Live data from Hacker News

Who rules America

sociology.ucsc.edu

31–34 of 34 posts

Re: Who rules America

#31
post #28
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People write these findings as if they're surprising. It's not. Before reading this article, did you know that CEO pay has grown twice as fast as the S&P 500, three times as fast as corporate profits, and sixty-nine times as fast as production workers? And that the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has not grown at all and has in fact lost ground? Yes, it's true that good companies make everyone wealthier in abso…

Why should you or I care how fast a company is increasing the pay of their CEO? That's an issue for their shareholders. If I'm not a shareholder I don't care, it's not my money.

If I was in the business of selling luxury yachts or real estate in exclusive neighborhoods, I'd definitely prefer a smaller number of wealthier individuals.

Re: Who rules America

#32

People write these findings as if they're surprising. It's not. Take Google, for instance: -The founders, early hires, and investors made a lot. This is their top 1% accounting for 35% of the wealth -The rest of the employees made not as much, but still quite a lot. This is the next 19% holding 50%. Then there's people who didn't have anything to do with building Google, who own none of Google. That's the other 80% o…

Are you seriously maintaining that someone who inherits $10M and lives off the interest is contributing more to America than someone who works for Habitat for Humanity for $35K a year? It's much more logical to suggest that the American system allowed the top 1 % to accumulate much more wealth than they would have amassed by their wits alone, and consequently owe a disproportionate share back to society.

Someone who inherits 10M and has no skills in investing the money will lose it soon anyways. If you look at the fortune 400, most people who got there did it because of their personal skills. (Except for the Walmart family) It is not the American system but personal ingenuity that allows people to accumulate wealth.

It would be interesting to look at the wealth distribution of more socialist oriented countries and their GDP to see which system is more effective.

On the other topic, starting a successful corporation could generate thousands of jobs and while one charity worker's cause is noble, a very wealthy person's charity donation per year would exceed the value provided by any single person.

Re: Who rules America

#33
post #29
post #20

One thing that's missing, particularly in the tax cuts for the rich debate, is the difference in actual tax rates for us middle class and the rich. From my pay check withholding (single) I'm paying about 30%, plus my employer is paying another another 7.6% for SS, plus sales tax and my taxes are pushing north of 35%. The rich on the other hand pay mostly capital gains which maxes out at 15%. Throw in deductions for t…

It's not their fault you chose to depend on earned income for your livelihood. Judging from your comment, you're obviously aware that they were smart enough to earn their livelihood from portfolio and passive income so instead of punishing them for that, why don't you do the same thing?

Obviously, a passive income doesn't just depend on "smarts", it also requires initial assets and cultural capital that are generally inherited from the previous generation.

Re: Who rules America

#34

People write these findings as if they're surprising. It's not. Take Google, for instance: -The founders, early hires, and investors made a lot. This is their top 1% accounting for 35% of the wealth -The rest of the employees made not as much, but still quite a lot. This is the next 19% holding 50%. Then there's people who didn't have anything to do with building Google, who own none of Google. That's the other 80% o…

The nytimes wrote an interesting article on this a while back titled "How We Value The Super-Rich." It suggests that Americans don't have a general resentment towards the wealthy, but rather a resentment toward rich people who aren't perceived as generated wealth.

A couple of quotes:

"The super-rich of high-tech, on the other hand, create tangible things that make our lives easier, and this we can respect. Steve Jobs gave us the ubiquitous iPod. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the roller-blading Google guys, devised a better way to search the Internet. Jeff Bezos gave people a way to shop in their pajamas. Bill Gates makes the desktop software on the computers most people use every day."

"In contrast, the public seems to resent the big boys of Wall Street because they do not appear to have invented anything -- unless you count ingenious ways to make more money. Option derivatives are as inexplicable to the general public as particle physics. Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers, Alan Schwartz of Bear Stearns and Robert Willumstad of AIG might have tremendous records of innovation. If they do, none of us were told."

I actually think that much of the supposed American resentment toward the "rich" is anger with wall street. I have a feeling that some wall street PR will attempt to use this ambiguity, attempting to equate anger toward bailed out banks with a general hostility toward capitalism, investing, rich people in other sectors of the economy such as high tech, etc....

I also think that it would be foolish for "the left" (am I allowed to say that?) to play right into this by acting too alarmed about wealthy people who clearly have created great wealth.

Post reply on HN