NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not meant to be arrogant but honest observation of what people are sometimes afraid to say.

After having felt like somewhat I have lived between both upper middle economic class in a rural area/smaller towns (where the upper middle class is considered "wealthy), then after experiencing city life more realizing truly that the upper middle class in rural areas is simply the middle class or average in wealthier areas and cities, having friends that were mostly upper middle class while indulging in luxuries appreciated by upper class often, and then living like or with the lower economic class with most of my friends being of or from the lower class (though some in college or graduated) including even visiting rough city neighborhoods with them. I finally realized that the perception and division of the United States into economic classes is MUCH stronger than realized.

Moreso than that and still something I do not necessarily know, how HUGE the division between living in the wealthiest nations of the world and therefore truly the minority too compared to living in poorer countries or industrial such as India where the middle class cannot always afford even basic luxuries. We all live in a sort of floating world.

Because in each state of being, until living in the lower class, I did not realize the true perception and hardships of the lower economic class and how being in the lower economic class or working class means you often marry into that same class more than likely, and live among those and in neighborhoods with the same class. (Even statistically living in zip codes of a certain economic range. This is why marketing is by zip code in some ways)



In the same way I did not realize how different and somewhat isolated the perception of people from rural towns is compared to the perception of people living in cities, and the perceptions of religion that people have.

Even in cities though, I do not believe the wealthy can truly be said to know about all the economic classes and what they experience. More and more in the United States you are seeing the upper middle class ranges living in enclaves and towns to themselves along with the wealthy like the very wealthy used to live in their own enclaves and towns in earlier centuries. There are entire suburbs and towns where the luxury malls, luxury lifestyle, and all are along with the upper middle class and upper class neighborhoods. These end up being like separate "floating" worlds compared to what the poor are living like in rough neighborhoods. I mean just the entire quality of life.

It is not the same as saying that the upper middle class and wealthy do not realize what "Hard work is", but rather the hardships and what it is really like to be permanently lower class. Of course some of the upper middle class and wealthy temporarily experienced those states, either in college, or after college or in hard times, but they have not had to "permanently". The majority have not had to live with the long-term risk of no health insurance, no extra money, and hardly any way to pull themselves out.

The upper middle class and wealthy can philosophize they know the struggle of the lower classes or the "working poor", but they truly cannot realize what it is like to live in.

Bad grammar makes Pot's brain swell to epic proportions.

Bad grammar makes Pot's brain swell to epic proportions.

Oh well. It is more grammatical than some people's posts.

I don't care about the divide between rich and poor. What matters to me is that a poor person who puts in the effort to build themselves up is capable of realizing the goals they set for themselves and are not stymied in that pursuit by artificial socioeconomic barriers.

Everyone should rise and fall on their own merits. Of course I know this is not going to happen, but we should do what we can to make it the norm rather than the exception.

I don't care about the divide between rich and poor. What matters to me is that a poor person who puts in the effort to build themselves up is capable of realizing the goals they set for themselves and are not stymied in that pursuit by artificial socioeconomic barriers.

Everyone should rise and fall on their own merits. Of course I know this is not going to happen, but we should do what we can to make it the norm rather than the exception.

For a supposedly prosperous nation, the cost of living is rising astronomically for people to live as well as they could, and the divide is growing which isinterconnected with this. Most of the wealth of the United States and most Western nations is in the hands of a small percentage, also, acceptable but not so much most of the wealth of the world is in the hands of the "Western" nations.

With the rising costs of basic medical care, people going into debt over medicine, and more people in even the middle class trying to get some form of welfare then something is imbalanced more than just a few people falling through the cracks.

Oh well. It is more grammatical than some people's posts.

That's not saying much...

...However, I know what you're talking about. Kind of. I came from a $250,000 per year family that went to $0 per year back in 1997. I have the perspective of upper-middle class, poverty, and working class.

But to be completely honest, no matter what "class" you are, you still get to make friends, go out and do things, and hang around. The only thing more money does is buy nicer things, and keep your refrigerator full 100% of the time, rather than 30% of the time.

That's not saying much...

...However, I know what you're talking about. Kind of. I came from a $250,000 per year family that went to $0 per year back in 1997. I have the perspective of upper-middle class, poverty, and working class.

But to be completely honest, no matter what "class" you are, you still get to make friends, go out and do things, and hang around. The only thing more money does is buy nicer things, and keep your refrigerator full 100% of the time, rather than 30% of the time.

True, but then you factor in health insurance, work environment, and real differences in quality of life. Lower economic class neighborhoods of (practically) permanently disadvantaged people are more likely to have crime, and have a higher dropout rates in schools.

