The 99% Is a Myth-Here's How It Really Breaks Down
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2024
- When it comes to the division of wealth, many Americans believe that the country is split between the 1%, which possesses a significant share of the country’s money, and the 99%, or “the people.” In reality, The Atlantic writer Matthew Stewart argues, 9.9% of the population comprises America’s new aristocracy, which often “takes wealth out of productive activities and invests it in walls.” But this group of people is rich in more than mere money, and its constancy poses an insidious threat to the promise of American democracy.
Read Stewart's article on The Atlantic: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
Subscribe to The Atlantic on TH-cam: bit.ly/subAtlanticYT - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![หาทำ EP.41 : ผัดวุ้นเส้นที่รักกับนายกล้วยหอม “หลิง-ออม” [Eng Sub] | จือปาก](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r2jrLOQRthI/mqdefault.jpg)
"Not everyone.... Only the bottom 90%" lmao!
The founding fathers actually tried to build a country which cemented control in 'responsible men', i.e. wealthy landholders, which is why senate positions were appointed early-on.
Also, slave owners.
Absolutely. They referred to people like us as 'the rabble', whom they feared even more than The British.
@@christinearmington
Hi, this is a long comment because it's s bit of a brain dump and it's cool if you don't want to read it. And forgive me if this goes a bit all over the place. I just wanted to share that I think it is good if we can look at the language that exists around slavery.
Especially the terms, slave, owner and master.
This is not an attack on anyone who uses those terms, it's more that they don't describe the truth of the crime of slavery.
There were slavers, rather than owners or masters.
The slavers who faced revolt or escapes were shown that despite the written, spoken and enacted lie that they were owners, and despite all their claims, they were in truth nothing of the sort.
They were just slavers and that describes the crime for what it is.
And the people who were enslaved, were not slaves. They were never and could never be slaves. They were enslaved.
It was a condition that they went through rather than being who or what they were. They were forced, coerced or convinced into the condition of slavery but could never really be owned by another.
Because an individual's free will can be suppressed or countered but remains one's own even if beaten into submission. It remains one's own. And that freedom of will, of expression and of self determination even if seemingly snuffed out, always has the potential to be rekindled.
I only mention this to encourage us to see through the terms that got introduced into common usage by the people who committed and partook of the crime. And so that we can fully remember them as criminals and those who suffered that crime as the real, full beings that they were.
I don't believe that someone who uses the terms master, slave or owner are necessarily excusing the crime of the one or dismissing the humanity of the other.
I just notice that when something is unpalatable and ugly, that the language used is more likely to be untrue. We see this in modern times with terms such as 'pre-emptive strike' or 'collatoral damage' which are used instead of unprovoked attack and killing civilians.
Language can mask just as much as it can reveal, maybe more than it can reveal even.
And all of this works subliminally. The language that we use is powerful but only on our own minds. This is where the real 'spell casting' happens. Cast as in to throw and cast as in to shape, using spelling.
Back on the subject of slavery, the slavers might have insisted on being called master, and the use of, or threat of violence, as well as possible Stockholm Syndrome might have had a part in them getting their way in this regard, in many cases.
But just because the slaver and the enslaved might say it, doesn't make make it so.
Master, owner and slave are terms which favoured the perpetrator and that's to be expected. Cognitive dissonance could even have something to do with that, after all it's not common try to paint ourselves in a negative light to our peers or to those those who might remember us or our deeds.
We hear of the trans atlantic slave trade which keeps it as a transaction of objects but nearly never hear the term slaver used in relation to it. The criminal is excused of the crime by being labeled with the term which they conferred upon themselves, again not excused deliberately by us maybe, but in a way they get let off the hook by still having a say in how they are referred to even from beyond the grave. I say let's reject their terms.
In the same way the victim of the crime is remembered by the term slave which suggests it was not a crime at all because that's 'what they were'.
It's what's built in to these words that were only imagined into existence.
And that's because the ones committing the crime were the ones writing the rules and setting the 'terms and conditions'.
Rules change, conditions change and terms used or agreed to change.
And when we look back in history we might say, for example that a person was a murderer through the lens of our hindsight, even if at that time there was no such term and even if there wasn't a codified law for it at that time.
Same thing applies. Call a slaver a slaver.
While I don't expect the language around slavery to change anytime soon, I have changed my language around it and I would encourage others to do likewise.
But we are free to choose. And that itself is a beautiful thing, even if we don't always make the best choices for ourselves or others at any particular time. It is beautiful because the choice to do our best is always open to us.
I wrote this out for mostly for myself I think, to get these thoughts written down somewhere that they may be read. And if it has even a tiny positive impact for anyone else cool. But it primarily was good for me to get off my chest. So thank you for your comment which allowed me to do that.
And for your time, dear reader, if you stayed through this wandering ramble.
Peace, good will, freedom, equality, love, equanimity, joy.
Maybe they meant the ones that pay more than fair share to support civic structure. Now you have the cannibals wanting to tear the republic down.
@@christinearmington Well the southerners often, but that was actually untrue for most of even the wealthy populous.
Friendly reminder that rectifying wealth inequality through progressive taxation, unions, and government public investments is not communism
Friendly reminder. It is
k z a actual communist here. No, it is not.
another real commie here and completely true in real communism we do not redistribute part of the wealth that the bourgeoisie has exploited from the workers through taxes we prevent that exploitation from happening in the first place by ending the private property of the means of production
There is no such thing as "wealth inequality."
David Lafleche, other things that do not exist: Rabbits, Caviar, Datsuns, the planet Neptune. When will people wake up?
inequality is running rampant in america, as it has for all of human history. glad we finally settled that it's the doctor's fault.
@BananaPeal0 Entrepreneurs are solving the problem but BUREAUCRATS are making it hard.
That video was nothing but platitudes and fancy words that said nothing. What income levels are classified at what classes? What policies specifically are causing inequality?
Hint: In the US, no one is working class. If you make $20k a year or $500k a year, everyone thinks they're middle class. It's a joke and a lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend we aren't victims or perpetrators.
Real classifications would be: if you have to work your whole life, otherwise you'll soon be homeless, you're working class. Almost everyone. If you don't need the money from work, you're rich. Middle class would be people who will be rich but aren't quite there yet, which isn't that many people.
1. Education. Liberal cities actually have more segregated schools than the South.
2. Tax Breaks. The Rich and Middle class actually get more govt welfare than the poor when you take mortgage benefits / education grants / tax free savings + investments into account
@@dothedeed prove your first statement
@@johngraham1274 www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/15/the-most-segregated-schools-may-not-be-in-the-states-youd-expect-2/
@@dothedeed
Heh ... I love instant source-posting like that. As satisfying as a Mortal Kombat fatality.
"Actually, the 1 Percent Are Still The Problem. The Atlantic trots out a familiar argument blaming the upper-middle class for income inequality. It’s wrong."
You didn't watch the video.
@@jaywyse7150cause it's propaganda
Presenting you: the bourgeoisie
Yes
as a non-american i can say.......that was vague af!
AS an American, I totally agree! No substance what’s so ever!
The video is an introduction to a long online article that has a lot of links to sources. The link to the article is in the video's description.
You said something but in reality said absolutely nothing at the same time. Congratulations
The real distinction is whether or not you could survive WITHOUT working, from simply "owning" things which give you "passive" income. If you can, you're rich, compared to anyone who must work to avoid becoming homeless and hungry.
Im a member of the 9.9%. My education took years past college and put me into huge debt. I pay 50% tax rate. I make a lot of money but I don't have much stored away. I don't feel bad about what I have, and Im not sure if I should.
I don't think they're expecting anyone to feel bad, I think the message is to recognize the opportunities we do have. I was able to go to school because of the GI Bill and so now I'm pretty well off. And some might say that I earned it with military service, but I know that I'm lucky. I'm lucky that the military was an option, that they had education benefits, that I was eligible and able to serve, that I wasn't killed or maimed. I'm lucky that I was able to keep it together for all of college, and that I had the capacity to learn what I needed to learn. And when I see how lucky I am, I feel compassion for those not as lucky as me, and it makes me want to do things to make it better for everyone.
No you shouldn’t you work hard,
The highest tax bracket for federal income tax is 37%, and only the extremely wealthy pay that rate, so you’re full of it.
This is exactly the problem. Almost certainly, you live with gross excess, do very little to help the multitudes struggling to survive, and you likely vote for policies that continue to help you at the expense of others. You want for nothing and you never have, yet you literally lie, then talk about my how “hard” you worked (when true labor at slave wages is much harder work than going to college) and you convince yourself that you are not a part of the problem. This is the collective attitude of your type that perpetuates apathy and inequality. But good for you for getting your college degree, congratulations.
@@MrGalonge It's not a problem, it's just life. Why exactly should he (or I, as I am in also in the 9.9%) help the struggling multitudes? Why should we vote for policies that will put our children in disadvantage?
