5 ms·

> most wealth in America is earned through hard work and sacrifice Ha. Citation needed. Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number

by hobls 8y ago

> most wealth in America is earned through hard work and sacrifice Ha. Citation needed. Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families. It is plainly ridiculous to suggest that someone with billions of dollars has worked harder or sacrificed proportionally more than a single mother working two jobs. Hard and sacrifice are simply not the driving factors in wealth generation.

hluska 8y ago
"Ha. Citation needed" is a very rude reply to someone who went out of his way to explain why conservative voters weren't enamoured with Obama. Contrary to what you may believe, vast swathes of the world think that American electoral politics are completely insane.
- hobls 8y ago
  The assertion ("most wealth comes from hard work and sacrifice") is both humorous and provably incorrect. I stand by my reply. (Edited: I didn't realize this wasn't the original poster I replied to.)
  - test_5 8y ago
    What do you do for a living, character?
    - hobls 8y ago
      Did you really make an account just for this comment? I'm... kind of flattered. How odd.
      - test_5 8y ago
        Your words speak for me.
  - gfodor 8y ago
    Note: you can read the name of the poster, so in this reply you are both attacking a strawman (nobody made the assertion you claim was made) and also attributing that quote to the wrong person. Impressive :)
    - hobls 8y ago
      Oh, whoops. My bad, editing.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
gfodor 8y ago
Citation needed for where I actually endorsed these views or asserted their validity. Re-read my post: you're yelling at a strawman. Conjecture: seeing the sequence of words "most wealth in America is earned through hard work and sacrifice" immediately blinded you to the context they were written in (namely: my observation that this is a belief of a large part of America and their actions are a logical induction from those beliefs) and you flipped the bit and went right into attack mode. Reflect on that, and realize that this kind of blinded reaction lies at the core of why lots of things are being said but no actual communication is occurring between people around these subjects.
- hobls 8y ago
  I'd characterize my response as "mildly sarcastic" rather than "attack mode." Other than the tone of the first three words, my reply was in response to the idea, and not you as the poster. edit: I'd also like to suggest that uncritically parroting false assertations like the one you posted is a poor way to advance discourse.
  - gfodor 8y ago
    I'd argue that being unable to talk about ideas themselves and the dynamics of their belief without being derailed into arguing about the merits of the ideas themselves is a sign that someone has not managed to form a coherent, defensible worldview. When on solid ground you can always argue both sides convincingly, but have clear reasoning why you support the side you do, and talking about the opposing view does not immediately spur a desire to argue against it since you are confident in your beliefs despite empathy for the opposition. This is an impossible thing to get if you are unable to talk about and explore opposing beliefs without immediately having to defend your final conclusions.
    - hobls 8y ago
      I see that you were trying to discuss what conservatives found upsetting about the "rich are too rich" narrative, and that you think my response was off-topic. I do (of course) disagree with your numerous assumptions about the coherence of my worldview and my ability to explore opposing beliefs, but I see how you got there. The place that I think we might disagree is in the value of neutrally presenting positions in the way that you did. Have you ever listened to an NPR piece on climate change? NPR tries very hard (too hard, in my opinion) to present "both sides" of an argument. The impact is that they tend to do something like, "today we have a leading scientist, and Joe who works in the local coal mine." Joe's opinion is simply not as valuable as the leading scientist, and by uncritically presenting them as equal they muddy the issue and ultimately spread disinformation. The whole "both sides" thing is just not as valuable as we tend to act like it is, in my opinion. Yes, it is valuable to understand where people are coming from. It is more valuable to be correct.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families. Those who ask for citations should also give them...
- hobls 8y ago
  I'd suggest that asking for a citation is more relevant when the position is hard to source, but sure: https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric...
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    That says that 3 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50%, and that the top 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 64%. But that doesn't mean that, as you said, "Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families." It says that a small number of incredibly wealthy families have more wealth than the most of the people (put together). That is, the article says they out-weighed most of the people, but you claimed they out-weighed most of the dollars. Your claim is therefore either poorly worded, or unsupported by your citation. And if I'm going to complain about your lack of citation, I should give one. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... that "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States." That's a lot, but it's not enough to make "most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families" accurate.
    - hobls 8y ago
      Are you disagreeing with my use of the word "most" here? If so, do you happen to know what percentage of families own 51% of the wealth? Or if it's the word "small," can we agree that 5% (or whatever it is) is still a "small" number as compared to the remaining population? I feel like we're very nearly on the same page here. You are correct that comparing the top 1% to the bottom 90% is mildly hard to reason about due to leaving out the 2nd through 9th percentile, but I feel like the overall point stands. (Well, and in general, I think it's pretty clear that hard work and sacrifice simply do not usually result in wealth. That was my original point.)