Schools are often funded less, and less people end up going to college. Often those that would be able to go to college have to stay for some reason such as supporting their family, having to live on their own, or some other unexpected reason. Perhaps even irresponsible reasons like pregnancy preventing people from having time to get a college education, reasons which are sometimes accidental (Birth control does not always work, abstinence is unrealistic)

Therefore it becomes a very real difference to be permanently disadvantaged or in the upper middle class.

Not to mention the legal system with all the extensive fees if family members caught up in it.

Everyone should rise and fall on their own merits. Of course I know this is not going to happen, but we should do what we can to make it the norm rather than the exception.Good luck with that.

why does the money concentrate in such a small area? because rich people are greedy.

Lower economic class neighborhoods of (practically) permanently disadvantaged people are more likely to have crime, and have a higher dropout rates in schools.
That sentence is all you're really talking about. Big crime? Unless you get robbed yourself, it doesn't matter. Birth control not working? Can happen to everyone, not just poor people - and I've seen a number of pregnant people working or studying at uni. Health insurance? It's the parents' fault, of course, but aren't there also all sorts of government-financed emergency plans available? I seem to recall there was one on Jim Lehrer's Newshour the other day, financed by a cigarette tax.

The one thing that does make a real and lasting difference is education. Education is of course a two-way street. Even in the best school you won't learn jack if you don't work at it, and even in the worst school you can set yourself on the path to become a genius if you spend the time and effort.

So the fact that schools in poor neighbourhoods are crap is regrettable and needs to be fixed. Why that isn't a bigger issue in the US than terrorism and health insurance, I don't know. The two options are to throw money at the public schools (I don't think that will facilitate a culture change though) or to seriously allow private schools to get in there and establish working voucher systems. A bit of management talent and the possibility for teachers and staff to get serious rewards for seriously good work might just do the trick.

But even more importantly, the kids must be taught the value of education. It can't be uncool or inconvenient to stay at school and get the best grades you possibly can. Social workers can help, but ultimately that task is up to the parents. There simply is nothing the taxpayer can do here, short of taking kids away from their parents (and I did a thread about that a while ago and an overwhelming majority was against it).

why does the money concentrate in such a small area? because rich people are greedy.
Man, I personally know a lot of very greedy people who aren't rich, and I know of a lot of rich people who are giving away one hell of a lot of money to charities, to causes, to political parties and personages....

Money accrues to those who know how to earn it and manage it. I think it was Henry Ford who said something like, "If you took all the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, within a year the wealthy would have it back again because they know how to earn it and manage it.

Originally Posted by Vetalia
I don't care about the divide between rich and poor. What matters to me is that a poor person who puts in the effort to build themselves up is capable of realizing the goals they set for themselves and are not stymied in that pursuit by artificial socioeconomic barriers.

Everyone should rise and fall on their own merits. Of course I know this is not going to happen, but we should do what we can to make it the norm rather than the exception.
For a supposedly prosperous nation, the cost of living is rising astronomically for people to live as well as they could, and the divide is growing which isinterconnected with this. Most of the wealth of the United States and most Western nations is in the hands of a small percentage, also, acceptable but not so much most of the wealth of the world is in the hands of the "Western" nations.

With the rising costs of basic medical care, people going into debt over medicine, and more people in even the middle class trying to get some form of welfare then something is imbalanced more than just a few people falling through the cracks.
Personally, I would list this under the "artificial socioeconomic barriers" Vetalia talks about. I would include predatory business practices in banking and lending under that rubric, as well.

Man, I personally know a lot of very greedy people who aren't rich, and I know of a lot of rich people who are giving away one hell of a lot of money to charities, to causes, to political parties and personages....

Money accrues to those who know how to earn it and manage it. I think it was Henry Ford who said something like, "If you took all the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, within a year the wealthy would have it back again because they know how to earn it and manage it.
So, organized crime groups should be commended for their actions? A lot of money accrues in their hands, so by your reasoning, they MUST have gotten it by "know[ing] how to earn it and manage it."

The supposition that everyone is playing fair, so therefore everyone is just where they should or deserve to be, is patently false. There are countless examples of people not playing fair. The crime example is only the most extreme and obvious I could think of on the spur of the moment.

Another example of a criminal accruing a lot of money would be Ken Lay and the other executives of Enron. Did they "earn" and "manage" their money properly? No, they broke the law and destroyed the fair earnings of thousands of other people in the process of making themselves richer, unfairly.

Personally, I would list this under the "artificial socioeconomic barriers" Vetalia talks about. I would include predatory business practices in banking and lending under that rubric, as well.

In that same vein, it is like the credit cycle. So many people I know sincerely could not afford to pay their student loans or even payments for cheaper reliable cars. I even know someone who had no health insurance so had to charge $4000 and max out all her credit cards for gobladder stone surgery.