Besides, this talking point of "factory workers work harder than neurosurgeons" is just childish world play. Unskilled workers are easily exchangeable. Who cares that the work of engineers, doctors, lawyers, economists is actually easier if you cannot fill their roles with anyone who does not have many years of preparing for the job?
Apathy towards society is not vice, it is a requirement for stability.
@@MrGalonge Funny, with a username like that you make such vile, psuedo-moralistic, egalitarian comments. We owe you nothing!
“No no it’s not all bad there’s light at the end of the tunnel just put your trust in the political system that killed democratically elected leaders and installed military dictatorships” -the argument.
i love how this guy managed to quote moments in history without offering any concrete statement or even sourcing on the material. wth is this Atlantic
@SylvanaForrester WTF does that even mean?
it is a magazine
The video is an introduction to a long online article that has a lot of links to sources. The link to the article is in the video's description.
This is extremely misleading.
First; the first graphic showing the middle class being shrunk and absorbed by a growing lower class is wrong. True, that the middle class is "shrinking", but more are going up, rather than down in income.
Secondly, the "share of the pie" is all wrong because they are not showing that the "pie" itself is growing. In other words, everyone is getting richer, but not at the same rate.
Thirdly, the upper class is not a stagnant group. The author is using a statistical category and conflating it with flesh and blood people.
Fourthly, the reason the "rich" live better is backwards: People who live better tend to get, or stay, rich. Single parenthood, smoking, drinking, frivolous spending, unhealthy eating and exercise habits and a lack of emphasis on education all serve to keep people poor.
Fifthly, the rich build walls? That may be true to some degree, but who builds those walls? Not the rich, and apart from that, the walls, landscaping, and "toys" rich people buy are minuscule compared to the investments they make in businesses. Jeff Bezos has over a half million employees. Apple has 120,000. Same with Microsoft. ExxonMobil has 70,000 and so on and so forth. As the saying goes "I never worked for a poor man".
Lastly, this is all part of the popular zero-sum myth that if someone has more, someone else must have less. But when Facebook went public and Marc Zuckerberg became a billionaire (on paper), I didn't see my bank account go down, did you? And of course this video does not consider that technology has improved so much that what were once the exclusive playthings of the gentry, are now so common even poor people have them: Cell phones for example. And PCs, and Huge TVs, and all sorts of other consumer electronics, and E-books, college level lectures available for free, free wifi in many businesses, tutorials on everything from how to pluck a chicken to programming C++.
None of us will ever truly be free until we abolish the class system.
What you call privilege is something people worked hard to pass down to their children... much of which is stripped away by the government anyway. If those children then are incompetent and squander their wealth, their wealth superiority will then be gone within a generation, and either their children or grandchildren will be force to struggle the same as everyone else... So SOMEONE worked hard for it, just not always the person in question, but "privilege" has come to mean some magical, systemic benefit completely independent of individual or familial effort, which just simply not true in this case.
I always thought I was very middle class, but I’m probably in the 9.9%. Both parents went to school, have secure high paying jobs, own two expensive properties that will appreciate over time. And they could afford to pay my tuition at an expensive private college. I never realized how my parent’s wealth was being passed down. I always thought it would be when I inherited their property. But it’s in school and how I have a car that would be replaced or paid to be fixed if necessary.
Yes, you are.
Yeah the 0.1% have taken money from all deciles but the top, so let's focus on the decile that was spared...
Maybe focus on the 0.1% appropriating all the productivity gains? When someone gets burgled, we blame the burglar, we don't blame the neighbors for not getting burgled.
Matthew Stewart's article in The Atlantic, "The 9.9 Percent is the New American Aristocracy", has to be one of the most engrossing articles I have read in the past 5 years. Anyone who has been seduced by the notion of American meritocracy, will, if they have open mind, see this for the collective delusion that it is, after reading Mr. Stewart's impressive, well researched, and superbly written piece. Those in the comment section, who are criticizing this video, due to its lack of citation of evidence, only need to read the aforementioned article, which this video is based on, to see a more fleshed out case for Stewart's assertions.
Zoe Spacecake - Let's start with the fact that the article isn't so much persuasive in nature, as much as it starts by stating that something is true, and then it cherry-picks a wide swath of data points that sound like they might be related to the topic. Sprinkle in a few emotionally charged words, and it certainly *feels* true. This is the big lie of our times; just because something feels true doesn't make it so, but we seem to have forgotten that objective truth is hard work.
The most powerful thing the article has going for it is that it's an opinion piece that touches on the problem of inequality. We know this is a problem that exists, and we know that it's a very serious issue. Right off the bat that means the readers are going to be primed for arguments that highlight said problems. Unfortunately, with such priming an average reader is going to be much less likely to look for issues with these arguments as long as they feel right.
It doesn't even take long to see problems. His first argument that the 9.9% have had a smooth ride is contradicted by the very first graph he links. However, the first thing to notice is that the numbers he picked are quite interesting. I know he claimed that the big divide is the 0.1% and the 9.9%, but breaking up the more traditional 1% and 9% would tell a very different story, with the 1% showing a more gradual increase, and the 9% showing a vastly larger drop. In effect his 9.9% argument depends on the 0.9% part of the segment propping up the other 9%. Likewise, doing something like 85-95%, and 95-100% would allow for yet another narrative. The combinations are endless.
Next up, it's straight into large numbers given outside of any relevant context. He talks about slogans instead of analysis, but in the next paragraph he throws out number after number without contextualizing it. Start off at X, get to Y, the difference between now and the past is Z. What this means practically is never discussed. It's emotional fodder. He compares some collection of social classes, races, and backgrounds without so much as a hint of adjusting for other factors. He highlights the largest disparities he can find, and moves on without so much as a thought towards the validity of such comparisons. Again, they feel right, and they support his point.
Only problem here, he's really picky about the groups he compares. It's always the median of this group, in this city, under these circumstances. It sounds like something a smart person would say, but anyone with any knowledge of statistics would cringe. It's emotional pandering. Even by this early stage of the article he's set up a set of comparisons and expectations that sound like they should be valid, but he's done next to no work establishing their validity. Just offered up a lot of personal anecdotes.
This goes on, and on, and on.
In the end, that article is just a story. It's a narrative of someone trying to explain what the problem is, and what they think caused it, and how they think it can be fixed. It's a story that rings somewhat true, because it's based on actual problems. However, in the end it's still just an opinion piece, if a very long one. It doesn't offer up any solutions to the wide swath of social, psychological, and political issues that are at the root of our current inequality. At best it offers up a few broad ideas about policies that could be tried.
So to answer your question, the lie I saw is the lie that so many people seem to be willing to tell themselves. The lie that if something feels right, then it is. The lie that if repeating or supporting an idea feels good, then it is. The world is an insanely complex place full of long chains of causes and effects. These problems aren't going to be solved by new taxes, new social programs, or even new revolutions. The only way we can solve them is by slowly understanding these insanely long and complex chains, and painstakingly untangling them generation after generation. If anyone tells you otherwise, well, that's the lie.
Love the last paragraph especially.
Drake Santiago yes he makes valid points. However he ignores a couple important points. We are in a global economy, trump or not. And if you are making 35k or more a year, you are in the one percentile globally. The quality of living for the the lower portion is far far greater than it was 100 years ago.
This COMPLETELY ignores the federal reserves and our own governments manipulation of currency, bailouts printing money. These contribute greatly. Im not denying the middle class is shrinking.
I also noticed....he just pointed out a few things, no solution. just the beginning of a debate
Drake Santiago thank you, I just started the article because of your post.
All that to say it's a Thesis.......ok
With all 6 stones i can simply snap my fingers and half of wealth inequality would disappear. I call that, mercy.
Studies have shown recently that a bright, driven poor student is even less likely to make it compared to average rich offspring.
It is that geared against you.
Cad mium I mean just look at the music/entertainment industry today.
All these privileged sons/daughters of producers/directors who can’t even sing or have a talent, but are still earning money and keeping that gold mine.
They are far less than “average” but they are still there earning the money because of the network, family , just their entire reality that they live in is completely different than our reality.
They always get the best piece of the cake, and then go off and show off on how proud they are to be “American”
Sam Eats the reality is it’s been like this the entire time, it’s the age of information with The internet giving the masses little bits of how corrupt the system we sell our souls and our children’s souls for... the American dream is a lie and died a long tome ago... do you know how many university students I know that cannot and do not have careers in their major or field of study and work retail or in the food industry ? And it’s not like these are graduates who studied art history... I’m talking legit marketing, engineering, medicine... the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, that’s nothing new.. the real contradiction is why do the poor work for the rich?
After watching this, I felt enlightened, and realised how to succeed in life.
