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.
Interesting article but I'm not sure why people should feel guilt because they have money, and want to give their families the very best.
Liberal minded wealthy are an interesting group. They speak on wanting to stop inequality in society and to do more for the poor and underprivileged, but not at the convenience of their lifestyle and privilege. They also tend to not donate as much as wealthy conservatives do to different causes. Perhaps its newer money and they aren't so confident of the money lasting for generations?
Celebrities are the most visible group in this regard, but I guess politicians do as well, but just hide it better.
Conservatives generally don't support laws that would benefit the middle class and below. They are determined to maintain unchecked capitalism in the US, regardless of the cost to workers who are displaced by manufacturing being taken overseas and to Mexico. Plus lack of responsible environmental stewardship, which will negatively affect most of us, but especially our children and grandchildren. Donating more does not make up for all of that.
All "the streak" involved as reported was growth in technology demanding more education from the workforce, and the workforce responding by acquiring more education. Whether more education served to advance the position of those involved is not detailed. In any era with real GDP per capita broadly expanding, it would in any case be difficult to isolate and measure the contributions of education.
Actually, I think the streak works a bit different. Generation 0 leaves an area they can no longer sustain in for a new area. This could be immigrants to a new country, or landless farmers or people that lived in an area that no longer has a supporting economic base. They work hard, struggle to adjust to an area and generally must be quite flexible. They do it, in part so their kids can grow up in a better area.
Generation 1 is able to catch up, language and culturally to the others in a region, yet they have few connections beyond what their parents had to the area. They're better assimilated however, and can become a trade or profession of merit.
Generation 2 is able to learn from their parents about how an area works. Further, they're able to utilize combined connections in order to more fully establish a presence. Perhaps that entails growing a family business or starting one. They are the establishment at this point.
Generation 3 is likely born with wealth. They can either continue to expand the family's footprint, but may also determine that wealth creation is not of the primary importance. Events for social standing or community involvement may become a primary focus. They may not want to take over a family business, and lacking need to there may be little pressure to do so.
Generation 4 inherits the social responsibilities of their accumulated predecessors, but may not have the usable contacts and knowledge of how things work in order to be financially successful. The family business, perhaps in the hands of others, may falter as vision for the company suffers. The class gap largely precludes the generation from taking start-up roles as the societal cost would be seen as too great. The rich begger generation begins to wind down the family fortune.
Generation 5 is left with decidedly little. The family name remains, but the family wealth is largely gone and split amongst heirs. Societal and Fiscal realities may be far apart. At some point, the member may decide to leave an area and become Generation 0 elsewhere.
Obviously individual families will vary widely, but that's the premise of the streak.
Interesting article but I'm not sure why people should feel guilt because they have money, and want to give their families the very best.
Liberal minded wealthy are an interesting group. They speak on wanting to stop inequality in society and to do more for the poor and underprivileged, but not at the convenience of their lifestyle and privilege. They also tend to not donate as much as wealthy conservatives do to different causes. Perhaps its newer money and they aren't so confident of the money lasting for generations?
Celebrities are the most visible group in this regard, but I guess politicians do as well, but just hide it better.
So much BS here. As a social liberal Texan who gives generously, I have never seen my contribution separated from that of less giving conservatives. It all falls under the guise of we are a red state and we give more.
The natural antagonists of the “upper 1%” are the “lower 1%”, or the couple of percentage-points below that… in other words, mere millionaires, who have made Vanguard Flagship or Flagship Select, but aren’t exactly flying around in private jets, or writing $100K campaign-contribution checks. These are the yappy parvenus nipping at the heels of the, ahem, well-heeled. That Joe Plumber made $120K last year, and sent Joe Jr. to Berkeley (I know, likely occurrence…), is no cause for alarm for our passel of plutocrats.
For “middle income workers” to afford an upper-middle lifestyle and consumption, was an anomaly of the mid-late 20th century. It lasted for 2-3 generations. Now we’re witnessing a reversion to historically sustainable societal structure. And no, it’s not a perfidious conspiracy – or the hapless blundering of lefty do-gooders, or string-pulling by billionaires. It’s basic economics.
If you're in Flagship Select, you're pretty rich. $10M invested at 5% is $500,000 a year without working.
Middle-income workers in the mid to late 20th century never lived that well - actually, they were lucky to pay off their little ranch houses and have two running cars.
Here we go again, with this SJW junk. My family has money, but we are not "Rich." if anything, we are wealthy because we dont flaunt our wealth, so we can KEEP our money.. many people spend their money (like if they win the lotto) and get screwed later on in life. We live in the USA, we use the freedom to better our lives no matter what anyone else thinks and if its "unfair,unjust, or even selfish."
For “middle income workers” to afford an upper-middle lifestyle and consumption, was an anomaly of the mid-late 20th century. It lasted for 2-3 generations. Now we’re witnessing a reversion to historically sustainable societal structure. And no, it’s not a perfidious conspiracy – or the hapless blundering of lefty do-gooders, or string-pulling by billionaires. It’s basic economics.
Finally. Someone who gets it.
That without elaborate social architecture in place, it's neither natural nor sustainable to have the middle class we were blessed with following WW2.
Where does this nonsense come from? It is no more difficult to operate and sustain a broad-based prosperity than it is to let the upper crust run off with everything. There's a term often applied to the psychosis of holding positive feelings for your abusers.
For “middle income workers” to afford an upper-middle lifestyle and consumption, was an anomaly of the mid-late 20th century. It lasted for 2-3 generations. Now we’re witnessing a reversion to historically sustainable societal structure. And no, it’s not a perfidious conspiracy – or the hapless blundering of lefty do-gooders, or string-pulling by billionaires. It’s basic economics.
I'd love to have you explain that in more detail if you have it as I normally am in agreement with your logic. Not trying to nitpick, but am curious as to why you believe this. There are several industrialized countries with a lower Gianni Coefficient than the United States. (That is, a measurement of how much income the top x% has comparatively by a country). I've usually maintained that a healthy middle class has an ever strengthening core for other new businesses and ideas to be created. This in turn creates demand for an ever more skilled middle class.
I've even gone so far as to muse that a significant portion of the world's "growth" is nothing more than a net add of individuals who have been identified as being creditworthy in the recent globalization, or of existing participants who have had a net increase in the amount they can borrow and handle. One may conclude that our century of growth is simply an increase in the number of (participants x debt) all playing a zero sum game.
But, I'd like to think that isn't the case. However, if it is, the implications may be that hoarding by individuals that do not require capital for a new expenditure would be quite grievous to the economy. If so, a government may want to keep interest rates low to discourage unnecessary saving, and encourage debt backed expenditures.
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.