Then they end up with bad credit, then get more in the hole, etc.

Man, I personally know a lot of very greedy people who aren't rich, and I know of a lot of rich people who are giving away one hell of a lot of money to charities, to causes, to political parties and personages....

Money accrues to those who know how to earn it and manage it. I think it was Henry Ford who said something like, "If you took all the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, within a year the wealthy would have it back again because they know how to earn it and manage it.

It's a lot easier to earn and manage money when you already have some of it.

In that same vein, it is like the credit cycle. So many people I know sincerely could not afford to pay their student loans or even payments for cheaper reliable cars. I even know someone who had no health insurance so had to charge $4000 and max out all her credit cards for gobladder stone surgery.

Then they end up with bad credit, then get more in the hole, etc.

Yes. The credit industry is rife with predatory practices that exploit the desperation of people teetering on the brink of poverty, practices which have the effect of eventually pushing those people into the poverty they were trying to avoid.

Man, I personally know a lot of very greedy people who aren't rich, and I know of a lot of rich people who are giving away one hell of a lot of money to charities, to causes, to political parties and personages....

Money accrues to those who know how to earn it and manage it. I think it was Henry Ford who said something like, "If you took all the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, within a year the wealthy would have it back again because they know how to earn it and manage it.

That is not necessarily true at all. What about unexpected medical debt, and expenses? What about the fact that you can't repeatedly "try try again" to start a business in this day and age because of new laws, as many entrepreneurs used to do.

A lot of the money of the world is still held in the same 30 families or so. This is something I have even read in financial journals.

Yes. The credit industry is rife with predatory practices that exploit the desperation of people teetering on the brink of poverty, practices which have the effect of eventually pushing those people into the poverty they were trying to avoid.

Not so much, the predatory credit lending industry is reliant on people who are overspending on unnecessary goods and services. Even the poorest people in the industrialized world are generally able to afford food, clothing and housing. It's when they start purchasing the luxuries that they start to dig big holes.

Yes. The credit industry is rife with predatory practices that exploit the desperation of people teetering on the brink of poverty, practices which have the effect of eventually pushing those people into the poverty they were trying to avoid.
There are laws against fraud, so what exactly are "predatory practices"?

Perhaps the separation of people in social classes is natural. Afterall, not everyone is smart, not everyone gets along with each other. Its nice to think that we can fix the world and make everyone equal but maybe, when we try to fix our societies, we just make thing worse for everyone.

There are laws against fraud, so what exactly are "predatory practices"?

lending people money when you know they can't pay it back, charging insane interest rates, trapping them into loans with unclear terms.

have a client who bought a house, got a good deal on it, they thought, $200K house at 4% interest, sounds great! only the lender talked them into taking a second mortgage out to cover the 20% down payment so that they wouldn't have to pay PMI. They think "great!" only now the second mortgage which was an adjustable rate interest only loan.....is killing them, the payment on it is more than the payment on their first mortgage......so what did they do? they borrowed more money to try to cover it. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I am surprised these people think enough to finally ask for help....

I might be able to save their house if they want to sacrifice.....a LOT. They probably won't be willing to though, hence the situation they are already in. The funny thing is, if they had just gotten the first mortgage (awesome deal!) and paid the PMI, they would probably be half done paying for the house by now, instead of $300K in debt and climbing.

Perhaps the separation of people in social classes is natural. Afterall, not everyone is smart, not everyone gets along with each other. Its nice to think that we can fix the world and make everyone equal but maybe, when we try to fix our societies, we just make thing worse for everyone.

The divide is so bad it's unnatural. You have the top 1% making like 23% of the total income in the nation and the bottom 50% make like 17% (sketchy on my numbers....will have to look it up, but that sounds about right)

it's not about fairness, so much as some people are really really getting the short end of the stick. There are things that could be done so that people aren't getting abused and the smart will still rise to the top and the innovative will still be rich, and the missing class (the ones over poverty level but below middle class) won't you know, have to file bankruptcy if their kid gets sick.

Perhaps the separation of people in social classes is natural. Afterall, not everyone is smart, not everyone gets along with each other. Its nice to think that we can fix the world and make everyone equal but maybe, when we try to fix our societies, we just make thing worse for everyone.


Not everyone is smart that is wealthy, not everyone is dumb that is poor. I am not sure I understand that point.

Often the situations that make someone act "loud and ignorant" are the situations that come from growing up poor. Of course there is self-responsibility, but if you are able to see outside the box you can see that sociological environmental influences matter.

I know some very intelligent people who are not wealthy. Often some of the jobs we would like to think that intelligent people fill (teachers) are paid low.