1. Move to a country with a high social mobility.
2. Abuse the social systems to get a good education and a great CV.
3. Realize that the taxes start to eat you and the social systems aren't your friends any more.
4. Move to a country with a low social mobility.
5. Profit.
Be born in the middle class in Africa, study in Germany and make a fortune in America.
@@LinusFeynstein I'm born in Sudan and I'm considering scholarship in Germany.
@@why1513 good luck and welcome
Based
Wealth inequality will always exist. Income inequality on the other hand, shouldn’t.
The rich are people too. If you tax them fairly then they’ll only be able to afford 5 mansions and 3 yachts only 3 yachts.
i appreciate your stein-like turn of phrase, herein mygarage. as well as your brilliant name. a yacht is a yacht is a yacht.
Or they take all of their money and leave to a more tax friendly part of the world and the society loses completely (especially the yacht builders)
Which is exactly why communism failed. The farmers especially, it did not matter if they met any quotas, everything they grew except what they needed for themselves to live, was taken for others in working in the factories. Except that the assholes doing the collection of crops ultimately starved 32 million German and Ukrainian farmers. This was because year after year the production from these farmers became less and less because there was no incentive to be a good farmer if it was ALL going to be taken away. This applies exactly the same for any business or job making money and being taxed. Tax them too much and they will leave, tax them at a very low rate and they will stay loyal to their country rather than go where they are treated best. If a communist one world tax system takes over and/or they are taxed too high, there becomes zero incentive to build wealth.
If you put in a wealth ceiling then you'll also create a work ceiling. Why work when most goes to somebody else? I'd rather just relax and do things for fun instead.
What constitutes taxing someone 'fairly'? If 10% from you is $5000 and 1% from a billionaire is $10,000,000, then they've already contributed two thousand times more than you. If they contribute 10% then that's twenty thousand times more than you. So even if you were able to justify the silly assertion that others owe you and society something, how would you decide what is their fair share to contribute? Even with a flat tax, they're already providing magnitudes more. That's unfair by any normal stretch of reason, and not in their favour but in yours.
Would you rather be rich in 1930 or middle class in 2018? It seems pretty obvious that middle class people today are much more comfortable. I think looking at the distribution of wealth is largely a waste of time (unless we’re talking about accumulation of wealth through immoral means) and it only appeals to our jealousy. Why does it matter how much someone else has? Instead of sitting around all day being jealous of other people’s luck you should just focus on yourself and make the best of what you have, money doesn’t make us happy and there are plenty of cheap or even free hobbies that you can occupy yourself with
Source: " Dude, trust me"
long form article on the atlantic: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
No. There is the owner class and the working class. The working class is divided between different groups in the workforce based on their living standard and by extension how connected they feel with their own class interests. Both doctors and farmers are working class. The term "Middle class" does not serve any purpose in proper class analysis.
And yet 99.9% of us have SmartPhones and HDTV's and Laptops, none of which we created, but rather inherited from the 0.1%. I would like to take the time to thank the 0.1% for their hard work and competence and sacrifice. Wealth is not a Zero-Sum game, the 0.1% created Wealth for the rest of the 99.9%
1:05 The Atlantic's chart runs counter to it's narrative on the 9.9%.
Ok, but... what's the best way to correct this?
There's no best way, or any known without any big socio-political changes for that matter. More socialist approach might slow it down marginally.
Yeah, that seems to be what I see in the evidence. I'd like to hear what changes could be made to reverse the trend, as opposed to just prolonging the issue. I'm sure they all have trade-offs, but I don't even see any real suggestions being made.
And I mean, I'm OK, financially, I don't find myself wanting much more, but I'd like to see social strategies that tend to push the population towards the center rather than away from it, as is apparently the case right now. No system is greed-proof, so how do we work around that fact? Is there an answer? Is there a country or region doing this effectively?
It seems to me that something on the lines of taxing only those above median and taxing them heavily only on their value above median would be a good solution... though this is America, so we'd have to throw in a couple hundred loopholes to make sure it couldn't work, then point later and say "I told you so."
Max Baldwin Agree, but 1% is paying relatively big amount and taxing them will almost certainly scare them away out of the US, so the only option I see is doing this globally - the same taxation for the richest around the world. I have absolutely no idea how would it be possible to convince all countries. I'm just throwing ideas
Max Baldwin Let's look at the best countries by the metrics of happiness and wealth equality.
The Nordic Countries have implemented plans and strategies that help fight against this inequality. Due to their smart planning, they regularly rank as the best countries in the world. We can learn a thing or two from them. :D
Max Baldwin The only way to correct this is true democracy. The current political system isn't working
Something not taken into account is the decreased difference in the quality of life, as measured from critical things like healthcare and food. Today, a poor person living in South Central L.A. has access to things even the wealthiest did not have 100 years ago: vaccines, antibiotics, hospitals with advanced diagnostic devices, better doctors that are more easily available (I know one person with a serious surgery that paid nearly nothing), cheap electricity, in home refrigeration, fresh produce from around the world, the ability to communicate throughout the world (including the ability to communicate your problems), etc.
As someone who knows a few 9.9%er's personally... the main issue is they don't know they're the problem because they live in a social bubble... they have NO CLUE what the rest have to do to survive and the most ironic part is they think they're "poor".
Awareness is the first step to change and they're oblivious.
Creating the social bubble that I live in, and need to believe in, for my sanity's sake, is hard work!
Id recommend The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Kate Pickett. It was incredibly eye opening book on income inequality, some of the findings were quite shocking
Communism is not about equality it’s about Tyranny. If it is so wonderful why did hundreds risk death on the ocean to escape Cuba for Florida ? Why were Millions slaughtered to force communism in the Soviet Union and China.? Why were so many willing to risk death to escape East Berlin ? The list goes on.....
@@oliveoil7642 have you read the book? it's never mentions communism and neither do I or promote it. The book is a meta study on inequality in oecd countries and it's effects on societies, you might find it challenging to read but I'd recommend it none the less.
Looks like The Atlantic just discovered what the middle class is. Please send more telegrams of this newly discovered demographic.
I'm glad we are at least starting to recognize what the middle class ACTUALLY is as it was originally defined instead of calling everyone middle class as tradition in american society.
The 0.1% says the 0.01% are vastly wealthier than themselves.
I would like to know what that 0.01% are doing to get that wealth. Are they exploiting to poor? Are they aquiring it through corrupt political connections? Or... Are they inventing products and services that improve the lives of the other 99.99%? I would like to know.
As a financial writer who has researched this topic, I can tell you this is a skewed narrative.
In fact, there is more mobility than ever between the lower/middle/upper classes… both upwards and downwards. The lifestyles of most Americans have progressed, even for the majority of those in the lower class. Those who rise or remain in the upper class tend to make better choices. And this video says more about the script writer’s judgment of people with money than anything else.
In truth, the majority of people in the top 10% are happy to try to give others a word of advice or a leg up. They fund our charities and educational foundations that provide scholarships for the underprivileged. What they’re not happy to do is to be taxed to death for handouts.
While there are many egregious comments here, yours deserves special attention, because it has--ironically--a certain ring of authority to it.
You call yourself "a financial writer who has researched this topic." Why then, do you blithely assert something which flies in the face of what every person who studies societal trends such as these would tell you? A person can literally search for the terms "social mobility" on Google, read the Wikipedia article that comes up in the first results, and find links that lead to dozens of peer reviewed articles directly contradicting what you just said.
Do you not understand that people can check up on the things you're writing? This is ridiculous... I really need to never read TH-cam comment sections late at night ever again.
Way to tout your nakedly political opinions under the guise of objectivity. Your callous attitude is one as old as time itself: people who are poor deserve to be poor. Well, unfortunately, now that Thomas Aquinas has passed, we know better.
@@reedkellner6447 What are you talking about? Obviously there is more social mobility today than in the past.. Everything else aside, you can't argue against this fact. A child from a poor family in a rural area can teach themselves how to code at the school library and go on to make a company like Yahoo or Myspace and become a multi-millionaire or even billionaire. This was impossible throughout all of history, until the last 30 years. As others have stated, we now live in a more meritocratic society than at any point in history, and knowledge is available to anyone with an internet connection (which if desired is available to >95% of the western world, and huge swathes of developing country populations). This means a poor boy in India who manages to have access to the internet can assuredly teach himself a tech-related skill like programming and create a portfolio, which if up to a high standard can guarantee himself a role at a western country working via distance. This means this poor boy now is able to earn 10x more than a Doctor in his country. Hahaha this kind of thing was just not possible until fairly recently. There is so much knowledge available with the internet now as well, anyone who can manage to get access to the internet can learn almost any technical skill that people possess.
As a (retired) History professor, I object to the depiction in this video of the U.S. founders because it's an incomplete picture. Yes, the Founders were elite men, but the colonies had a really large "middle class." This gave a stability that was vital to winning the war and creating the government. Look, folks, this was the first such republic so created. This country was invented! There was no precedent.
