donau

I think you are right about that. Just basing on what I have observed myself...And also, if one does get a break, and I mean a fairly big brake, one feels that it is a once in a lifetime event only, not likely to be repeated...at least to the same person. I'm now talking generalities here. I'm sure there are people who have gotten a lot of breaks, but in general, I think you are right.

Curb Zone

 

Deutsch

I read a post on a mini forum about the income gap in Miami, which is pretty large for anyone that hasn't been there or knows nothing about it. It made me think about this subject all over agian, and where exactly is this all headed??? No one knows the answer, but I have the feeling that things will indeed improve, the goverments of the world as do the people know they have a lot to loose if one whole pillar of society collapses into shambles. The consequences of such a thing happening are disastorus, for everyone. There are too many determined souls and too many innovative minds for society to go to waste. Perhaps this may seem like a utopian concept to some, but we do have an ever increasingly stronger economy and a proceeding generation of individuals that believe in the proliferation of democracy for all, in all things.

Snake Vargas

"Proliferation of democracy" doesn't mean "equal distribution of wealth". There are good acts here and there, but IMO humanity is generally selfish, and you can figure the rest out yourself.

In my vision of a distopian future, the only thing that will bring people back to their senses is social collapse - when a large sector gets so poor that they have nothing left to lose and cause widespread and massive social upheaval. Then the rest of society can either work to right things for all or simply quash the peasant uprising

Hypersonic

Hmmm ...sounds like the French and Russian revolutions. But SV, the rich are getting richer, that is definitely true ...but the poor are also getting richer.

The standard of living has never been so high for such a huge percentage of the world's population -- one hundred years ago, the world was a whole lot worse for a lot more people.

It is actually quite self-indulgent to always be complaining about "the rich getting richer" ....in the past, people just accepted their life as it was ....today we obsess over whether we are happy or not ......this in itself is a direct consequence of a standard of living that truly poor people can only dream of.

Seriously, most people don't know what real poverty really is ....I'm talking about people who are so poor, they actually live in a hole in the ground ...I saw a man on TV a while ago who grew up as a peasant in a very poor part of the Soviet Union, his family literally lived in a hole which was covered with a roof. I also read about three sisters who lived in a small village in China, they were so desperately poor, that they only had one dress between them ....and so only one sister left the house at a time. That is the kind of poverty that I find abhorrent ....not some welfare dependent solo mother who spends her money on cigarettes and lottery tickets.

Snake Vargas

By a similar token, people who are considered battlers in our societies are that much better off than people here, yet they still can complain about the rich getting richer. I suppose it's always possible to look at how the incredibly rich live (and it's easier to do that more than ever thanks to the media) and want some of it. It's also true that the incredibly rich are becoming richer, often with little regard for the less well-off. However, you can't really complain in our societies. True though, Rob, that in times before people didn't really obsess about their position in life - they just accepted it.

Anyhow, I can try but can't possibly truly imagine how miserable and wretched it would be to die of starvation - simply wasting away without food - yet it happens to many around the world.

Michael

I see your point SV, but a social collapse will only yield another cycle of typical human selfishness.

The way the world is today is a collective group of individuals. If we analyze the individual, for the most part, we can all conclude that he/she is self-interested. This is something that plays a huge role in society. However, that is just one variable that has to be taken into consideration.

Take for instance my generation. We have been told constantly that if you can dream about it you can get it. Unfortunately the dreamers are still dreaming and reality is still being reality. Peopple ultimate have to realize that they will not make it. Once this reality sets in--of course this is factoring out the lucky draws such as the lottery or anything related to that that may happen to someone in their life--people begin to adjust to what they have and, psychologically, conform themselves to this. I am in some way or form REFLECTING on what Just me pointed on in one of his first posts. I am in no way questioning him, or anyone like him.

Society itself will always bee a seperation of classes and that is the way it will be no matter what. If everyone were rich, then there would be no balance and therefore, everyone that is rich would be the same analogy of, "the glass is half full", or "the glass is half empty". Taking that analogy and applying the princicple to such an example (everyone being rich), you would be right if you said, "everyone is rich" and/or "everyone is poor". In that case the situation would be relative. This of course is being mentioned only in passing since some that live in a etopian world tend to mention that the world should be rich, and that would bring happiness, which is absurdly wrong.

In the US the rich are not getting that much richer, in my opinion. The era of the Rockefellers and families alike, has pretty much ended. So, in reality, looking at the rich sector in American society one can see that the rich, as a whole, have balanced out. The rich as a whole are equal in some aspects. Moving to the poor, well, there is an influx of immigration would is mutating the face of American culture, and in doing this, is creating a poorer class. However, directly and indirectly this is creating a middle class, which is growing more rapidly than the rich or poor. In China, the change from a full fledged Communist practicing state, to a semi-capitalisitc state, has morphed the make-up of China. The middle classs is growing so fast, that China has restriced so many people from the urbanized areas in which much of this middle class resides.

Ultimately, the argument that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is relative based on social, political, and economical factors that shape cities, regions, states and the world itself. I personally think the the US is a prime example of anyone being able to make their life what they want it to be with ceratin restrictions.

Rob I cannot stress how true this is.

For one taking a look at 3rd world countries, one can see that people are in a devasted situation. Poor is not a term, because to me poor would imply a very low low income, or income that in some way or form contributes to your well being or living. In some of these countries income does not exist, therefore, poverty is used in place of that. Of course I have twisted the definitions here to comply with my belief, however, it is not to far from the truth. The fact remains that many 3rd world counties are suffering, and not moving up the ladder because of many different reasons. However, that is not the point.