The divide is so bad it's unnatural. You have the top 1% making like 23% of the total income in the nation and the bottom 50% make like 17% (sketchy on my numbers....will have to look it up, but that sounds about right)

it's not about fairness, so much as some people are really really getting the short end of the stick. There are things that could be done so that people aren't getting abused and the smart will still rise to the top and the innovative will still be rich, and the missing class (the ones over poverty level but below middle class) won't you know, have to file bankruptcy if their kid gets sick.

Precisely. We still have very much a Patrician class. The majority of the Senate has high to very high net worth. Everyday joes don't always make it into the Senate or even necessarily Congress, it is all interconnected high society types or those that are willing to mingle with the Patricians.

Not so much, the predatory credit lending industry is reliant on people who are overspending on unnecessary goods and services. Even the poorest people in the industrialized world are generally able to afford food, clothing and housing. It's when they start purchasing the luxuries that they start to dig big holes.

Absolutely correct. In the US credit is a financial rope. Either one can use it wisely and help themselves climb to wealth or they can make a noose out of it and hang themselves.
You can still achieve the American Dream I believe. I don't think it's as dire of a situation as some believe.

Not everyone is smart that is wealthy, not everyone is dumb that is poor. I am not sure I understand that point.

Often the situations that make someone act "loud and ignorant" are the situations that come from growing up poor. Of course there is self-responsibility, but if you are able to see outside the box you can see that sociological environmental influences matter.

I know some very intelligent people who are not wealthy. Often some of the jobs we would like to think that intelligent people fill (teachers) are paid low.

Yeah, I guess I was just trying to say that not everyone fits together. Separation of people by social class and other things like intelligence is natural.

lending people money when you know they can't pay it back, charging insane interest rates, trapping them into loans with unclear terms.
Look, I agree with you that there are good and not so good ways of getting a mortgage, just like there are good houses and bad houses to buy with the money.

Ultimately it's up to the consumer to make the choice. It's "Buyer Beware", and just like if you buy a house that doesn't turn out as great as you thought, unless the salesman misrepresented it to a significant extent, it makes little sense to me to blame the lenders. They're in almost as big trouble as the people who bought their houses.

I think the only problem here is that these days you can have someone sign the mortgage contract and the next day sell it on to someone else. Then it might end up so that it's not XYZ Personal Finance that ends up in trouble, but Bear Stearns. So many small lenders didn't check the creditworthiness of their clients as well as they would have in the past. But then, outlawing securitisations isn't the answer either, because that practice has done a lot of good for the economy too.

I think Marrakech has it right: if you buy something with borrowed money, there is a risk associated with it. It can be worth it or not. But simply accepting whatever terms were offered by the first guy who comes along, believing that house prices could only go up, that's stupid regardless whether that lender is some seedy loan shark or Citibank.

Ultimately it's up to the consumer to make the choice. It's "Buyer Beware", and just like if you buy a house that doesn't turn out as great as you thought, unless the salesman misrepresented it to a significant extent, it makes little sense to me to blame the lenders. They're in almost as big trouble as the people who bought their houses.To a significant extent? How much misrepresentation is acceptable?

Oh well. It is more grammatical than some people's posts.

Well that completely redeems it then.

Frankly, the notion of "class" strikes me as obsolete; it has more connotations than simply wealth, and if one does employ it simply to denote the wealth of a household, it loses much of its genuine significance.

That said, it doesn't concern me greatly. I am all too aware I lack either the financial acumen, or desire, to become genuinely wealthy in the sense of an insurance banker or Branson figure, but, equally, that I am sufficiently able, and qualified to become comfortably upper middle class. Provided I can attain such status, retire early and generally disregard the lower strata of society, I can see no reason why I should rush to vanquish class at all.

Look, I agree with you that there are good and not so good ways of getting a mortgage, just like there are good houses and bad houses to buy with the money.

Ultimately it's up to the consumer to make the choice. It's "Buyer Beware", and just like if you buy a house that doesn't turn out as great as you thought, unless the salesman misrepresented it to a significant extent, it makes little sense to me to blame the lenders. They're in almost as big trouble as the people who bought their houses.

I think the only problem here is that these days you can have someone sign the mortgage contract and the next day sell it on to someone else. Then it might end up so that it's not XYZ Personal Finance that ends up in trouble, but Bear Stearns. So many small lenders didn't check the creditworthiness of their clients as well as they would have in the past. But then, outlawing securitisations isn't the answer either, because that practice has done a lot of good for the economy too.

I think Marrakech has it right: if you buy something with borrowed money, there is a risk associated with it. It can be worth it or not. But simply accepting whatever terms were offered by the first guy who comes along, believing that house prices could only go up, that's stupid regardless whether that lender is some seedy loan shark or Citibank.

how can the buyer beware when they aren't educated on what the dangers are?