Preservation of a "middling sort"--to use colonial language--is vital for the political fabric--now as much as ever.
Ellen there was more equality but their standard of living was shit.
I think you're affirming the point in this video. Less inequality contributes to a more just status quo. The 9.9% are best when they are trying to distribute the rights and privileges, not when they are hoarding it.
As a history professor you should know that the US were definitely not the first republic. It was not invented, but created on the model of other republics. I get your impulse to love your country and it's founding story, but please stick to the facts.
Amy Lorenzo Nah, they were doing alright. They were several inches taller on average during the same time period, and there was a high percentage of property ownership and small business ownership as well. American colonists were some of the wealthiest (on average) out of any nation during that time period.
This country was neither invented nor discovered. And whatever weather that existed in the colonial period was literally created from the blood, sweat, tears, and raping of indigenous and African bodies. Your conservative leaning conveniently leaves this out.
This video demonstrates blatant ignorance (or deception) in motion. It works from the false premise that there exists a finite and magically created "pie" from which everyone draws their sustenance. It doesn't take into account the fact that the pie is not finite and that the people whom the video blames are largely responsible for creating the "pie." Wealth is not finite. More of it can be created through work and investment. The video begrudges those who are largely responsible for creating the pie in the first place, for the fact that they are taking from the part of the pie they created. It seems to me that this is an ignorant or devious exercise in Marxist economics that simply doesn't hold water. Whoever made this video should be ashamed for having perpetrated such a farcical fraud on those who were gullible enough to buy any of it.
Actually to not live below the poverty line in American is pretty simple. You just have to
1) Get a high school diploma
2) Go into trade school or get a STEM college degree
3) Don't have kids until you are married and have a stable income.
But that is just to not live below the poverty line, in reality even if you do all those things right, you are still never going to make as much money as the in your lifetime than the top 0.1% rich people make in ONE HOUR. The truth is your productivity is not connected to the income you earn anymore, it is instead connected to the people you know.( If you can understand this, you will be fine)
I think it's a little more complicated than you've presented it.
Might I ask what happens if you follow 1), 2), and 3), but don't have connections with any employers in your field, can't afford to take an unpaid internship, can't afford a vehicle for jobs that require travel or lengthy commutes, can't afford to move to another city to find work, can't afford thousands of dollars for professional exams and certification, have no work experience, and can't get work outside your field because they look at your education and conclude you're overqualified? Might I ask what happens if your STEM degree grows outdated and your training obsolete?
Would you rather have children and poverty wages, or no children, no wages, massive student debt, and a fancy piece of paper from a university?
@@dylanschmidt9056 I stand corrected as you found the problem in my statement :). What I really recommend is entrepreneurship, starting your own business
Why do we punish people for working harder and taking calculated risks, and reward the people who are not willing to work at all?
So when you say punish what do you mean?
@@ocmetals4675 Tax their livelihood to feed the one's who live off of their parent's wealth.
remember to adress equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome
Maël Lorach To fund equality of opportunity, you need to redistribute some of the earnings from successful outcomes
There's no middle class. There's people who work and people who have passive income.
Uh... no.
+rustydog0329, people with passive income don't have to work and some of them do refrain from work. They're typically "trust fund babies."
+rustydog0329, so you don't consider that type of "passive income people" to be "non-contributors"?
There is an upper middle class, as described in this video. Who get many of the perks of being rich (clean and safe neighborhoods, elite educational opportunities, etc.) But they still have to work to maintain their lifestyle.
On the flipside are the vast majority of people who don't get those perks and have to live in shabbier neighborhoods with more ethnic tension and send their children to terrible public schools and live in poorly managed cities and towns
rustydog0329 Everybody is a non-contributor at some point in their lives so I don't think it's useful to group people that way.
The term "aristocrat" is entirely the wrong one. These people are not aristocratic A more accurate term would be the *professional bourgeoisie* . Aristocracy (The nobility) is a social class that sits directly beneath a monarchy. Unless an American has a direct lineage with European aristocracy, no European would consider an American to be an aristocrat.
*>not earning $83k a year (on average), for the last 11 years, being a part-time mechanic and doing a small cannabis grow op, all while living with Grandma, rent-free*
SHHHHEEEEEEEEIIIITT
Love how these videos just gloss over the fact that the more we depend on the government, the less capable we become. In other words, we should be spending more time asking why the educational system is so bad? Why do we not rehabilitate the people in prison? Why do we allow billion dollar corporations so pay less taxes and have so much control in Washington? Why do we allow money in politics? The answer to those questions have nothing to do with a doctor or lawyer or small business owner making $250-400k per year.
I don't see how doctors and lawyers are "taking wealth out of productive activities and investing in walls." I don't really see the point to this video too. Was the point just to say "it is doctors and lawyer's fault too that there is rising inequality?"
I never understood gated communities. Why do you want to just block yourself off and talk to like minded people? That’s unproductive to society if a ton of people communicate so little with those who are different.
Excellent, and informative my bra.
Here's the thing: People enter and leave this elite group all of the time. Also, folks' wealth increases as they get older. Nothing is stagnant.
from 1:10 you made a few points I would like to analyze.
1. showed that 9.9% are lawyers doctors managers, high paid and highly competent positions.
2. Lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Staying relatively fit and eating healthy is a choice, fit people are generally happier and more successful.
3. The group marries later. This is also a choice, maybe a strategic choice, maybe a career related choice, but a choice nonetheless.
4. The group has a more stable family structure. You correlate a stable family structure with success, but in the real world, emotional stability and a stable family structure is translated into personal and career success.
5.The group lives in gilded neighborhoods. Smart and educated people choose to move and live in the suburbs, moving is an inconvenience but is a strategic choice in the long run, sure you can live in a 0.5 bedroom apartment in new York and barely survive, or move a few states and find a job there.
The successful make better life choices, are more driven and competent.
That doesn't counter the mobility argument though. How can you explain that people born to successful parents are themselves successful? Why is it easier to become a rich person from a poor background in Germany than it is in America?
@@ProfessorEGadd Behaviours. The main answer, is Behaviours. Successful people have positive behaviours which are conducive to their success. They pass on these behavioural norms to their children. Of course finance plays a role, but the more significant factor is the behavioural programming.
However, a big difference between Germany and America is America's god-awful education and health systems, I totally agree.
1:57.
That's not true, the great pyramids were built by education engineers who worked at three months shifts, were given meat while working (only rich ate meat at that time) and were even buried next to the pyramids as an honour.
great article but that is some DAMN GOOD infographics and illustrations. can you please share who the artist is?
And the "new" tax plan does exactly that; he said completely ironically
The new tax plan is the old tax plan on steroids and the discrepancy will only increase :(
If you think any tax system, anywhere, is going to redistribute wealth, you are either very young or quite deluded. Taxes should exist to fund a government and for NO OTHER REASON. Government agencies always keep the Lion's share of the treasury and spend more than exists there. There is no wealth left to redistribute. UK, EU, USSR, US, Can., Mex, Japan, China. No different. People who make their living off other people's taxes are playing your emotions.
S Tho the point I was hoping would come across is that the latest tax plan (while for the next ~2 years does decrease the taxes across the board) increase the amount that lower income households pay, and reduces the highest income households pay. That's how it increases the disparity.
The discrepancy is by intellect. You can't expect poor people to rise. Poor people are stupid. If you took an IQ test the odds of someone with a very low IQ being wealthy are very low. On the flip side, someone with a very high IQ is unlikely to be poor.
Survival of the fittest.
Maybe let nature take its course and only have average to high IQ people live on this planet. Stop wasting our resources.
Logic lol. I can't tell if you are joking, or are actually the stupidest person on planet Earth. Either way, I hope someone kicks you square in the balls right about now
wow, if only there was some german philosopher who predicted this exact phenomena 150 years ago.
Help us uneducated pissants, and tell who it was?
The top 10% are the ones that make the money, and it is everyone else. For example, they are doctors, lawyers, STEM majors, etc. The big problem is that the savings rate is very high, and they are able to build wealth, and it is everyone else.
@Atlantic - 👍Thank you providing this video with a link to the article. I haven't made it through the full 67 page article, let alone the supporting links, but I will work on them. My neighbor subscribes to the Atlantic and always raves about the fiction, which has rarely enraptured me. Articles such as this one, well-written and well documented, lead me to want to subscribe. When I finish everything, you may hear from me. Thanks for the good work.
