4 ms·

Those examples aren't really "the rich". Business tax cuts benefit shareholders, and globally there has been a race to the bottom to pit locations against each

by qqtt 5y ago

Those examples aren't really "the rich". Business tax cuts benefit shareholders, and globally there has been a race to the bottom to pit locations against each other to try to drive profit margins. These things have largely affected manufacturing - manufacturing itself being marginalized in the greater business landscape as other more profitable industries have gained favor. Note that "the rich" are not all that intertwined in the minutiae of manufacturing. Opposing health care reform is also a niche issue dominated by well-connected insurance companies. Many other industries would like nothing more than the government to take over health care costs and lower their own burden (including tech companies who end up paying exorbitant amounts to fund these benefits against other competitors). The health insurance companies (and related industries which benefit from price gouging in the health care industry) are entrenched in lobbying and congress and have the clout to block these efforts. Insurance companies aren't "the rich" they are simply well connected with government. Much of the talk about "the rich" trying to "destroy the middle class" really come down to two large buckets: * Company shareholders benefiting from profit margins (outsourcing, manufacturing, lowering cost without oversight or regulation) - this benefits "the rich" is so far as "the rich" are shareholders of these companies * Niche industries having disproportionate influence in our political system - such as private prison lobby, health insurance lobby, etc. - these players have in turn disproportionate impact on our legislative process because they are entrenched and intertwined with members of congress It doesn't benefit "the rich" to have a poor population, if anything it makes the rich more vulnerable. What we are seeing play out is actually unintended consequences of greed and plain as day corruption which continues without oversight and regulation.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Shareholders are the rich.
smackeyacky 5y ago
This is mostly true, but it downplays the regulatory capture that has also occurred at the same time. "The Rich" have a lot more access to some very cheaply bought politicians, they have entire organisations dedicated to policy wonkism that is spoon fed to those politicians and they play king maker in the background of our political organisations by pulling support in the shadows. If you want a concrete example of this in a modern, western country you only need to look to Australia to see the paralysis that has occurred over climate and carbon policies. Every time we get close to making some progress on curbing our coal producers, a political ruction occurs. This happened again just days ago when the rump/conservative/rural voter party (The Nationals) replaced their leader with a coal industry supporter - simply because the leader of the majority conservative party in their coalition publically mooted a potential change to net zero emissions by 2050. It's like clockwork and ordinary people can do exactly zero things about it. How does this destroy the middle class? Big companies need educated workers but they don't like the wage bill associated with it. Decimating the middle class via automation and flooding the market with educated people ensures a long term supply of poor-but-educated. That's the end goal of this project and the measurable difference in wealth inequality proves that it is working extremely well.
VictorPath 5y ago
> this benefits "the rich" is so far as "the rich" are shareholders of these companies The rich are the shareholders of companies. According to the Department of Labor's survey of consumer finances, the wealthiest 1% own 38% of stock. The wealthiest 5% own 71% of stock. The bottom half of the country owns 1% of the stock. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-inequality.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in... > It doesn't benefit "the rich" to have a poor population, if anything it makes the rich more vulnerable. That means after a company does its capital investments, the rich would prefer money going to wages over profits. The opposite has been the case for past centuries (not that they never lose the battle). It may be dialectically self-destructive, but so is the arms race with Russia (and China), so is increasing carbon production. Russia's czar in the early 20th century had self-destructive properties as well.

by qqtt 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

Shareholders are the rich.

smackeyacky 5y ago

This is mostly true, but it downplays the regulatory capture that has also occurred at the same time. "The Rich" have a lot more access to some very cheaply bought politicians, they have entire organisations dedicated to policy wonkism that is spoon fed to those politicians and they play king maker in the background of our political organisations by pulling support in the shadows. If you want a concrete example of this in a modern, western country you only need to look to Australia to see the paralysis that has occurred over climate and carbon policies. Every time we get close to making some progress on curbing our coal producers, a political ruction occurs. This happened again just days ago when the rump/conservative/rural voter party (The Nationals) replaced their leader with a coal industry supporter - simply because the leader of the majority conservative party in their coalition publically mooted a potential change to net zero emissions by 2050. It's like clockwork and ordinary people can do exactly zero things about it. How does this destroy the middle class? Big companies need educated workers but they don't like the wage bill associated with it. Decimating the middle class via automation and flooding the market with educated people ensures a long term supply of poor-but-educated. That's the end goal of this project and the measurable difference in wealth inequality proves that it is working extremely well.

VictorPath 5y ago

> this benefits "the rich" is so far as "the rich" are shareholders of these companies The rich are the shareholders of companies. According to the Department of Labor's survey of consumer finances, the wealthiest 1% own 38% of stock. The wealthiest 5% own 71% of stock. The bottom half of the country owns 1% of the stock. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-inequality.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in... > It doesn't benefit "the rich" to have a poor population, if anything it makes the rich more vulnerable. That means after a company does its capital investments, the rich would prefer money going to wages over profits. The opposite has been the case for past centuries (not that they never lose the battle). It may be dialectically self-destructive, but so is the arms race with Russia (and China), so is increasing carbon production. Russia's czar in the early 20th century had self-destructive properties as well.