The 9.9% - The New American Aristocracy - Atlantic Article

[beowulf]

I don’t buy the “just because you’re white” theory. Having grown up in NYC (the Bronx - not a ritzy Manhattan neighborhood), I attended public schools to include college. Our neighborhood was a smorgasbord of every race, religion and trade imaginable. Probably over 90% of this who worked were blue collar, though there were a lot of stay at home moms. Most of my childhood friends, black, white and Asian, didn’t go to college. It wasn’t that they weren’t smart enough (well, maybe some weren’t), it was more a lack of interest after 12 years of school and the abundance of well paying (for the time) blue collar jobs. City University was free, and I want to grad school on the GI bill. Anyone in NYC and who served could do that. My grandparents were immigrants in the early 1900s. They came here with nothing. The inference that I, or others like me, somehow gained our current status due to the actions of prejudice by white people in the 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries is ludicrous. It’s akin to blaming all Catholics for the actions of the crusaders. Or Muslim slave traders, many, if not most of whom were black.

 

[RobbieB]

No, just because you're white isn't everything, but it sure helps.

 

[Gumby]

I don’t buy the “just because you’re white” theory.

BOTH of these statements are true:

1. To make my way from the lower 5% to the upper 5% over the course of my life has required substantial talent, hard work, perseverance, a willingness to do what others won't, prudent risk taking, personal deprivation and a certain amount of luck.

2. My path would have been more difficult if I had not been born white, male and healthy.


Pointing out the societal obstacles some people have faced and continue to face in this country does not denigrate your (or my) own efforts. There is no need to feel offended.

 

[beowulf]

I’m not offended - I don’t like when people blame their situation (whatever it is) on generic “other people.” Who in this case happen to be white.

 

[Amethyst]

After this discussion, I'm thinking about starting a thread on the trend (or "fad") of people blaming other generations of people for their current troubles. I find the topic timely and provocative. I'm just worried it will end up shut down after two posts. Disclosure, I'm primarily interested in how the late 1970's came to be perceived as a time of economic halcyon, when I recall that decade as a complete economic train wreck. It seems like history is being rewritten on social media.

 

[JoeWras]

Our government should go after the 0.00001% of lottery winners who take from the 99.99999% who lose the lottery, many of whom can least afford to buy tickets.

Oh wait. The lottery is government sanctioned. Never mind.

 

[MichaelB]

I find the most interesting threads are those where members discuss the obstacles they personally faced and overcame, and the challenges of making choices. Discussions about what others say too often turn into straw man arguments full of stereotypes that have little value for us.

 

[samclem]

2. My path would have been more difficult if I had not been born white, male and healthy.


Pointing out the societal obstacles some people have faced and continue to face in this country does not denigrate your (or my) own efforts. There is no need to feel offended.

It would be interesting to see recent stats/studies that separate the effects of race, poverty, and other other aspects of the household environment (one parent or two? Education level of parents? etc ) with regard to social mobility of children. I believe too often we use "non-white" as shorthand for "poor," and this obscures some important distinctions.

 

[Amethyst]

Isn't the main reason some get offended by these discussions, the lurking fear of emboldening Someone to take from them and give to others?

 

[samclem]

Isn't the main reason some get offended by these discussions, the lurking fear of emboldening Someone to take from them and give to others?

It's hard to know. I know I get offended when I'm accused of something I didn't do. If someone accused me of taking something from someone else, that would offend me.

 

[Cut-Throat]

It's hard to know. I know I get offended when I'm accused of something I didn't do. If someone accused me of taking something from someone else, that would offend me.

This article is not directed at any one person. It only describes the way society in the U.S. is currently running. The author is merely saying that if you defend the way things are currently operating and cannot see that the deck is stacked, you may be part of the problem. And if you fail to see that there is a problem, you are definitely part of the problem.

 

[Amethyst]

But he doesn't say how to solve the problem. That kind of article annoys me, because guilt trips in general annoy me. They strike me as the author trying to come off as superior.

 

[MichaelB]

But he doesn't say how to solve the problem. That kind of article annoys me, because guilt trips in general annoy me. They strike me as the author trying to come off as superior.

Reporters and media don’t solve problems, they draw attention to them. It’s up to us to acknowledge, understand, accept, and if we agree, remedy.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Reporters and media don’t solve problems, they draw attention to them. It’s up to us to acknowledge, understand, accept, and if we agree, remedy.

+1

 

[6miths]

Reporters and media don’t solve problems, they draw attention to them. It’s up to us to acknowledge, understand, accept, and if we agree, remedy.

+2

 

[marko]

This article is not directed at any one person. It only describes the way society in the U.S. is currently running. The author is merely saying that if you defend the way things are currently operating and cannot see that the deck is stacked, you may be part of the problem. And if you fail to see that there is a problem, you are definitely part of the problem.

I don't deny there is a problem. But I see it as the same problem that has existed for the past 2000+ years.

What I don't see are the consequences. "Fix the problem or...." Or what?

I can't do anything about the fact that I was born white, wealthy and to privilege. Giving all my assets away to the poor isn't going to solve anything.

So I may be part of the problem but I don't see any answers, only complaints and reminders that people like me are the problem.

Back in 1968 a pretty little hippie girl told me "Come the revolution, you'll be sorry". That was a half century ago...still waiting. I hope she still isn't. (Actually, last I heard she married a hedge fund guy and was living in the Hamptons)

 

[GrayHare]

Reporters and media don’t solve problems, they draw attention to them. It’s up to us to acknowledge, understand, accept, and if we agree, remedy.