Let me try to understand. If you come from modest means, finish high school, support yourself through community college, apply those skills to earn enough over time to pay for a degree in a well paid field, wait until you have stable income to marry and then have kids, use the skills from college to advance yourself financially, save money, invest in a home instead of renting and after 20 years you join the besieged 9.9% behind their ( mythical ) walls, you should feel guilty that you prevented someone else from doing the same? BS. My grandparents were sharecroppers. My mother had to leave school after the third grade to pick cotton. My parents were mill workers. With their emotional support and encouragement, I followed the path to the middle class. It took years of hard work. "Why do all of that it'll take you twenty years to accomplish anything?" " I could remain poor, work just as hard with no plan for betterment and in 20 years I would be right where I had begun." I was fortunate, not in having connections or money, but I had talent for business and finance.
My son has a common learning disability, he was raised while I was still struggling, so he had no "advantages" either, other than being raised to "earn, learn and save". He selected a lucrative trade, he learned as he worked, with no paid formal trade school. He increased his knowledge and value to his employers. He accepted every new career challenge that presented itself. My son can barely read what is written here but makes more money than I ever did. He works hard, supports a middle class family and provided with money that he earned opportunities for his children to choose a middle class life. One chose to study and learn and work. Another chose to ...not. Our incomes and lifestyle can not compensate for my grandchild dropping out of school or starting a family out of wedlock and accepting public assistance.
The bottom line: Personal choices can create opportunities or eliminate them. No one held my parents back. No one held me back. ( not even peer pressure ). NO one held my son back. No one held my grandchildren back. One made choices to remain middle class, one made choices that reduce opportunities. Time will tell if that can be fixed. None of us dragged anyone else down. In fact, my career was made in the private sector providing opportunities to young families to retain and expand their growing wealth. Statistics matter ( they were lacking in this video ) and anecdotes are just stories, but my story is supported by the known statistics. As Ashton Kutcher said: "...opportunity looks a lot like hard work" .
Very inspiring story!
So what should the top 10% do to help?
Not be cynical?
Create Incentives that encourage generosity?
Dunno
Guybrush Threepwood Nowhere in the video did it say that. The video actually said nothing about how to fix the problem, it simply identified it. The only implication was that we need more social mobility. What that requires (and I’m departing from the video here) is a progressive tax system, educational equality, a better-funded educational system, stronger safety nets with proper incentives to encourage people to work their way out of relying on those safety nets, and some form of universal health care-you know, the stuff that most other developed nations have.
The US is full of talented people. The US is based off the old European belief of classes. That is a vertical relation. The reality is that human relations are horizontal. I have talent but my talent is not any better than yours. There is a time and place for all talents. The US idea of "better than" is an illusion because it is an opinion and not a fact. Saying one likes Johnny Cash better than Mozart probably means one likes country music compared to classical and not who is the better aritist. But leaving the world of "illusion" is likely impossible for humans to accomjplish.
"Well, I think the claim is that if only the 10% would give away their money, everything would be better. I don't think they understand how supply & demand works, or inflation."
That's a strawman argument though. No one, reasonable, is calling for that. And the Progressive tax people agree that idea is stupid.
Accelerationist whomst
I read your article "birth of the new aristocracy" and it was brilliant.
I really disagree with this video's premise. To be part of the top 10% of America is to make around 100k dollars a year, which I don't think anyone would consider to be some unfathomable level of wealth only some aristocrat in a wealthy far away castle has, since, well, 10% of the population has that much money. But even if this premise is somehow correct and 10% of America live as some fabulously wealthy elites - isn't that extremely great? This percent is literal orders of magnitude better than literally any other society in the entire history of humanity (including modern day America since again this isn't true). It's not true that in America 10% of the population are aristocrats, and even if that was true that would be a very, very good thing.
After reading the related article - the author has some good insights, but consistently misses the bigger picture.
Yes, there are sectors of society that use the power of government to grant themselves a monopoly or a cartel, to exempt themselves from market forces and steal money from ordinary people in order to enrich themselves. But they are NOT an aristocracy.
The U.S. has always had a low key aristocracy, descended from the old aristocrats of Europe. Families like Washington, Lee, and Jefferson, and many more. In America these families gave up legal protection for their family wealth, in order to establish a meritocracy - and then the would-be aristocrats of New England, descendants of the old "Levelers" and similar groups in England, trying to be something they could not be and misunderstanding aristocracy, thinking that aristocracy simply meant "wealthy", rigged the system anew to vote themselves funds from the general treasury, eventually turned on and mostly destroyed the truly aristocratic families that had given up such rigged systems for the benefit of their country, and created the distorted system we have now.
A real aristocrat remains an aristocrat even when they are penniless. All the wealth in the world does not make these people the author describes aristocrats. They are pretenders who never understood the principle of noblesse oblige: that from those who are given much, much is expected. Without understanding that principle, they will never be more than pretenders. They might gain power for a time, but they can never become what they are not.
True, but keep in mind why families became aristocracies in the first place. They were once normal families that got to power and retained power for long enough that their very name became a symbol of prestige. Just to give you an example, look at Della Rovere family. It's unquestionable that they are considered aristocracy or high nobility, however they were a poor family before Francesco Della Rovere became a Pope and pushed his family to highest honours through nepotism. In light of that, I would argue that at least American houses like Roosevelt or Kennedy should be considered as akin to aristocracy of Europe.
@@MegaMementoMori - while there are other reasons why certain families make it into the "aristocracy" (as described above), I think it's important to note that it almost always involves at least one highly competent person to begin the line, and reasonably competent persons to continue the line. Without that their prestige fades away.
I can see the Kennedy family as a sort of modern American aristocracy, and possibly the Roosevelts. In the case of the Roosevelts they were highly incompetent but they were able to fool enough people to fake it. We still haven't recovered from FDR.
@@alanlight7740 I agree that FDR was responsible for massive injustice. Seeing the zeitgeist of the era, however, it might have been justified to avoid an actual leftist uprising. He brought some internal peace due to due to his reforms, which allowed people like Reagan to make things fair again a few decades down the line.
And I completely agree with your idea about needing two competent individuals to start a decent legacy - the Polish hero Jarema Wiśniowiecki, and his incompetent son who was elected as king comes to my mind as an example of a family that almost made it.
Here's something interesting, though. The top 1% is constantly churning. In other words, very few people manage to stay in the 1% in for even a short amount of time. Social mobility is still alive and well in the US. Income distribution simply doesn't tell the entire story.
Also, the press is quick with a critique like this, but much slower to point out the corporations that won't pay their workers a decent wage. Why? Those corporations are advertisers.
No sources under the video and I could not find them in the article. Where are they?
According to the field of economics, the economic value of skill acquisition has risen dramatically toward the end of the 20th century. During this phenomena we also noticed that income inequality started to rise as well.
In the old days when skill acquisition wasn't such an important factor, the rich manipulating the system for wealth was a legitimate explanation for inequalities. Nowadays though, wealth inequality is predominately explained by inequities in skill acquisition.
Even though the explanation has changed, we are still left with the same symptoms of wealth inequality that existed in the old paradigm. Certain levels of wealth inequality destabilize politics and lead to non-optimal economic results which slows down economic activity and innovation if taken to too extreme of a level.
The question that this all brings up is this: How can society mitigate the negative consequences which are associated with the rapid rise of meritocracy? There are a multitude of responses that need to be taken in unison but the first is to provide tuition for all Americans free of charge. With access to skill development equalized, the wealth inequality in this country would decrease and social mobility would rise.
The second solution would be a redesign of the welfare system. One that would provide for people that genuinely needed it while also incentivizing behavior that pushed people to rise beyond welfare dependency. This includes additional restrictions on what welfare recipients can and cannot buy and the gradual weaning off of benefits as incomes rose. The current welfare system encourages dependency since it allows for situations to arise where recipients will purposefully cut back on the number of hours they are working to maximize their income.
The third solution is to lower the top income tax from 35% to 33%. Economist have found that 33% is the optimal income tax rate for wealth collection. Anything below or above this number will result in less income collected by the government.
The fourth solution includes raising the minimum wage from 7.25 to 10$. Once at 10$, the government should index minimum wage to inflation so it grows or falls in tandem with minimum wage every year.
The fifth solution would be prison reform. At the moment, America has a system in place where ex-convicts are set up for failure. Post-incarceration it is almost impossible for ex-convicts to get a job. All ex-cons that have non-violent offenses on their record should be guaranteed that their criminal records are kept secret from potential employers. Violent offenses on the other hand should be decided on a case by case basis. Assault for example should be reformed. Assault is mostly committed by reckless youth's and often times the action no longer represents the maturity of people who committed the assault 10, 20, 30 years later. Assault in time should be a charge hidden from employers. All other charges in general should be mandatorily shown to an employer unless the government exercising its discretion deems an individual worthy of privacy. Finally, for violent ex-cons they should not be required to disclose their record initially during the interview process but later during the intermediate stage. This allows them the chance to explain themselves to the potential employer and increases their odds for employment - All of these reforms would dramatically increase wealth mobility and increase income levels for ex-cons.
