simply cutting the legs off a bottom of pantyhose. Several years later she is firmly in the Fortune 500 and has a very successful company/business.
There is an old adage about inherited wealth; the first generation makes it, the second spends it, and by the third they are poor. This is often why those who have amassed vast fortunes use trusts and other devices to keep their children, grandchildren and so forth from blowing away the money. The other dirty secret is that it isn't estate taxes that kill inherited wealth/businesses, but simply poor management of same.
When persons *work* they receive compensation based upon the perceived value of their contribution. There are lawyers who rack up five or six million per year, others barely earn 60K. Actors can receive tens or hundreds of millions for a picture, or contract for say a television series. Even some news readers/reporters make enough to be in the *One Percent* or darn close to it. That one on GMA, Robin what is her name? She just received a two year contract for twenty million for each. Assuming she remains and her value continues you're looking at nearly 100 million over five years.
Most persons who have built amassed great wealth from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Zuckerberg were good at whatever it was they did and enjoyed doing so as well. The fortunes built were or are nice but almost a second thought.
The woman who invented "Spanx" got the idea from simply cutting the legs off a bottom of pantyhose. Several years later she is firmly in the Fortune 500 and has a very successful company/business.
There is an old adage about inherited wealth; the first generation makes it, the second spends it, and by the third they are poor. This is often why those who have amassed vast fortunes use trusts and other devices to keep their children, grandchildren and so forth from blowing away the money. The other dirty secret is that it isn't estate taxes that kill inherited wealth/businesses, but simply poor management of same.
I know Forbes comes out with the highest paid couples, and the following make the list almost every year:
Jay-Z & Beyonce
Tom Brady & Gisele Bundchen
David & Victoria Beckham
Angelina & Brad Pitt
I wonder what would happen if these people donated just one year's salary to our poor economy.
The 1% became the 1% by not trying to figure out why others have more than they do.
Now, go look up how Al Gore became wealthy, how the Clintons became wealthy and come on back and report your conclusions.
How did Bill Gates become wealthy? Obviously your post was designed to elicit a political agenda discussion because who would pick Romney as a model to use as their standard of understanding when so many other models exist?
Yet the question of: "WHY" are "WE" taking all this in strive, and do nothing to change the way we're extorted out of money, has not been answered yet!
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
When persons *work* they receive compensation based upon the perceived value of their contribution.
If this was true, with the popularity of McDonalds, those workers should have a LOT of value!
What you're saying is that basically a nurse making $50k saving someone's life as not as valuable as Beyonce's latest single?
That is MAJOR BS. Sorry.
The fact the celebrities make such insane amounts of money is a side effect to the dumbing down of the population...nothing more...people end up like this: Photoshopping Real Women Into Cover Models - YouTube
....because this is what is being promoted. You don't see ads for "be customer oriented, work hard, be responsible, show personal accountability before blaming others for your problems" etc etc etc....no, you see these little stupid movies being promoted to the masses as if someone would actually buy a magazine filled with pimples and fat hanging! None of these women apparently ever heard of make up, or a GYM!
The reason celebrities make such insane amounts of money is simply because people have been shoved in their subdivision homes, spoiled with big TVs to watch the dumbest reality shows, and place "celebrities" on pedestals when most of them should be locked up for drugs, and too much drinking etc etc etc. it is a declining society that does NOT promote morals. Mothers are kicked out of "public places" for breastfeeding, while dog owners get to bring their stinky poodles at the tables with them!!!....I mean how much lower can we get?
It is what the lowest class + politicians are telling you to put value on, and you're listening because in America nobody has a desire to IMPROVE upon themselves, and rise and promote good morals based on COMMON SENSE and not some religion that was relevant thousands of years ago before Google and the iPhone. For some reason, we are evolving technologically, but our brains seems to want to live with the cave people!
The reason these people have become the 1%, is simply because the masses have ALLOWED THEM TO BECOME THE 1%. If the masses would act like the French, and HOLD THEIR GOV ACCOUNTABLE FOR DESTROYING THEIR LIVES, the 1% would have never existed, and "wealth" would be distributed evenly, and people would be paid based on their jobs difficulty and performance. Employees here are treated like disposable diapers, and not like humans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
