Anyone switching to a credit union with what's going on?

[J T]

I don't know where would be best the best place to draw the line, but there comes a point where a person can be swimming in so much money that merit is no longer an issue. Nobody does work that really merits an ocean of money.

In other words, nothing the top 1% has done is of enough benefit to society that I would ever think it merits them owning 42% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 99% gets the added burden of 95% of the nation's debt. (source)

[o.pwuaioc]

[MrPopo]

But aren't the biases towards those who have risen to a high position on merit?

Why would you assume that?

Why would you assume otherwise? JT's point nonwithstanding, it takes a lot of effort to become a high level corporate executive. To JT's point, once you reach that point you're on the gravy train and can increase your wealth with relatively little effort, but also at that point you're in the top 1% whether or not you grow your money.

[o.pwuaioc]

But aren't the biases towards those who have risen to a high position on merit?

Why would you assume that?

Why would you assume otherwise? JT's point nonwithstanding, it takes a lot of effort to become a high level corporate executive. To JT's point, once you reach that point you're on the gravy train and can increase your wealth with relatively little effort, but also at that point you're in the top 1% whether or not you grow your money.

I had no idea that George W. Bush worked really hard before he could take over one of the family businesses. Granted his father did, but he's an exception. Just look at the Waltons or Hiltons.

[J T]

I loved this cartoon. I felt really validated by it. There are tons of educated people that know EXACTLY what this is about, but the media wants to show whoever showed up the most stoned and silliest dressed (I mean, they're part of the 99% too, but don't look to them for clear answers).

The media is now trying to write the Occupy protests off as anti-semetic.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/russel ... ts_1251400

[dlmvii]

Why would you assume that?

Why would you assume otherwise? JT's point nonwithstanding, it takes a lot of effort to become a high level corporate executive. To JT's point, once you reach that point you're on the gravy train and can increase your wealth with relatively little effort, but also at that point you're in the top 1% whether or not you grow your money.

I had no idea that George W. Bush worked really hard before he could take over one of the family businesses. Granted his father did, but he's an exception. Just look at the Waltons or Hiltons.

These protests are somewhat of an interesting issue for me personally - My personal beliefs and family ties are sometimes conflicting, but I think I have an interesting perspective on "the 1%".
I know this might narrow my identity down a little bit, but my dad is the CEO of what was a Fortune 500 company about 2-3 years ago (it is no longer, but it's close).
However, he grew up working class, and the company he is with, he started at the bottom right out of college (been there ~25 years), with no family ties to it whatsoever. Now, he is the CEO, and most assuredly in the 1%. I know nobody else knows my dad, but even though he probably has more money then anyone will ever need, he is not some greedy fatcat. I had it well growing up, but never spoiled. (A definite middle class lifestyle in the suburbs...the house was bough ~20 years ago, when he made FAR less than he does now - they are still in the same house)
Even though I am now financially disconnected from him, I know that growing up with money helped my situation with college tuition and such.

Anyways, my point is, I just don't like that this kind of paints rich people as jerks. Yes, there are some greedy, bastards, but some are nice people. That's all.

[Hatta]

Why would you assume otherwise?

It's practically the definition of bias. In an unbiased system success would correlate with merit. If there are biases, you get a worse correlation.

it takes a lot of effort to become a high level corporate executive.

One problem is that it's not necessarily constructive effort that gets you an executive position. Another problem is that luck plays a huge role in success. Another problem is that even with all the effort in the world, there are only limited opportunities at the top.

I don't really have a problem with success being capricious though. If you're lucky and succeed, good for you! It's failure that's the problem. If you're poor, you can fail through no fault of your own (e.g. employer goes bankrupt during credit crisis caused by the rich). And if you're rich, you can fail and cause all sorts of damage, without suffering much, or even be rewarded for failure. (e.g. those same executives who caused the credit crisis getting bonuses for it. If you work hard, but aren't lucky enough to get a position at the top, you at least deserve to live without fear of economic ruin.

Anyways, my point is, I just don't like that this kind of paints rich people as jerks

It's not rich people who are jerks. It's rich people who won't pay to support the society that made them rich.

[J T]

Anyways, my point is, I just don't like that this kind of paints rich people as jerks. Yes, there are some greedy, bastards, but some are nice people. That's all.

I think that is a fair point to make. For example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet hold the #1 and #2 spots for richest people in the U.S. They hold similar positions for greatest philanthropy donations as well. Both give away sizeable percentages of their income away, and though I don't have the figures in front of me right now, I remember Bill Gates was somewhere around 50% and Warren Buffett was around 70%. Even a single percentage point of their worth is a fortune. They are also both strong proponents of higher taxes for the super wealthy.

It is still possible to make a significantly positive contribution to the world and still be in the top 1%.

Nevertheless, I think we have to call into question a system that allows this kind of huge income disparity across the people where 1% of the country can control nearly half of the country's wealth. It's also such a huge disparity that I find it hard not to at least question how these people ended up with such a huge piece of the pie and wonder if there was any foul play going or at least willful ignorance of issues related to inequitable pay.

[MrPopo]

If you're poor, you can fail through no fault of your own (e.g. employer goes bankrupt during credit crisis caused by the rich).
...
If you work hard, but aren't lucky enough to get a position at the top, you at least deserve to live without fear of economic ruin.

I understand your sentiment here, but how about this counter example. The economy is doing great, joblessness is at an all time low, then by dumb luck you end up getting into a terrible car accident and are no longer a viable member of the workforce. Again, if you're rich you probably can support yourself and the care you require, while anyone who isn't rich (it's not even poor in this case) is doomed. I see us as having two options; the first is that the state subsidizes you and ensures you can live until you die (or be made a viable worker again). The other option is to let you fail. And I'm talking about the long term fate, as we currently have stopgap measures for those temporarily out of work (such as unemployment benefits). The cost of living is such that unless you can quit your job now and survive til 80 on what you have saved then you are always at risk of financial ruin. I've been doing the math on that myself, as I wanted to see what I'd have to save in order to retire at various dates assuming no social security benefits.

And if you're rich, you can fail and cause all sorts of damage, without suffering much, or even be rewarded for failure. (e.g. those same executives who caused the credit crisis getting bonuses for it.

This point really irks me, because they weren't rewarded for failure. They didn't get a bonus for fucking up the market. Golden parachutes are a compensation for no longer making annual CEO money. They're in place long before any of these problems. Saying they were rewarded for failure implies that the board got together and said "Man, this guy totally fucked up things. Let's give him money to reward him!"

[dlmvii]

This is somewhat off topic, but I found this interesting, a news piece from some time ago about the CEO of costco's pay vs his employees. He makes 12 times as much as a floor worker. It's still a lot, but much less disparate than probably almost every other company. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/sto ... 779&page=2)