Fantastic video. The wealth gap is one of the greatest threats to the American ideal of liberty. It must be fixed for America to be a nation we're all proud to live in. We have to give to our fellow Americans not because we have to, but because we want to. Seeing your neighbors with improving their lives shouldn't make you jealous. Every improvement for one of us is an improvement for us all.
Was anybody else nervous that the person on the left at 2:10 was gonna hit their head? Lol
My family came from the bottom 90% from a communist country but through hard work, education, supporting each other we are now within the 9% in America
To what extent are increasing wealth differences the result of savings? Everyone whose income is greater than their expenses will get wealthier. To what extent are differences in health the result of differences in behaviour that do not in fact require cash, but just correlate with it? I think this video over-simplifies the causes and consequences of wealth, consumption, and outcome differences between people.
Anything that involves self discipline doesn't fit the Marxist template and consequently is left out of the discussion. I think your comment is both well stated and a big deal.
Thank you. I was not specifically targeting Marxist thinking. Those were just two of the crucial factors overlooked by the video narrative. In theory, if someone worked hard doing useful things for others they would end up earning a good income, and if they refrained from unnecessary consumption then they would keep their expenses small. Over time those people would become wealthy. Now, it is fairly clear that some people who become very wealthy in their lifetimes do so without doing something useful and also have extravagant lifestyles. But is that typical? In order to make its case the video would have to do more to demonstrate that most rich people have greedily consumed resources while doing little useful for others, and yet still become rich. The answer might be in terms of people who get rich just for having (and lending) money. But is that done by the 9%? How many of even the 0.1% get rich that way? What about the pension funds of ordinary people that get money for lending money? This is just the beginning of complicated investigation with many different lifestyles and mechanisms. I for one just try to be useful to others and keep my consumption low. My financial position today is not great, but if I had not done that I think my financial position would have turned out a lot worse!
Actually no, those are not over-look, they are a part of it for an individual but doesn't amount to much on the macro level, nor a consistence trait that determine wealth. It can be very consequential & helpful on a personal level but not at all helpful in terms of economic & social theories. Putting aside that this is only a 3 min video, even were it to be longer, it wouldn't be cover. To even suggest something like that is like saying it's the way it is merely because poor people don't know how to save. I think you know that isn't the case, no knowing how to save is not the underlying problem. It might as well be suggesting that poor people are just lazy.
Capital circulates, that drives economies. Income inequality is the result of capital failing to circulate. So in 3 mins, why would they talk about savings when there are significantly larger issues? Also, it is link to a long article.
Bio -- Not to get all sciency on you but I'm pretty sure that things at the macro level are made up of things at the personal level. I also think that laziness and not saving are huge issues and major predictors of lack of success both for individuals and by extension for societies. I also think that your circulation theories are shit.
+Kevin Pratt I expected as much from you, how predictable. The problem isn't the rich... the problem is the poor, blah blah blah.
There are too many assertions being made with little explanation and no citations. I know there is an essay I just think they should do better job for those who will only bother to watch the video. Add some citations in the corner and make the video longer without making as many blunt sensationalist claims.
Our top 4 richest citizens represent more than half of all wealth In the United States. Don’t you dare put this on the middle class.
Man…every thing I see only spells out the same things…I don’t want to see another American civil war, that would break my heart
"Renew the promise of American democracy."
A promise that was as disingenuous and hypocritical 250 years ago as it is today.
Edward Ashford
How, exactly?
Ike Okereke From day one, anybody that wasn’t a white male who owned land couldn’t vote
Doctors and lawyers presumably built their own status and wealth? Is that privledge or acheivment?
This video is very superficial
The Atlantic published an article about the disappearing middle class in 1895, yet here we are still with a middle class.
The article was beautifully written, I read it yesterday, but if I knew about this I may not have read it. This is essentially a tl;dr.
As someone who has moved from lower class (uneducated parents, manufacturing jobs, etc.) to upper-middle-class (two high income earners) this video and the accompanying story is irritating. It feels like a demonization of natural human instinct. To reach the top 10% of earners in the USA it took my wife and I almost 20 years of work, planning, sacrifice, and plenty of good luck. What strikes me as weird is the notion that we (apparently aristocrats) are somehow 'building walls' and 'insulating' ourselves from middle and lower class people. What?
But another way to think of it is that even with decent income and some money in investments we're plagued by the same worries that we had when we were broke and just out of college (which we paid for ourselves). If one of us gets sick (long-term cancer, debilitating accident) we could be financial ruined. Every single day it feels tenuous. That feeling didn't stop at any income or savings milestone, and I don't think it ever will. Even $1M in the bank won't totally save someone from a series of real crises. The 1% or .1% are well-insulated from those types of financial catastrophes. The 9.9%, not so much. Sure, we're better equipped than most, but if tragedy happens we walk on the same thin ice as everyone else. Why wouldn't I save my money and build a safety net? Why are we demonizing people who do?
So what am I supposed to do? Feel guilty I guess. Saving to pay for my kids' college: feel guilty. Saving to retire on time: feel guilty. Working to pay off my house early: feel guilty.
I've seen a fair number of stories with this theme lately. You can't argue with the wealth numbers. Yes the top 9.9% hold the vast majority of the nation's wealth. That's because I believe it's accessible. Reaching the 0.1% is basically a lottery win. Reaching the 9.9% is a simple formula but the work is hard - it takes decades.
Anyway, it gets tiring being told to should feel terrible for living the so-called American dream. Isn't getting into the 9.9% the point?
Your situation is totally understandable. I wouldn't say feel guilty, just realize that you have worked hard and been blessed. Enjoy what you can and then help others.
I think when he says "building walls", he means it somewhat literally. The idea of wealthy people keeping their neighborhoods and cities (and thus the resources too) locked away from poor people is not new.
As an example, in Irvine, California (a wealthy city which sits between poor and middle class towns), the idea of a homeless shelter was proposed. How did the residents of Irvine react to this? They boycotted and protested. Several wealthy residents have bused in paid protesters to City Hall, to reject the idea of a homeless shelter on the grounds that "it will cause a wave of homeless and poor people to come to Irvine." And so far, IT HAS WORKED. The homeless shelter idea is gaining less traction.
ALSO, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT EARNING MONEY. BUT ask yourself this: Are you somehow, directly or indirectly, SEPARATING TO GIVE PEOPLE THE CHANCE TO BETTER THEMSELVES? Just as the residents of Irvine wants to kick poor people out/turn a blind eye to homelessness, ARE YOU DOING THE SAME? Are you doing something similar?
Believe it or not, the 90% don't hate rich folks who donate. They don't hate rich people who help. What poor person hates Bill Gates with all the charity work he's done? Who hates the local soup kitchen owner or the person who has enough money to spend their entire day planting trees? The 90% hate people who consolidate their money and shut out others.
(ALSO BRO, you don't need $1M to keep yourself good. Seriously. My family is similar to yours; paying for kids' colleges, saving to retire, paying double mortgage fees, sending money to our families back in our home country, paying for our cousin's surgery, etc. and we only got $100K in savings. You don't have to live a luxurious lifestyle, I hope you understand.)
Exactly. Nobody is saying live like a pauper, but don't have a my family vs. everybody else mentality. How much comfort is really needed? What really matters? True wealth does not come from financial security.
The homeless shelter comment is something I do agree with. There are current examples of that happening here (SLC, Utah). I don't know the answer to that particular issue. People often boil it down to 'rich people complaining about property value declines' or some such. But we have plenty of homeless people in our area and there's no way to argue around the fact that it impacts property crime. I'm not a fan of people who are clearly substance abusers hanging around residential areas. I do strongly favor distributing the cost of sheltering and rehabilitating/treating those who are either addicts or mentally ill. I'll vote to increase my taxes every single time.
But I'll admit that in regard to this particular issue I'll go NIMBY. My wife was walking with my kids a few months ago and two homeless guys got into a huge bloody brawl right in front of them. My wife was frantically calling the cops and trying to get the kids out of there while one guy beat the other guy bloody on the sidewalk. Forgive me for not being super welcoming.
But, honestly, I don't feel like that particular divide is what is being addressed in this video. I personally feel that stagnant wage growth is the primary culprit. After decades of positive advances forward in the growth of unions, we've seen a major decline in workers rights with states becoming 'right to work' or forcing workers into arbitration and stripping their legal rights. As corporate profits skyrocket and those gains are cynically kept from lower/mid-level employees the gains go to those who can invest.
The system is completely gamed at this point, but the rules are pretty clear. We can either complain about them or play by them...or in my case, both.
I've run the numbers a million times and I firmly believe that the middle class income in this country should be right at about $100k/year, but wages have stopped growing. At that amount a family can have a reasonably decent middle-class lifestyle that allows them to buy an average home and save on track for retirement. Instead we're stuck, and what irritates me is that I feel that videos like the one here is attacking the wrong enemy.