by hobls 8y ago

hluska 8y ago

"Ha. Citation needed" is a very rude reply to someone who went out of his way to explain why conservative voters weren't enamoured with Obama. Contrary to what you may believe, vast swathes of the world think that American electoral politics are completely insane.

hobls 8y ago
The assertion ("most wealth comes from hard work and sacrifice") is both humorous and provably incorrect. I stand by my reply. (Edited: I didn't realize this wasn't the original poster I replied to.)
- test_5 8y ago
  What do you do for a living, character?
  - hobls 8y ago
    Did you really make an account just for this comment? I'm... kind of flattered. How odd.
    - test_5 8y ago
      Your words speak for me.
- gfodor 8y ago
  Note: you can read the name of the poster, so in this reply you are both attacking a strawman (nobody made the assertion you claim was made) and also attributing that quote to the wrong person. Impressive :)
  - hobls 8y ago
    Oh, whoops. My bad, editing.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

gfodor 8y ago

Citation needed for where I actually endorsed these views or asserted their validity. Re-read my post: you're yelling at a strawman. Conjecture: seeing the sequence of words "most wealth in America is earned through hard work and sacrifice" immediately blinded you to the context they were written in (namely: my observation that this is a belief of a large part of America and their actions are a logical induction from those beliefs) and you flipped the bit and went right into attack mode. Reflect on that, and realize that this kind of blinded reaction lies at the core of why lots of things are being said but no actual communication is occurring between people around these subjects.

hobls 8y ago
I'd characterize my response as "mildly sarcastic" rather than "attack mode." Other than the tone of the first three words, my reply was in response to the idea, and not you as the poster. edit: I'd also like to suggest that uncritically parroting false assertations like the one you posted is a poor way to advance discourse.
- gfodor 8y ago
  I'd argue that being unable to talk about ideas themselves and the dynamics of their belief without being derailed into arguing about the merits of the ideas themselves is a sign that someone has not managed to form a coherent, defensible worldview. When on solid ground you can always argue both sides convincingly, but have clear reasoning why you support the side you do, and talking about the opposing view does not immediately spur a desire to argue against it since you are confident in your beliefs despite empathy for the opposition. This is an impossible thing to get if you are unable to talk about and explore opposing beliefs without immediately having to defend your final conclusions.
  - hobls 8y ago
    I see that you were trying to discuss what conservatives found upsetting about the "rich are too rich" narrative, and that you think my response was off-topic. I do (of course) disagree with your numerous assumptions about the coherence of my worldview and my ability to explore opposing beliefs, but I see how you got there. The place that I think we might disagree is in the value of neutrally presenting positions in the way that you did. Have you ever listened to an NPR piece on climate change? NPR tries very hard (too hard, in my opinion) to present "both sides" of an argument. The impact is that they tend to do something like, "today we have a leading scientist, and Joe who works in the local coal mine." Joe's opinion is simply not as valuable as the leading scientist, and by uncritically presenting them as equal they muddy the issue and ultimately spread disinformation. The whole "both sides" thing is just not as valuable as we tend to act like it is, in my opinion. Yes, it is valuable to understand where people are coming from. It is more valuable to be correct.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

> Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families. Those who ask for citations should also give them...

hobls 8y ago
I'd suggest that asking for a citation is more relevant when the position is hard to source, but sure: https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric...
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  That says that 3 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50%, and that the top 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 64%. But that doesn't mean that, as you said, "Most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families." It says that a small number of incredibly wealthy families have more wealth than the most of the people (put together). That is, the article says they out-weighed most of the people, but you claimed they out-weighed most of the dollars. Your claim is therefore either poorly worded, or unsupported by your citation. And if I'm going to complain about your lack of citation, I should give one. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... that "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States." That's a lot, but it's not enough to make "most wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a small number of incredibly wealthy families" accurate.
  - hobls 8y ago
    Are you disagreeing with my use of the word "most" here? If so, do you happen to know what percentage of families own 51% of the wealth? Or if it's the word "small," can we agree that 5% (or whatever it is) is still a "small" number as compared to the remaining population? I feel like we're very nearly on the same page here. You are correct that comparing the top 1% to the bottom 90% is mildly hard to reason about due to leaving out the 2nd through 9th percentile, but I feel like the overall point stands. (Well, and in general, I think it's pretty clear that hard work and sacrifice simply do not usually result in wealth. That was my original point.)