Look, I agree with you that there are good and not so good ways of getting a mortgage, just like there are good houses and bad houses to buy with the money.

Ultimately it's up to the consumer to make the choice. It's "Buyer Beware", and just like if you buy a house that doesn't turn out as great as you thought, unless the salesman misrepresented it to a significant extent, it makes little sense to me to blame the lenders. They're in almost as big trouble as the people who bought their houses.
"Buyer beware?" They arn't the ones in the financial industry. The lenders knew the dangers but played the game anyway. They got what they deserved, not the "buyers."

I agree with this discussion, but I hope we discuss more the divide itself and the perceptions between rich or poor rather than the causes.

Bankers and lenders are in the industry to make profit. Banks LOVE overdraft fees and other fees obviously, and credit card companies make a killing off their fees primarily. Lenders love it I think when they can collect money faster than just regular payments.

People are not seeing that fees are the primary way they are making profit now, it is an industry within itself almost? And this leaves poor people out cold, especially when the bank puts things through at different times as Bank of America does, resulting in overdraft fees which BOA always refuses to clear even if someone should have gone through on a Tuesday but it went through on a Thursday.

The practice of putting through "Largest to Smallest", meaning the bank puts through the largest check or charge regardless of the date and then the smaller ones (I don't know if it is within 24 hours or more it seems like), and then charges overcheck fees for every small charge. When they could have did it the opposite way and saved the person hundreds of dollars, or have some program to do it reversed if someone gets in such trouble.

I have friends who are low income have to pay $400 in overdraft fees, and even my past roommate for example and I had seen his checking account and how they did it. They screw you.

This leaves poor people lower, and lower. Even an debt consultant I heard on television recently said the banks, and credit card industry keep poor people poor.

why does the money concentrate in such a small area? because rich people are greedy.

People are greedy. Rich people are lucky on top of that.

The divide is so bad it's unnatural. You have the top 1% making like 23% of the total income in the nation
why does the money concentrate in such a small area? because rich people are greedy.
People are greedy. Rich people are lucky on top of that.
It's worth remembering that a big part of the reason that so much wealth accumulates at the top is that money begets money. As people accumulate more wealth they are able to invest more, to 'grow' their finances more.

It's not just greed, and it's not just luck. The weighting is inevitable.

To a significant extent? How much misrepresentation is acceptable?
That probably depends on the judge on the day. I think the law says that misrepresentation of some really minor terms without any significance probably won't be grounds to void the entire contract. But if it's preplanned and malicious misrepresentation, you might still get damages if you sue, even if the contract itself is still valid. But things like fees, interest rates and so on obviously are essential items, so if people lie about those, the contract wouldn't hold up. This is Australian law though, it might be different in the US.

That doesn't absolve you from the responsibility to search around and actually read the fineprint though.

how can the buyer beware when they aren't educated on what the dangers are?
Well, how can someone who buys a car beware if they know nothing about cars?

There is advice out there, both expensive and not so expensive (doesn't the government have websites and the like too?). But if I buy something, then isn't it up to me to know what I'm looking for? If I wanted to buy a CD but had no idea which one or how a CD works, wouldn't you tell me to find these things out first? And if I couldn't, wouldn't you perhaps recommend to get vinyls instead?

"Buyer beware?" They arn't the ones in the financial industry. The lenders knew the dangers but played the game anyway. They got what they deserved, not the "buyers."
Everyone involved got what they deserved. People who knew nothing about loans shouldn't have gotten loans, no one should have relied entirely on house prices going up indefinitely.

The only ones who got out fairly easy were some of the lenders who managed to sell the loans they sold on for lump sums straight away. But then, their ratings are probably in the negatives by now and no one still buys subprime debt, so they can close shop too.

But just because the stupidity of many people in the finance industry is even less excusable than that of the borrowers doesn't absolve the borrowers from taking responsibility for their own actions. I know it's harsh, and I wouldn't want to get into the situation (my parents just took up a major loan and are starting to build a house), but getting into a situation where people know that they're just gonna get bailed out anyways is just not good policy. And that goes both for the financial industry and for the borrowers themselves.

The only exception is the major banks, just because if they go bankrupt, that rather outweighs the moral hazard costs to the economy.

It's worth remembering that a big part of the reason that so much wealth accumulates at the top is that money begets money. As people accumulate more wealth they are able to invest more, to 'grow' their finances more.

It's not just greed, and it's not just luck. The weighting is inevitable.

Ding. "You gotta spend money to make money." If you don't have the money to spend, too bad, you're a slave to the dollar and you'll work till you drop.:(

Ding. "You gotta spend money to make money." If you don't have the money to spend, too bad, you're a slave to the dollar and you'll work till you drop.:(

Basically.