Be pissed about the system, not those who use it.
Finally, my son was born with a life-threatening but repairable birth defect. I had great insurance and the final bill they paid was over $250k. It's only by pure luck that I had recently moved to a job with great health insurance from a job without. Otherwise the out of pocket max would've kicked in and I would've been ruined for years.
Think of it this way, if I get some form of curable cancer, but something that reduces me to the point that I can't work and I lose my insurance, the average cost of a month of treatment is $10,000. Make no mistake, until you've got millions in the bank this American existence is tenuous.
Being a 9.9%er won't save me from real catastrophe. Being an aristocrat as described in this video isn't all it's cracked up to be...
I'm not insulating myself from other income brackets, I'm insulating myself from risk.
I won't argue with that sentiment. But after growing up broke and now having a decent income I can attest that the security that money brings is the real value. Money doesn't buy happiness, it buys freedom. But if someone is miserable, that freedom doesn't mean much.
Also, I don't think that for a lot of people it's a matter of 'my family vs everybody else.' It's more like my family vs the unknown. It's not a competition.
Lol at the idea that the Founding Fathers were in any way morally superior to other oligarchs.
The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," -James Madison
That's true, but this was in pre-Capitalist America.
I don't see what the advent of capitalism has to do with this but the founding fathers were outright defenders of the rich and powerful and had no interest in establishing a democracy nor did they.
this is the point of the article and video
"...but they turned their backs at the man at the top in order to create a government of, by, and for the people."
Not only are they not quoting an American founder (the man credited with the notion 'of, by, and for the people 'is John Wycliffe a 14th Century English dissident and heretic of the Catholic Church; also Lincoln who reused the quote was not a founder) but they somehow managed to get the whole thing about the founders wrong. The founders defended the oligarchic order and attacked the notion of democracy utilizing the idea only as a veneer to seem applicable and modern to revolutionary sentiment.
But let's all blame black, brown, gay people. That's what the top tier wants.
Thank you so much dear people over at Atlantic for introducing me to the music of Christopher Slaski.
I'm sure this will be completely factual and objective in its presentation. Can't wait!
We are all human, treat people the way you'd like to be treated.
Stay humble, no matter what u have or don't have, doesn't define u. Character is more valuable. Be Christlike! 🤲🇦🇺
Brilliant and insightful from start to finish.
The problem is that most humans believe in an animalistic philosophical proposition, well illustrated in this video: the idea of forced association. Most people may decry "rape culture" but whole heartedly endorse their own preferred versions of forced and coerced associations and not consensual ones. This results in unintended perverse consequences. Once enough people endorse and support the principle of forced association, that is, once it becomes an acceptable, even cherished, component of our society's governance, the natural consequences follow. Who do people think are going to prove better at playing the game of coerced and manipulated associations, those with more, or those with fewer resources? People don't, for the most part, think in these terms though. Liberty actually works. Only aristocracies win when a society's governance is more determined by forced associations, yet that is precisely what it is for which people are agitating when they call for "redistribution." That is as true of the "communist" Soviet Union as it was of eighteenth century France. Mattew Stewart wants to praise "democracy," and decry inequality, and yet I see no indication that he is cognizant of the history of this course. The supposed "growing inequality" has been growing proportionally to attempts by groups of people, through the political system, to force "more equal" outcomes on people by dictating all sorts of forced associations. It doesn't work.
The founding fathers weren't very concerned about the rights of women or black people.
It is impolite to demand a person stop dwelling on the fact that you spat in their eye yesterday.
nope terrible comparison. this is comparable to you dwelling on the fact that your great great grandparent spat on someone elses great great grandparent who are both deceased and no one in this life time had any quarrel your entire life. Don't even start.
And yet has the great great grandchild not continued the tradition of spitting in the eye of others?
Did I not see him do it to me yesterday?
Perhaps I 'shouldn't start' and be quite about dwelling on such mannerisms?
So you admit that's a terrible comparison you first came up with? Good.
No, he hasn't continued the tradition he actually stopped the tradition of his ancestors. Unlike your ancestors in their foreign lands continuing the old tradition of slavery and other traditions the white man has gotten rid of in all of their countries :)
Just remember that. Maybe you should start dwelling on mannerisms continuing today such as africa, and the middle east. You know where slavery and "spitting in the eye" is still going on to this very day.
haha.
Though it is nice to know you can keep your spirit so high with a smiley face and 'haha' when even discussing so grievous a topic,
please educate me on what part of the Global South practices chattel slavery.
It's so simple ... rich people can be rich ... you just don't need to be SO rich ... and it shouldn't have to be so difficult to get there. Nobody should be allowed to be as wealthy as the 0.1%. That's what the old tax code was designed to do.
That's so wrong is kind of painful. "Permitted?". Wealth is 'created'. They didn't steal all the money out of the wealthy pile and your getting zero.
I'm with you on the pathological red-state revenge in the tax code, but you severely misunderstand economics if you think that's why the wealthy are wealthy. The vast majority of wealth is created through things like technological innovation, with the rest being created by the efficient and competent management of business. Taxes are a rounding error in the face of compounding interest.
Wealth inequality is a mathematical consequence of compounding interest. If capitalism is working correctly, you would expect somewhat higher levels of wealth inequality over time. This is generally acceptable to civilization because things like cell phones and lots of tax dollars flop out of it that is useful.
Sebastian Hahn yes labour is a big reason but given anyone can flip burgers and serve tables, you’re work $5/hr. If you want better you have to start your own business or get a trade. We get paid based on supply and demand, not feelings of entitlement.
Sebastian Hahn that makes no sense. The rich have far more than a living wage because what they produce is in short supply and high demand. Waiters are in high supply and low demand. No one deserves anything. You get what you have based on supply and demand. If you want better, you need to produce something or have a skill that’s in high demand and low supply. How do I shove $5/hr under my house? I can understand shoving money there to avoid tax 😎
Demonstrably not the case. Most of the wealthiest people are part of the leisure class and don't work an hour in any given year. You're thinking of the MIDDLE class.
You're correct, and of course the whole world knows your correct, but in typical US American delusion, people will start with the economic theories and try telling you that Trump is a self-made man, and Bill Gates started out in a ghetto. Because taxation is oppression ... Apparently.
I'm an IT guy and "tech bros" is a new one on me--good stuff. I'ma coopt that--thanks!
also, I take issue with you classifying the "99%" as the good guys--that's pretty divisive and does nothing for the whole oppressor-victim narrative that's raping academia right now. I'm poor but even I know better than to paint with such broad strokes. Most people never challenge what they are taught. So you can remain a part of the problem (teaching people what to think) or be a part of the solution (teaching people HOW to think), and I propose the latter.
You should take your social obligations to provide unbiased, objective information in the spirit of altruism seriously.
Don't dismiss your influence, even though you may never witness the results directly--it's there.
In any case, GOD bless!
There are only two classes, working class and owning class. There are richer working class people and poor working class people. If someone doesn't own the means of production of any commodity or resource then they are not owners, but the fact that even a ten percent own more capital than the bottom 90% still means they are owners as in owners of capital. There isn't A middle class, and the top 10% and 1% are still the minority and still are the hoarders of wealth and opportunities.
I think you need to work on your metaphors. Lots of laboring people have no authority over their working life, but own for instance a home, by virtue of steadily working. They retire securely, even at a reasonably early age. Lots of people who "own" a business and employ workers do not also own any wealth. They have authority over others but their material lives are mortgaged to lenders. If there business fails, they become broke. Any 21 year-old kid with a used car and a job at McDonalds owns more capital than 100 million Americans who are in debt and use credit cards to meet odd expenses. Many very rich people work 75 hours a week.
Y’all need some Candice Owens!!
For all those who don't understand this person is a PragerU subscriber.
^ For all those who don't understand this person is a comparing slavery to spitting in someones eye. Omar is a fool.
Lol she’s a 20 something yr old mouthpiece who has been a conservative for all of 5 minutes. The bar is literally on the floor with you people
liberals - "republicans hate black people"
liberals - "using black people is lowering the bar to the floor"
I...just...don't know what you people want.
A fool? I cannot endeavor to disown the notion.
But to metaphorically draw an avenue between the consistent behaviors of the powerful and their impositions upon the weak as offensive acts and to be called a fool for this reason, I have great issue with.
I refuse to comment on why you decided to personally attack me without context in a non-relevant thread.
This video assumes that wealth is a zero sum gain which is wrong. Wealth is created, not handed out from a finite “wealth fund”.
Also they are making some simplistic cause and effect assumptions...
The 9.9% have money because they are healthy, have stable families and marry late.
1. If you’re unhealthy, you miss work a lot - not a good way to get rich
2. A stable family will focus on creating the best lives for family members. This includes aid in taking advantage of all opportunities that will create a better life for members.