This topic has already had much attention drawn to it subsequent to the 2009-2010 economic downturn. Complaints are easy, solutions not so much. The writer of that article seems quite intelligent, I'd like to know what solutions he sees.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Understanding issues like income equality can help you to be a more informed voter as well as provide direction on your charitable contributions and volunteer work. There certainly are solutions. One that went viral was by a Dutch historian at Davos.

 

[6miths]

There certainly are possible solutions. Some jurisdictions have successfully applied them.

 

[RAE]

I think the data show something different:

I couldn't find a chart that goes back to 1 A.D. but I bet that looked a lot worse than it does today. C'mon folks, stop trying to find a nail to hit with your hammer.

I don't see where the data shows anything different than what I said. From your graph, the top 1% control about 33% of the wealth in the USA. You might be okay with that, but I see a big problem that is getting worse. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is really the top 0.1% that have really seen huge gains in wealth since the 70s/80s.

 

[CardsFan]

Understanding issues like income equality can help you to be a more informed voter as well as provide direction on your charitable contributions and volunteer work. There certainly are solutions. One that went viral was by a Dutch historian at Davos.

Did he advocate confiscating all those valuable tulip bulbs from 1637?

In all seriousness, if it was a serious proposal a link would be helpful.

Never mind, I googled it. The solution is to tax the rich. What a novel idea.

"As a historian, Bregman noted the most successful period for capitalism occurred in the years after the second world war, when the top rate of tax in the US was above 90%."

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...orum-davos-speech-tax-billionaires-capitalism

 

[RobLJ]

Actually, the government HAS "intervened" by continually lowering corporate and high income taxes, raising college costs and intervening to mandate pay of drug/health care prices 2-10x paid in other countries.

You could argue that taxes were too high in the Eisenhower years that everyone 75 years old now swoons about. But if government intervention is the issue, it is fair to ask everyone to look at the government interventions that have virtually mandated the movement of ownership of profits to the top 1% and corporations rather than to labor, over the last 50 years.

This has been a conscious, political effort of intervention in the economy. And at some point--I have no idea when--it will reach the severing point, just as it did in the late 20's when the top 5% had equivalent ownership of the whole USeconomy.

Or it won't--I can't predict whether history will repeat or rhyme.

I guess it is fair to ask the opposite question. How much should the top say 10% “be allowed” to own? We are always hearing stats and had bad they are, but what should they be? Are we looking for government intervention until everyone has the same wealth? Until I hear the end goal, I worry about that too.

 

[RobLJ]

I graduated from college in the late 70's with a grand total of 3300 in loans (at a guaranteed rate of 3% interest); my parents did not pay (they were paying for my older sister). That's an example of "intervention" for the non-interventionists.
I'm not sure this is possible now.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Did he advocate confiscating all those valuable tulip bulbs from 1637?

In all seriousness, if it was a serious proposal a link would be helpful.

Never mind, I googled it. The solution is to tax the rich. What a novel idea.

"As a historian, Bregman noted the most successful period for capitalism occurred in the years after the second world war, when the top rate of tax in the US was above 90%."

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...orum-davos-speech-tax-billionaires-capitalism

I didn't know if a link would get into the political territory, and this has been a thoughtful and respectful thread for the most part so I didn't want to get too political. But since you put the link up I'll add this one - people in the U.S. are happiest in states that spend money on public amenities that all can appreciate, like nice parks and good roads - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190107075713.htm

And many of the happiest countries tend to to be those that are highly taxed.

 

[Popeye]

Actually, the government HAS "intervened" by continually lowering corporate and high income taxes, raising college costs and intervening to mandate pay of drug/health care prices 2-10x paid in other countries.

You could argue that taxes were too high in the Eisenhower years that everyone 75 years old now swoons about. But if government intervention is the issue, it is fair to ask everyone to look at the government interventions that have virtually mandated the movement of ownership of profits to the top 1% and corporations rather than to labor, over the last 50 years.

This has been a conscious, political effort of intervention in the economy. And at some point--I have no idea when--it will reach the severing point, just as it did in the late 20's when the top 5% had equivalent ownership of the whole USeconomy.

Or it won't--I can't predict whether history will repeat or rhyme.

Hasn’t the government also lowered middle and low income taxes? Don’t much of the corporate income taxes really get passed through to the people? We pay all the taxes eventually. I am not sure about government raising college costs as the largest gains are in private institutions if I remember correctly. Although, the government does enable to massive cost increases through the loan programs it guarantees. I wish they would look into the university world for costs as deeply as it does in others areas of life. I don’t follow the comment on government mandating paying more for healthcare. The only things I can think of are barring Medicare from negotiating drug prices (which I will agree is stupid) and the government mandating certain coverages whether you want them or not.

We keep hearing about the 90% tax level in the 50’s. Was anyone really paying that? The best figure I’ve seen stated a reduction in actual taxes paid of about 6 percentage points. For sure, that’s a nice reduction but it reveals the 90% as a myth. I just don’t accept the premise that government forced the movement of wealth. If you took the sum total of the taxes cut and added that to the wealth of the lower 90% or 99%, how much would the gap shrink? That might be interesting to discover. I can’t imagine any tax policy that would dent this gap in wealth.

I still have trouble when they tell me something is a problem, they can’t tell me how they’d fix it, or even what a fix would look like, or what we would measure to know we were seeing progress or success. The folks throwing this whole ideology at us must have some idea of how much the top 1 or 10% should own in their ideal scenario. Either they do and don’t want to reveal their hand, or they have no idea and just like to use the issue. But that is my admitted bias against those political types.

I too worry about what will eventually happen. So much discord and discontent is being sown for political reasons these days and that genie is not going back into the bottle. Someone earlier referenced times and places when the people had enough and shattered the system. A closer look showed that those were periods of anarchy that were usually followed by a totalitarian regime. (Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, etc.