Only when the government is destroyed will true equality be possible.

I believe that people are examining a single grain of sand, and not seeing the desert that surrounds them. Dubious mortgaging practises and pension holes are symptoms of a cultural malaise where society is sacrificed for advancing the interests of the individual.

I feel that to aim for complete equality in terms of wealth is counter-productive and for all practical purposes, unachievable and well as ultimately undesirable. If there was complete wealth equality, then there would be no incentive to work effectively, and some occupations would be almost impossible to find workers for, except by using coerced or forced labour.

However the self serving culture that currently prevails has led to increased anger and discord in society at large. The fact is, despite the propaganda about a "Middle Class Society" (very popular in the United Kingdom in the late 1990's) that there are more poor than wealthy in any society, no matter how egalitarian it may claim to be. It was ever thus, but resentment and social fragmentation has come about since the unspoken agreements between the elite and the poor broke down.

It is not the wealth divide that causes the friction, but the greed and dishonesty of those who exploit it. As an example of this, examine the public attitudes towards some very rich individuals. People of equal status are regarded very differently, even though both belong to the elite, depending on how they are seen to dedicate themselves to serving society at large.

Provided those in the elite of society (and I use this term to encompass those with power and wealth in society, be it political, corporate, or inherited) use their position responsibly and ethically to ensure that the needs of all people are considered and met though maintaining, extending and paying attention to good social infrastructures, and doing the same with the culture and traditions of that society, then resentment is much less likely to rear it's head and everyone benefits. But when those in the elite are seen to use unethical and/or dishonest means to further enrich their own positions and ignore society and the bulk of the people, then the way is immediately paved for conflict and discontent.

Society is like a building. It's culture and traditions are the bricks that make it what it is, and it's social infrastructure is the mortar that prevents it from falling. But it has to be regularly maintained to stay up, and that is the role of the elite. Like it or not, that's what comes with having the power. If you fail in that, eventually you'll wake up to find your building has collapsed leaving nothing but rubble.

It's worth remembering that a big part of the reason that so much wealth accumulates at the top is that money begets money. As people accumulate more wealth they are able to invest more, to 'grow' their finances more.

It's not just greed, and it's not just luck. The weighting is inevitable.

Of course it's inevitable. I don't want wage equality or to get rid of the rich or any of that nonsense. I think morally we could be doing a better job of helping people. There is a difference between some people not having much and some people having more (which is fine with me) and some people having nothing and being abused, and some people having way more than enough political clout and money to help them.....you know barely survive.

I grew up very poor, it sucked. I lived near poor for a long long long time, also sucks, and in fact sucks more. When I was very poor my family could have gotten assistance had they been smart enough to apply, I could have had electricity, water, food, clothes, etc. When I was near poor, other than churches and really nice old people, there was no help. I lived paycheck to paycheck, and had anything remotely out of the ordinary happened, life would have fallen apart.

I whine now because my car has been broke for a month. However, I am around to whine. Before, if my car would have broken, I wouldn't have been able to go to work, would have lost my job, would have lost my apartment, wouldn't have had food to eat....wouldn't have been able to go to the doctor like I did Friday. Things can go from "we are scraping by" to very bad quickly for a lot of people in this country. There are a lot of things that don't even resemble socialism (TM) that can be done to help it.

Of course it's inevitable. I don't want wage equality or to get rid of the rich or any of that nonsense. I think morally we could be doing a better job of helping people. There is a difference between some people not having much and some people having more (which is fine with me) and some people having nothing and being abused, and some people having way more than enough political clout and money to help them.....you know barely survive.

I grew up very poor, it sucked. I lived near poor for a long long long time, also sucks, and in fact sucks more. When I was very poor my family could have gotten assistance had they been smart enough to apply, I could have had electricity, water, food, clothes, etc. When I was near poor, other than churches and really nice old people, there was no help. I lived paycheck to paycheck, and had anything remotely out of the ordinary happened, life would have fallen apart.

I whine now because my car has been broke for a month. However, I am around to whine. Before, if my car would have broken, I wouldn't have been able to go to work, would have lost my job, would have lost my apartment, wouldn't have had food to eat....wouldn't have been able to go to the doctor like I did Friday. Things can go from "we are scraping by" to very bad quickly for a lot of people in this country. There are a lot of things that don't even resemble socialism (TM) that can be done to help it.

Exactly so many people are just a paycheck away from disaster, with everything falling apart.

I know people with $50,000 an year income having a hard time.

Some people can barely afford $500 a month rent. And yet other people can afford $2,000 purses, or $500 shoes at the drop of a hat.

Man, I personally know a lot of very greedy people who aren't rich, and I know of a lot of rich people who are giving away one hell of a lot of money to charities, to causes, to political parties and personages....