Poor in the US is rich! in 3rd world countries.

450SEL6.9

I think, even in America, the rich get richer. The rich have access to capital, expertise and most of all, something the Chinese calls guanxi (connections). Given those odds, I'd be surprised if the rich don't get richer. Look at the Forbes list of World Billionaires and Richest People in America. The minimum net worth to get on that list goes up every year.

If you had millions of investable money, you can invest in venture capital funds and have the smartest managers handle your money. The VC firm that backed Youtube for something like $10 million, in return for a reputed 30% stake, could get back $500 million for less than two year's work. Youtube was bought by Google for a bubble price, $1.6 billion US. Now how would a poor man have his money invested in one of those sweetheart deals? In fact, how would a poor man even have any discretionary money to invest?

Athletes get paid $20 million US for endorsements. Actors made that every movie. A celebrity can make mega millions, more in one year than an average man makes in a few lifetimes! The West is celebrity obsessed, oil obsessed and wealth obsessed. How can the rich not get more rich under such favourable circumstances? How can the poor not become more poor and/or more dead?

Michael

I think you are overlooking the principle behind my statement. The rich are indeed getting richer, but so are the poor people, and the middle class. Therefore, it is not entirely true that the rich are getting richer. Relative to the poor, and the middle class, they are proportionately getting richer.

I understand that you are trying to relate maybe something you read recently in an article in reference to the youtube and Google transaction, but that really does not pertain to this conversation. If you are going to talk about a corporation as an ENTITY and how it ventures into business transactions that is a different story. However, we are talking about the 'rich' which is a collective body of individuals. Knowing this, you can see that we have to attack, discuss, or explain the body or the individual. The individuals may be part of a business, but that is a separate story.

Proportionately, the rich are not getting richer in relation to the poor and the middle class. There is an upward trend, which is what I attempted to describe.

In addition to this, I was proposing that the 'rich' are balancing out. Before there was a smaller group that were the 'rich' and they were wealthy. However, in the todays world the group has grown, and so has the balance. You will not see several major billionares that are so powerful, but rather, just a few. If you do not understand what I mean by balancing out, then I will further clarify this upon request.

Asserting this notion is incorrect. First, athletes make this kind of money here and there. They are not making this money consistently.The minute they are injured, fired, or are to old to play they are done. Also, society goes through phases where they admire a particular celebrity or athlete. In the end, this only contributes to a small amount of the celebrities and/or atheletes net worth.

You do not see that many, if any at all, celebrities/atheletes on forbes list do you? They are being paid this amount for a year or two, but not for the rest of their life. Rich people have incomes that either grow exponentially or stay consistent. That is the difference between your assumption and reality. Essentially you are assuming that just because a particular celeb/athelete gets paid 20 million for product, commercial, or whatever that they are rich. They are, but not part of that MEGA-group which is what I am referring to. In the end they may fall back into the upper middles class.

Matt

It is a big issue and bigger issue than most take into consideration however there are methods that work and methods that discourage economic growth. I think the biggest problem in the U.S. is the difficulty of new business to compete with established larger businesses because of the huge amount taxation hammered onto starting businesses (especially in California). However creating a doll by overly taxing certain segments of the population is not teh answer either because what it does is destroys any person's incentive to get rich or to start a business because they have a safety blanket with no need to excel-like Sweden.

Taxation is a good thing for the most part however. We do need to tax the rich at a higher rate than everyone else so some wealth does get redistributed but I think that will not solve the issue and if taken too far can hampar the economy as well.
It seems to me that alot of people without money think that acquiring it is matter of luck. No it isnt. It takes hard work, lots of risk, and lots of knowledge. Yes luck can happen but people who make that top 10 list didnt just get lucky. Try flipping a coin for instance. Lets say that a rich man is 100 times richer than a poor man. Take a coin and flip it a 100 times to see if heads comes up each time. It probably never will. One's chances are so minute in achieving that, which is a demonstration that people with 100 times more wealth than a poor man didnt get lucky a 100 times over. They took a smart risk, worked hard and excelled.

450SEL6.9

There are quite a few Hollywood celebs, TV stars on rich lists. Tiger Woods will likely be worth $4-5 billion when he's done. Michael Schumacher is worth about $800 million. I disagree with what you said about celebrities not being able to move into mega rich. I believe many of them are already very high in terms of their earning power because some of them can earn more than the annual profits of a billionaire's company, which they ultimately derive their asset wealth from.

Are the poor and the rich and the middle class proportionately getting richer? Perhaps it is an illusion of wealth amongst the lower classes. In my old stomping grounds, Hong Kong, a new study just came out. There are 77,000 millionaires in a city with 6 million. Their average net worth is $40 million HK, highest in Asia, but these individuals can be considered the upper/high middle class according to HK standard of living! The mega rich have seen their wealth go up even more because they own the top companies and the best property.

I don't agree that all the classes are getting richer proportionately. I say that because I think the middle class and even the poor in the US of A have been living beyond their means by using the equity in their homes. Are they really better off if they are borrowing to finance consumption and luxury items? I think not. I think not.

I was also not talking about the corporation (Google, YouTube) as an entity. I was referencing that to demonstrate access. Money makes money! If you had the access to money and top fund managers, you could have been in on that YouTube deal. You could have been involved when it was a start-up! If you were poor and unconnected, forget it. I think you will agree with my premise the rich have more opportunities to become more rich.

I bolded part of your quote. You said that the relative to the poor and the middle class, they (the rich) are proportionately getting richer. But you also say that proportionately, the rich are not getting richer in relation to the poor and the middle class.

This is neat, little discussion!

Curb Zone