Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 245 posts

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#201

Post by AstralStorm »

pahkah wrote: post #160
p49k wrote: post #8

Rebuttal from Slate: https://slate.com/business/2018/05/forget-the-atlantics-9-9-...

Thanks for the link! I don't think the rebuttal makes a fair characterization of Stewart's article. Slate's argument comes down to "Stewart is taking his eyes off the prize, asking us to focus on the 9.9% when the 1% are really the problem" but I didn't interpret the Atlantic piece as implying that those at the very top are innocent in all this. It was more saying that the upper class (9.9%) have been complicit as th…

Asking is totally not constructive. What is his plan?

Without that the piece is worthless blame shifting. Calls to action are pointless when no action is suggested.

Or is he asking us to figure it out? That worked well so far... /s

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#202

Post by AstralStorm »

weberc2 wrote: post #83
AstralStorm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without price there are other mechanisms - accumulation of rich in specific places by word of mouth alone... where the influence and money is accumulated and applied. We see this even in primary education even in Europe, even in non-private schools. Then there are extracurriculars which take money amd time... A typical person out of place won't be able to keep up.

This is an interesting observation. Basically freedom of association, like many freedoms, is working against equality. I'm nowhere near the 9.9 percent, but it unnerves me to think about restricting someone's basic freedoms even if it benefits me. Also it strikes me as odd that we focus on relative wealth fluctuations. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the number of people who can't afford basic necessities? If th…

Correct. This is doable but the pushback is likely to be immense.

Not to mention such a programme is quite expensive and you will have to forcibly appropriate wealth in some forms. And probably introduce major savings too.

UBI potentially would work on this, the question remains if you'd buy of masses politically that way. That could be the end of republic as is known.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#203

Post by skookumchuck »

anbende wrote: post #2

Some of the points about privilege might be accurate, but breaking economic status in to .1%, 9.9%, and 90% is arbitrary and misleading. The author tries to make the point that “the 9.9%” have the majority of the wealth and this issue is as big or bigger than the concentration of wealth at the very top. The problem is that this is largely an artifact of the division system. The distribution is highly skewed, and the…

> holds 40% of US wealth

The government holds most of the wealth.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#204

Post by chii »

doktrin wrote: post #171
reggieband wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author did make the argument that revolutions that start from the middle are usually less violent and chaotic. I don't have the relevant education to know if that is true but I do know that I'd rather lead a revolution than be the victim of it. To be fair to the author, that is his ultimate point. It feels to me that the idea of sacrifice has become a secular heresy. Humility as well. If the middle class has any…

> If the middle class has any hope of allying with the lower class then those two traits will have to ascend from ashes. The real questions is: are we too far gone and is it too late? I'd honestly ask a slightly different question : how much longer will the lower and middle classes pose a realistic threat to the elites? To date, economic and social elites have always been at the theoretical mercy of the masses simply…

> small minority could feasibly defend themselves both physically and politically against the rest of society

Look no further than China. They've already instituted a social credit system to control the masses' political discourse, and to prevent dissidents from gathering together and to have neutral groups turn against them for fear of reprimands.

The future does not look good for the poor, and unlike yester-century, theres enough surveylance technology and automation to snuff any rebel group before critical mass.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#205

Post by AstralStorm »

mozumder wrote: post #199
jadedhacker wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's undeniable that the rich create luxury goods that are often aesthetically pleasing, but they are items that are enjoyed almost exclusively by the rich. At most, the average person might observe one of these on the street. Publicly funded art would create accessible beautiful things, not merely inaccessible toys you can dream about but never have. EDIT: I kind of feel like this argument is like, well if w…

The art created by the rich isn't exclusively for the rich. They create art galleries and museums, as well as parks and festivals and sports and science centers and Keck telescopes and universities and other great things. You could say the public could do those, but now you have to deal with creation by a public committee, which may water down more cutting edge ideas due to the effects of populism. A billionaire can…

Why is it impossible? We do that all the time in countries that are not USA. Sometimes it is even successful. This all depends on how budget is allocated.

The main drawback is currently that people do not vote directly on budget allocation and representatives have vested interests more often than not. (Except perhaps in Switzerland.) We could change it, but transitioning such a system would be hard and there's always excuses of "strategy" involved.

As to art itself.. Governments also sponsor some forms of art. (Sometimes this gets corrupted or politicised.)