Money accrues to those who know how to earn it and manage it. I think it was Henry Ford who said something like, "If you took all the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, within a year the wealthy would have it back again because they know how to earn it and manage it.
Having the correct technical acumen to exploit other people is not exactly a virtue friend, nor should you confuse doing well with doing good.

The replies on this thread reflect the vastly different views. I think the rich and wealthy have an total sense of entitlement to their wealth regardless of if they just inherited it or got their father's corporation, almost like the sense of divine right Kings had and the entitlement nobles felt.

Despite what people will say it is obvious extreme wealth is passed along extremely wealthy families who maintain majority stock ownership or large stock ownership in the numerous corporations they own stock in.

Here many of us are, peons, being told to sell or be productive to squeeze every ounce of profit so that the majority stockholders can add even more millions and billions to their bank account.

For instance many people working at Wal-Marts, grocery stores, anywhere in the service industry really are expected to follow ridiculous playground workplace rules and yet these stores make often grand profit for the corporation.

They could be truly fair and raise their wages.

Like Steven Tyler sang: Eat the rich, its the only one thing that they're good for ;)

Only when the government is destroyed will true equality be possible.Hahaha. How's not having a government supposed to prevent the strong ruling the weak?

Hahaha. How's not having a government supposed to prevent the strong ruling the weak? Hey, welcome back! How ya been?

Hahaha. How's not having a government supposed to prevent the strong ruling the weak?

Good question however they try like hell in some European countries to stop it.

Hahaha. How's not having a government supposed to prevent the strong ruling the weak?

Because the state is a prime example of the powerful ruling over the masses. I propose we tear down not just the state, but all concentrations of power and hierarchy. And then we all watch each other's backs and stop stop people from trying to build it back up again.

Because the state is a prime example of the powerful ruling over the masses. I propose we tear down not just the state, but all concentrations of power and hierarchy. And then we all watch each other's backs and stop stop people from trying to build it back up again.

Sounds grand however whenever there is a power vacuum there is always someone willing to fill it.

Sounds grand however whenever there is a power vacuum there is always someone willing to fill it.

Yea look at what happened when the Roman Empire fell. We had the Dark Ages, then Religion (The Church) stepped up to the plate to keep what I would call the "international peace" among the civilized countries of the world, by the time Protestantism came around the rise of the Middle Class and Merchants had occurred so you had finally the ultimate power of Money and ecomics dominating society as it was more readily available.

Yea look at what happened when the Roman Empire fell. We had the Dark Ages, then Religion (The Church) stepped up to the plate to keep what I would call the "international peace" among the civilized countries of the world, by the time Protestantism came around the rise of the Middle Class and Merchants had occurred so you had finally the ultimate power of Money and ecomics dominating society as it was more readily available.
Or alternatively: money is a representation of one's material success in life and has therefore always been of absolutely vital importance. It was just that, with some exceptions, previously to the end of the middle ages trading value for value was not seen as a particularly glamourous way of making money. Only with the rise of a philosophy which emphasised the mind (the Enlightenment) did it begin to dawn on people that there is something wrong with forcing others against their will to do something. At the same time, with the rise of global trade routes trading actually became a better way of becoming wealthy than killing one's enemies on the field of battle and looting their homes. So the trader started rising in prestige and wealth until the Industrial Revolution, when technology made all society necessarily revolve around the process of material production and therefore around trade. And today we've come to hold a government that does not get its power from interference in trade as pretty much useless, or so would mainstream thought have us believe.

And economics is seperate from that, it's a science. It doesn't dominate something any more than physics does. Economics only discovers, it doesn't create out of nothing, so if you say that the discipline now dominates society, it means it always has and we just didn't know it.

Of course, none of this is relevant to the question of income or wealth inequality, because there is a fundamental difference between the middle ages acquisition of wealth through force and the modern acquisition of wealth through trade.

Hahaha. How's not having a government supposed to prevent the strong ruling the weak?
Because if an oligarch tries to tell a workplace what to do, then they string him up, people power comrade.

And economics is separate from that, it's a science. It doesn't dominate something any more than physics does. Economics only discovers, it doesn't create out of nothing, so if you say that the discipline now dominates society, it means it always has and we just didn't know it.
Of course, none of this is relevant to the question of income or wealth inequality, because there is a fundamental difference between the middle ages acquisition of wealth through force and the modern acquisition of wealth through trade.

I was thinking more in terms of "modern economics" dominates society if that makes sense.

Even though the method of acquiring wealth, and therefore power has changed it is still in the hands of an limited number. This limited number is not necessarily more intelligent or excellent. They may just be good at numbers, well-connected, and persuasive. I think it is pretty hard to justify for example the outrageous CEO compensation that has been coming up today, and the Golden Parachute.

