3 ms·

As another comment here pointed out; 90.1% possess about 30% of the wealth. 9% possess another 30% of the wealth. The remaining 0.9% possess the rest. Is th

by tscs37 8y ago

As another comment here pointed out; 90.1% possess about 30% of the wealth. 9% possess another 30% of the wealth. The remaining 0.9% possess the rest. Is the 9% to blame for inequality?

venomsnake 8y ago
Yes. Because without the 9.9% the 0.9 are helpless. And the 9.9 can do just fine without the 0.9 but not the other way around.
dvanduzer 8y ago
Yes, that is the core thesis of the article. For the last 30 years, that tiny fraction (0.1%, correcting what I assume was a typo/misread) has seen their overall share grow. Thirty years ago, that 90% possessed 35% of the wealth. Today, that 90% possesses 20% of the wealth. The 9.9% near (but not at) the top has maintained their wealth over the last 30 years. The culture problems of this tier of American society may not be as obvious to you, but I assure you, the answer to your question is yes.
Mbioguy 8y ago
It's not about blaming the 9.9%. It's about convincing the 9.9% that they are part of the problem. The way the author writes, he is in that group, speaking to them. "We." Compare to slavery. Obviously Southern slaveowners bear responsibility. But were non-slaveowners, Northerners, etc free of the taint? No. Ulysses S. Grant married into a slaveowning family and for years was supported by them. Northern factory owners turned profits off the products of slavery. Regular northerners purchased products produced by the system of slavery. Sure, some are more responsible than others, but the whole country from North to South bore the taint of slavery. Individuals giving up slaves didn't end slavery. Raising awareness of slavery's evil to the point where it hit critical mass, and then using power to force slaveholders to cease, that's how it ended. This article is a member of the 9.9% speaking to others of the 9.9%, telling them they cannot absolve themselves; that they cannot expect to escape without consequence if the world turns again, as it has in the past. In my mind the only question left to be addressed is how the power will be wielded. Will it be a politicolegal revolution or a violent one?
JBReefer 8y ago
The American left is heavily reliant on contributions from the new 0.1% that is SV tech money. There's been a pretty noticeable drop in redistributive rhetoric in the last 10 years. I blame Larry Ellison for inequality wayyyyyyy more than anyone that works for him. When you've been out of power for this long (presidency doesn't count because he has very little real power compared to the House and State Gov't) you have to be _really_ careful about biting the hand that feeds you.

by tscs37 8y ago

As another comment here pointed out; 90.1% possess about 30% of the wealth. 9% possess another 30% of the wealth. The remaining 0.9% possess the rest. Is the 9% to blame for inequality?

venomsnake 8y ago

Yes. Because without the 9.9% the 0.9 are helpless. And the 9.9 can do just fine without the 0.9 but not the other way around.

dvanduzer 8y ago

Yes, that is the core thesis of the article. For the last 30 years, that tiny fraction (0.1%, correcting what I assume was a typo/misread) has seen their overall share grow. Thirty years ago, that 90% possessed 35% of the wealth. Today, that 90% possesses 20% of the wealth. The 9.9% near (but not at) the top has maintained their wealth over the last 30 years. The culture problems of this tier of American society may not be as obvious to you, but I assure you, the answer to your question is yes.

Mbioguy 8y ago

It's not about blaming the 9.9%. It's about convincing the 9.9% that they are part of the problem. The way the author writes, he is in that group, speaking to them. "We." Compare to slavery. Obviously Southern slaveowners bear responsibility. But were non-slaveowners, Northerners, etc free of the taint? No. Ulysses S. Grant married into a slaveowning family and for years was supported by them. Northern factory owners turned profits off the products of slavery. Regular northerners purchased products produced by the system of slavery. Sure, some are more responsible than others, but the whole country from North to South bore the taint of slavery. Individuals giving up slaves didn't end slavery. Raising awareness of slavery's evil to the point where it hit critical mass, and then using power to force slaveholders to cease, that's how it ended. This article is a member of the 9.9% speaking to others of the 9.9%, telling them they cannot absolve themselves; that they cannot expect to escape without consequence if the world turns again, as it has in the past. In my mind the only question left to be addressed is how the power will be wielded. Will it be a politicolegal revolution or a violent one?

JBReefer 8y ago

The American left is heavily reliant on contributions from the new 0.1% that is SV tech money. There's been a pretty noticeable drop in redistributive rhetoric in the last 10 years. I blame Larry Ellison for inequality wayyyyyyy more than anyone that works for him. When you've been out of power for this long (presidency doesn't count because he has very little real power compared to the House and State Gov't) you have to be _really_ careful about biting the hand that feeds you.