Heck, there are private foundations too which do not have a single or small number of rich patrons.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#206

Post by AstralStorm »

imbokodo wrote: post #52
mozumder wrote: post #12

Class differentiation is the central meaning of life. The struggle is the point. You get up and wear nice clothes in the morning so that you're better than the slob that doesn't. Nobody wants to be the same as everyone else. If everyone was equal, then there would be no point in your existence. You become a bag of mostly water. Celebrate the fact that a few billionaires and royalty and celebrities exists. Life is mor…

The top is predicated on the existence of the bottom. I watched some of the royal wedding the other day, that family has not worked in living memory, or perhaps even historical memory. Heirs live in luxury without need of work because what used to be called the reserve army of labor is used as a bulwark against those working, which in cause generates those profits. Wealth created by those who work, expropriated by he…

Until they automate the bottom away which means the "reserve" is vastly reduced and can be invited. Essentially making the hierarchy much flatter.

Some rich heirs still prefer to work.

The question is, what happens to the bottom when it gets automated away...

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#207

Post by AstralStorm »

seibelj wrote: post #130
Latteland wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In US, each school district receives money proportional to their students, with some places raising money via levys or bonds in their district. It takes a long time to make new schools. If people could go to any school, you'd overwhelm some districts with tons of students and you can't just make a new school in a year or two, it takes a lot of time for the district to figure out they'll need one long term, raise the…

OK, so build low-income housing in rich districts (unless you are saying the presence of poor kids destroys the good school) and stop using zoning to limit what kinds of residences can be built (lot-size, multi-family, building height, etc.). In the suburb of Saint Louis where my wife grew up, each lot had to be at least 1 acre, and had to be single-family. Given how expensive it was to live there, realistically the…

Rich can and will move. You would need exorbitant force to keep them.

What is your proposed means of oppression to not make them move?

Next, even if housing is mixed, rich can pool resources and start smaller scale private schooling. Results in Japanese model.

You will have to prevent it by force as well.

It doesn't take much to outdo people who are preoccupied trying to make ends meet and being distracted with better education amd more attention.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#208

Post by ElevenLathe »

FrozenVoid wrote: post #194
CamTin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not accounting for people's home equity when determining their wealth is one of the most bonkers bougie things I've ever heard. Should we not count their 401k savings either, because "if X took the early withdrawal penalty" isn't fair either? If you're rich, you're rich. It makes no difference if that wealth is tied up in illiquid assets. If the precarity if your financial situation is based on the fact that you're w…

>If you're rich, you're rich. I'm not even middle class, i don't own a house or a car. I just see that people easily overgeneralize the well-off 30 million upper-middle class with truly rich people who have entirely different lifestyle. Believing the there is 32million strong aristocracy is delusional, all these SJW privilege Olympics make your kind seem insane and full of envy. You want to lump middle-class people w…

Well that escalated quickly. I'm not saying "people with adequate, diversified retirement savings are evil capitalists." I'm just saying that "We shouldn't count the value of people's houses when determining how wealthy they are." is absurd. Clearly it should count. They own it.

It's not a political stance, just a pro-accuracy one.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#209

Post by weberc2 »

AstralStorm wrote: post #202
weberc2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting observation. Basically freedom of association, like many freedoms, is working against equality. I'm nowhere near the 9.9 percent, but it unnerves me to think about restricting someone's basic freedoms even if it benefits me. Also it strikes me as odd that we focus on relative wealth fluctuations. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the number of people who can't afford basic necessities? If th…

Correct. This is doable but the pushback is likely to be immense. Not to mention such a programme is quite expensive and you will have to forcibly appropriate wealth in some forms. And probably introduce major savings too. UBI potentially would work on this, the question remains if you'd buy of masses politically that way. That could be the end of republic as is known.

I’m not even advocating for any program in particular; just curious why we are laser focused on relative wealth metrics when absolute metrics seem more significant.

Re: The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

#210

Post by FrozenVoid »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #208
FrozenVoid wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're rich, you're rich. I'm not even middle class, i don't own a house or a car. I just see that people easily overgeneralize the well-off 30 million upper-middle class with truly rich people who have entirely different lifestyle. Believing the there is 32million strong aristocracy is delusional, all these SJW privilege Olympics make your kind seem insane and full of envy. You want to lump middle-class people w…

Well that escalated quickly. I'm not saying "people with adequate, diversified retirement savings are evil capitalists." I'm just saying that "We shouldn't count the value of people's houses when determining how wealthy they are." is absurd. Clearly it should count. They own it. It's not a political stance, just a pro-accuracy one.

The problem with it these people will not sell their houses. Its not a liquid capital. Selling their only house would be something like once-in-lifetime decision.

What i'm saying, and you're failing to understand is that a if citizen A has a million dollar house and 10K in savings but his income is very low, he is actually much much poorer than citizen B who has 1.01million in cash, 80K salary and rents an apartment.

>"Pro-accuracy" Its clearly obvious B has more economic impact, but with networth they seem as identical.

Post reply on HN