It comes down to a few things.
#1 During what was known as teh greatest economic time in Americna history the gap between rich and poor was decreasing, and a truely strong middle class was developed for the first time in America. This lastest from 1945 to 1980. After 1980 the trend was no longer towards convergence, but separation. The last time there was a great separation between rich and poor in America it was the predacessor to the great depression. In other words, the gap grew, and then collpased and the Great Depression is what resulted.
#2 There is strong evidence from around the world and years of studies that economic inequality leads to a poorer economy as oppertunity is not as equally shared and the creation of strong classes leads to social fragmentation and social stress.
#3 Between 1980 and 2001 the percentage of AGI (The agrigate income of the US) that went to the rop 1% went from 8% in 1980 to 20% in 2001.
The trend is continuing and shows no sight of letting up, so at that point when do we say that there is a problem? Take it to the extreme. Let's say that the top 1% takes in 100% of all income and the bottom 99% have no income. Okay, do you say that that is a problem or not?
Assuming the anwser is yes, then where along the line do we say that a real problem is present? When the top 1% takes in 10% of the income, 20%, 30%, 40% 50%, 60%?
#4 The fact that the top 1% of the population is definately a problem of SOME kind. No matter how you look at it IMO, the fatcthat 1% of the populaiton is taking in 20% of the nations' income is a problem. Its either a problem with our society that the rest of the 99% of the population is not able to compete with these people for some reason, be it education, they aren't working as hard, they don't have the skills needed, etc. If the bottom 99% is really that far behind because of "merit" then it says we have a problem in that the majority of our population is not up to the task. What can we do to create a society for more skilled people?
However, I don't think thats really the case though. The real issue is that our system natually consolidates wealth and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Its essentially somewhat like king of the hill. There is only so much space at the top. Its not as though there are not more people who are capable of doing more or of doing what many of the people at the top do, its just that there is only one CEO in a company, period. There may be 100 people in that company that can do as good a job or bette than the current CEO, but the structure only allows for one, so there is only one, and they get the big bucks. Its a function of structure and our whole society is structured that way, and it will continue to be structured that way and get even more that way.
So the question is then, do we continue to fight over the limited space at the top forever, or can we share some of that space a little bit?
#5 Can Democracy and highly concentrated wealth exist together? Many of America's greatest minds since its birth of have said no. Obviously one of the things that was behind the creation of America in the first place was the breaking away from the system of royalty, inherited wealth, and aristocracy. Many of the founders stated that democracy and a high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few could not exist together, because money is power, and power corrputs. This sentament was repeated with the Progressives of the ealry 20th century by men like Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. It was echoed again by FDR and was an idea that formed the backbone of the economic ideology that guided us through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Reagn's administrtion attacked this ideology adn pretty much trashed it,a dn from Reagan on the fight has been wages by the wealthy to tell Americans otherwise, and at the same time they are not honest, they try to hide just how wealthy they have gotten with deceptive stastics. Why are they trying to disguise the truth?
#6 The idea that our economcy truely and accurately reflects merit and contribution to society is completely bogus. Some people don't claim that it does, and others do. Some say that its important that it does and others don't. If you claim that compensation accuretely reflects contribution to society then how exactly do we explain porn stars that make more money than teachers or even doctors? The AVERAGE salary of an NBA player is now 2.5 million a year. That same NBA player made about $30,000 a year 40 years ago, and less far than that 60 years ago, virtually nothing. Obviously the ability for these people to make this kind of money is completely dependant on a system that they have no part in creating, the sports broadcasting and marketing system. Them running up and down the court and playing a game is the same thing now as it was 50 years ago, yet before the advent of broadcast sports it wasnt'a highly paid career. They themselves are not really earning the money, the marketing and broadcasting system is that allows billions of people to watch a few people play a game.
This is part of the general effect of consolidation. Its just a natural tendancy within our system and the NBA players are a fortunate benfactor of it as a smaller and a smaller number of people are able to meet the demands of larger and larger markets. The problem is, where does all that lead, and since we know that this is a function of systems, not really personal effort, is it not somewhat unreasonable to reward people as though it is a function of personal effort?
The natural tendancy of human beings is to try to consolidate power, wealth, and control. Is this something that we want to simply sit back and let happen?
#7 The assumption is also that the rules of our economy are fair, which they are not. At the high level rules are heavily influenced in our country by very powerful special interests. These rules have major impacts on how wealth is obtained in our economy. For example when the Reagan tax cut went through the representative from Texas requested that in order to get his vote and that of his followers an exemption would have to be put in to remove the rax on domestic crude oil when it is sold from the pump. That's just one example, but our laws are filled with such types of things, some guy gets a loophole in for special treatment of real estate, or this or that. These large companies request these laws, and when they are passed they have programs designed around taking advantage of them, people generate millions and billions of dollars by taking advantage of specific legislation which they offer payback money to politicains for supporting and getting passed. This is how the really big players in our economy work. Tobacco, oil, food, drug, etc all have billions of dollars riding on laws.
Obviously the mor ethat money works on the political system the more the system gets catered the the interests of big money, and its a never ending cycle. The system get's addicted to money and corruption, and thats where we are at right now. In the middle of a system totally currupt by private money.
#8 It takes money to make money. This again leads to a snowball effect in the economy. People become wealthy for many different reasons, but once wealthy they can easily become more and more wealthy with less and less effort. Of course we know this, which is why we all want to become wealthy. However this does little justice to those working their ass off.
There is a huge amount of wealth in America in private hands that has come from very budious sources. Take the Kennedy family for example. Do you know how the Kennedy's got rich? Bootlegging during Prohibition. Durring Prohibition Joseph Kennedy ran a major bootlegging operation between Canada and the US and made millions of dollars. This is pretty much equivilent to let's say a major cocaine distributer making millions of dollars and then if we made drugs legal, he then becomes a politician and his family becomes one of the most powerful familiies in the country with his son as a president.
That's just one example, but there are many, the initial Bush family fortune came from investments in Aushwitz labor camp prior to American entry into WWII, just another example, but in reality there are thousands of these examples. And the reality is that once wealth is consolidated into a family they have a huge advantage in our economy. Many other people never have that oppertunity or advantage, and as we have seen all throught history, the more people have a competative advantage the better. The more fair the competition is for everyone, the better the whole system is. Concentration of wealth by definition reduces the fairness of that competition.
then complain how much money politicians and businessmen get. It sickens me.
