3 ms·
Surely someone must be conspiring to steal the fruits of their labor and allocate it to the 1% That's not necessary at all, and I think everybody knows it. Th
by abstractbill 14y ago
Surely someone must be conspiring to steal the fruits of their labor and allocate it to the 1%
That's not necessary at all, and I think everybody knows it. The thing I think people often perceive as unfair is that there's a level of wealth beyond which you don't have to do anything at all, and you will continue to gain wealth - often at a rate that's much faster than people who do work very hard. I can see that feeling unfair. I tend to think in more pragmatic terms personally - I don't care too much if it's fair or unfair, I care more about whether it works (and on that, I'm undecided).
- argumentum 14y agoBeyond that level of wealth, you can also lose incredible fortunes very quickly. That's probably more common than gaining without doing anything at all, don't you think?
- abstractbill 14y agoI honestly don't know. My gut feeling would be no - the rich people I know personally tend to be very conservative with the bulk of their wealth, and at least one of them does just pay someone else to grow it for him. I'd love to see more data though!
- argumentum 14y agoWho is that someone? That would be quite valuable information ;)
- RougeFemme 14y agoI don't think the 99% believe that the 1% can lose incredible fortunes quickly. The perception is that the 1% prop each other up or are propped up/rescued by someone. Yeah, there was Bernie Madoff. But when Donald Trump is facing bankruptcy, the people holding the paper work with him because they can't afford his bankruptcy. That rarely happens in the 99%. The banks and auto companies were bailed out in ways that individuals rarely are. Yes, jobs were saved...but the fortunes of the top management were, too.