3. Having children later is good for children. Older parents are more mature and have more money - a way better environment for children
These are the factors contributing to the 9.9%’s wealth, not perks of being rich.
The health issue is the only one you cannot control, but that is true for the 90% as well.
I got my wealth handed to me from a “wealth-fund”. I just showed up and displayed my white male privilege card. They handed me a top-hat, a monocle, and two big bags with $ written on them. I have been living off of the misery of others for years now.
I don’t actually remember any of this happening but a Marxist assured me that it did.
Pretty sure you don't know what that term ('Marxist') means, but anyway...
Morgan Gibson You mean that guy wasn’t actually a Marxist ?!? Uh oh, I guess he shouldn’t have been thrown out of that helicopter..
But anyway...
The wealth is created, yes but collectively by workers.
Emmanuel Torres - The workers help in the creation of wealth, but will always need direction from visionary leaders to avoid stagnation. Only with new ideas and expansion of our economy will we be able to keep workers employed.
This is beautifully illustrated.
I don't know if you noticed or not but the advertisements attached to your video advertise solely to the 9.9%. Something about your branding.
Notice he said early in the essay the 90% are complicent in this phenomenon. I have watched societal instruction change since the early 60s.
In the 50s thru 1967 people born poor or middle class were encouraged to get educated, act like sophisticates, dress like the wealthy, act like the bosses and bosses wives in business, join clubs and buy homes in clean and prosperous areas. The US was on the move and we needed bright people to make the shiny new post WWII world.
In the 70s (starting around 68) suddenly the programming changed. Be casual, wear odd hair, don't be so up tight, drop out, turn on, abuse your bodies, be sloppy, make do. Fight THE MAN. Put your wives to work too, mostly paying taxes, then divorce each other to double your expenses and double the income, property and sales tax.
In the 80s "The Man" still remaining was starting to distance themselves from you. They still wore suits to work, while you mocked them. They started to build gated communities, while you no longer joined clubs or sent your kids to dance lessons or even how to eat at a table with silverware.
By the 90s the new wealthy (GI bill dads and their kids that became Doctors, Lawyers, CFOs, Stock Brokers and Engineers) had their secret handshake and you guys were happy just wearing jeans and flip flops to work. You found they worked you longer and paid you less because they no longer respected you as one of them.
You dutifully bought work leashes so you could work 24x7 like a serf or slave of old. Computers with email to work. Cell phones with work on speed dial. Your vacations got shorter, and you were still on call. Bosses dismissed your unions and stopped having pensions. However they kept the perks for themselves, while you took a car loan for an ever more expensive car just to get to work to pay for the car and all the other disposable junk.
So those of us that followed trends, followed them right back into a workhouse or log cabin. Enjoy your "liberation."
Ben Franklin used to advise. If you want to be wealthy. Watch the wealthy, do what they do, act like they act. In reality there are more people earning over $70,000 today than ever before, but 90% of those don't ACT like they earn that much.
S Tho when the middle class got an education they rebelled against the Vietnam war, that scared the power.
The clawback in the 80’s with union busting and pension pillaging made a high interest rate and people fought just to keep their houses..they r at it again with permanent part time jobs. No security or benefits, but hey u
Can make a tiny home.If they can take away your hope,then u r broken, less likely to organize or pull out your guns. Look at the kids for Christ sake, they already know.
Wearing nice clothes,?
70 grand don’t buy shit when cost of living goes up 300 percent since 1985
I lived it too and you r plain wrong. Travel to other democracy countries, they live better than us. Don’t believe it. Check out UN stats. It’s in NY city.
Donovan Jones. Sportswear and disposable clothes cost much more than 4 suits and 7 dresses to be alternated over five years. Endless jeggings, yoga pants, layers of Jersey, the perfect pre worn jeans for a person that never lifts a finger to physical work, hundreds of disposable shoes, $100 athletic shoes for a couch potato cube dweller. Dressing like you are 12 forever has become expensive. Trends make it so.
Do what you want but you'll find your wealth is actually disappearing one media subscription and one Air Jordan purchase at a time. Recreational and mindless consumption.
Our grandparents came out of rural poverty or a great depression that makes these little recessions look like nothing. Yet they came with a concept of cost versus benefit.
You do still have the power over your own life. BTW if you live in NYC and don't make enough, then move. 70k is plenty for the intelligent US American outside the five major commercial cities that are the centers of spending trends. Plenty for *needs* , plenty to SAVE and some to spend.
I come from the rural , an apple farm to b exact. I know that the swoosh in Nike is just a lash. I never subscribed to those things you talk about. Don’t follow trends, my jeans are ripped by way of work .but my competition is from China, their apples are much cheaper, I can’t pay anyone to pick them for 6cents a bushel. Don’t start with me about the easy life. The end of cheap oil has made it impossible to continue in a way as to compete with global corporate investors who buy everyone out and hire you back to work your farm. Your world is not my world.
Your grandma would have been eaten alive by the corporate greed. Try not spraying your apples beside a corporate farm. You will be sued for going organic. I can go on and on but I fear I will be wasting my time with someone with opinions but not wisdom
"In reality there are more people earning over 70,000$ then ever before" o'course there are, have you never heard of inflation? That's not the point.
Start project Anarcho-Communism.
The problem is this pathological obsession with equality of outcome. People just won't except the hard truth that not everybody can be rich and successful.
As an Engineer, I can clearly tell that Matthew's data analysis skills are quite poor. According to his argument, there's an implicit assumption that those in the cohort between 99.0% -99.9% live similarly to those in the cohort 90% - 99%. In fact, their lifestyles are radically different from an economic perspective. In reality, you would have to subdivide the top 10% into a number of different cohorts (segments with similar economic characteristics) to get a proper perspective. I can tell this because I am theoretically in his grouping and I don't feel rich in any way. I long to be among the 1% percenters!!!!
What a beautifully put together video explaining that your effort is better spent begging the richer for more instead using your time and energy improving yourself. This also assumes that the world (particularly America) is a zero-sum game, meaning someone has to lose in order for you to win. This is of course why even the homeless have smartphones now (money well spent huh? A shining example of people making horrible decisions and yet has the audacity to point the finger). Nobody forced them to buy a 1,000 dollar piece of luxury instead of putting that in an IRA like a responsible human being; especially someone who especially should. Fuckin people, did we change the defininition of what personal responsibility means yet? Parents didn't teach us that? Oh you don't have parents? That must be someone else's fault too? Life just doesn't suck sometimes?
Michael Wargo you missed the point completely
Ed S, What did you glean from this that I missed, if you don't mind me asking of course
Could you explain why obtaining a smartphone is such a horrible decision for a homeless person?
Are you a homeless person?
No, go on.
What's silly is there was no mention of relative cost of living. A $100k salary in LA is like a $30k salary in Boise. It's fine, but it's not great. We can't compare everyone across the country as if there was a simple and consistent measuring stick. Another thing I found glaringly absent is the discussion of mobility throughout a lifetime. Many people in the top 10% started in the bottom 20%. It takes time, hard work, but most importantly GOOD DECISIONS to be financially successful.
But joining the top 0.1% is really not something that is possible for everyone. That takes either a lot of luck (like being born at the right time and place with a particular talent), or being born into it. This is like royalty. For the common folk to dream of being royalty is like dreaming about winning the lottery. Wasting your time wishing is holding you back.
James Stanard Many people in the Top 10% started in the Bottom 20%?? I call complete and total BS. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
I dont think you know what is the top 10%. Top 10% are people with a minimum net worth of over $1.25 million and the median network of the top 10% is $2.5 million. A 100K job is not even close to the top 10%. 100k is still the middle class, not even upper middle class. So no your logic is incorrect
Two points of clarification. I wasn't saying $100k salary in LA constitutes being in the top 10%. I was merely illustrating that the cost of living in different cities wildly skews what can be considered a decent living. You need more in LA than in Boise, and jobs tend to pay more there as a consequence. And to the point about upward mobility, I'm talking about the many college students who start out working part-time, low-wage jobs, have no savings, and work hard to get an education. This is the beginning of one's career when you are technically impoverished. Many lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, and politicians start this way before gaining the knowledge and experience to reach the top 10% of earners.
Statistically, about 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. Which means there parents were not rich. I hope I don't need to break that down any further, but the bottom line is that mobility has increased over the past few decades. To quote "In my thirty plus years of surveying and studying millionaires, I have consistently found that 80 to 86% are self made. That also applies to decamillionaires. In 1982 according to Forbes about 38% of America’s wealthiest people were self made. In 2012, the percentage jumped to 70%." www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/
Less than 8% of the bottom make it into the top 20%. That's still lottery odds.
Why can't managers stop shrinking the middle class so that social mobility isn't so much an issue because skilled workers receive the pay they deserve.
nice graphics! i like this!
We already know it, but the problem is nobody can give a solution.