The issue with income inequality for me is not though the value that is placed on certain jobs. It is the overall wealth of the corporation, or the nation and how it is distributed. The wealthy and powerful are keeping it in their hands. How many workers cooperatives do you see?

My point for example is I know people in retail who have worked for a company 10 years and still do not make over $11 an hour because the company has an hidden policy to intentionally keep evaluating at an score just below what is needed for a raise. This happens all the time.

I was thinking more in terms of "modern economics" dominates society if that makes sense.
Well, you may have to be more specific than that. I'm almost finished with my economics degree, so if you have an idea what precisely it is you think dominates, out with it. :)

This limited number is not necessarily more intelligent or excellent. They may just be good at numbers, well-connected, and persuasive.
Maybe. But whether or not they are intelligent, if they get paid money it must be because they are providing some value in return. I can't justify a Golden Parachute any more than I can justify someone paying millions for a picture some Dutchman drew 200 years ago or someone spending $100 every weekend on partying, but I don't have to. It's not my money, it's really none of my business.

I think it is pretty hard to justify for example the outrageous CEO compensation that has been coming up today, and the Golden Parachute.
Generally it's justified simply because the decisions a CEO has to make are so big that they really are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. You want to attract the best and you need to pay them some return for the value they create for the company.

Is that system working right now? I'm not so sure. But then, that's not something a government can really fix, that is a problem for the owners of the company to sort out.

The issue with income inequality for me is not though the value that is placed on certain jobs. It is the overall wealth of the corporation, or the nation and how it is distributed. The wealthy and powerful are keeping it in their hands.
If you do the statistics, sometimes it will turn out that way. Often it will not (the Lorentz Curve for the entire globe has been getting a lot better since the 80s, for example).

But that's statistics, and they have their limits. Just because there is a so-and-so level of wealth inequality in Place X doesn't tell you anything about how your life will turn out. As long as you are willing to work and have access to the tools you need (read: education) there is no rule to stop you from being rich yourself. You've just got to "think big", and that's something that generations of poverty can squeeze out of people like nothing else. I think life coaching (the real deal, not some crazy man with a microphone and a powerpoint presentation) is the answer and will provide better results than any amount of welfare money can in actually solving the problem for the long term.

How many workers cooperatives do you see?
There are a few of them out there. It's just that they're often run with more hearts than brains, and the supply of brains with a big enough hearts is limited.

My point for example is I know people in retail who have worked for a company 10 years and still do not make over $11 an hour because the company has an hidden policy to intentionally keep evaluating at an score just below what is needed for a raise. This happens all the time.
If this can be proven, you can probably take it to court.

Well, you may have to be more specific than that. I'm almost finished with my economics degree, so if you have an idea what precisely it is you think dominates, out with it. :)

I suppose from Manorialism and barter to what we have now. Medieval Economy to now would have been better worded. Though medieval economy was generally Manoralism. Economics is the field of study, point taken. I thought I have seen it used in that way before. Like "American Economics."


Generally it's justified simply because the decisions a CEO has to make are so big that they really are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. You want to attract the best and you need to pay them some return for the value they create for the company.

According to the reports, and the news it is not often justified as of late. CEOs that even had a poor track record still get outrageous "Golden Parachutes."

I personally know a CEO of a small company, but it is small enough that he has to do a lot of the work hands on. CEOs of huge corporations are not much different than University Presidents I cannot imagine.

I think what characterizes a CEO is their good negotiators, persuasive, and talk a good game. Why should the CEO be compensated far beyond the CFO for example? Who is more important to you?


As long as you are willing to work and have access to the tools you need (read: education) there is no rule to stop you from being rich yourself. You've just got to "think big", and that's something that generations of poverty can squeeze out of people like nothing else. I think life coaching (the real deal, not some crazy man with a microphone and a powerpoint presentation) is the answer and will provide better results than any amount of welfare money can in actually solving the problem for the long term.

I agree somewhat, but not always. Working for a corporation you learn that advancement can often be based on who you know and office politics at a certain point. There are plenty of times I think where more qualified candidates get passed over. I agree with the debate that degree does not always equal ability as well. I know someone who worked for a company for 15 years, only to have someone with less experience but the better degree promoted over them. They had to train this person who was just promoted over them.

There are people willing to work, and with the education that are not wealthy. I do not believe that it is always so easy for lower class persons to pull themselves up.

If this can be proven, you can probably take it to court.

It happens all the time. There are also favoritism promotions all the time even in major chains. If people could win in court for things like this I think there would be hundreds of lawsuits from employees. It is easy for the managers of the store to deny this, they could simply say "Well that is just the evaluation from our point of view."