• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

So what kind of characters are we, the 9.9 percent? We are mostly not like those flamboyant political manipulators from the 0.1 percent. We're a well-behaved, flannel-suited crowd of lawyers, doctors, dentists, mid-level investment bankers, M.B.A.s with opaque job titles, and assorted other professionals—the kind of people you might invite to dinner. In fact, we're so self-effacing, we deny our own existence. We keep insisting that we're "middle class."

As of 2016, it took $1.2 million in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent; $2.4 million to reach the group's median; and $10 million to get into the top 0.9 percent. (And if you're not there yet, relax: Our club is open to people who are on the right track and have the right attitude.) "We are the 99 percent" sounds righteous, but it's a slogan, not an analysis. The families at our end of the spectrum wouldn't know what to do with a pitchfork.

We are also mostly, but not entirely, white. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, African Americans represent 1.9 percent of the top 10th of households in wealth; Hispanics, 2.4 percent; and all other minorities, including Asian and multiracial individuals, 8.8 percent—even though those groups together account for 35 percent of the total population.

One of the hazards of life in the 9.9 percent is that our necks get stuck in the upward position. We gaze upon the 0.1 percent with a mixture of awe, envy, and eagerness to obey. As a consequence, we are missing the other big story of our time. We have left the 90 percent in the dust—and we've been quietly tossing down roadblocks behind us to make sure that they never catch up.

One of things exacerbating this is assortative mating. Lawyers don't marry retail managers, for example. The next generation is then born with massive advantages and it continues via generational wealth transfers. This then limits class mobility as the rich tend to segregate themselves and build mutually beneficial networks.

I don't know if this has a solution. You can't control people's romantic preferences. See below.

Marriage itself, a predictable wealth builder, is also becoming less of an option poorer folks choose as well.

Sociologists would say, in their dry language, that my grandmother was a zealous manager of the family's social capital—and she wasn't about to let some Spanish street urchin run away with it. She did have a point, even if her facts were wrong. Money may be the measure of wealth, but it is far from the only form of it. Family, friends, social networks, personal health, culture, education, and even location are all ways of being rich, too. These nonfinancial forms of wealth, as it turns out, aren't simply perks of membership in our aristocracy. They define us.

We are the people of good family, good health, good schools, good neighborhoods, and good jobs. We may want to call ourselves the "5Gs" rather than the 9.9 percent. We are so far from the not-so-good people on all of these dimensions, we are beginning to resemble a new species. And, just as in Grandmother's day, the process of speciation begins with a love story—or, if you prefer, sexual selection.

The polite term for the process is assortative mating. The phrase is sometimes used to suggest that this is another of the wonders of the internet age, where popcorn at last meets butter and Yankees fan finds Yankees fan. In fact, the frenzy of assortative mating today results from a truth that would have been generally acknowledged by the heroines of any Jane Austen novel: Rising inequality decreases the number of suitably wealthy mates even as it increases the reward for finding one and the penalty for failing to do so. According to one study, the last timee marriage partners sorted themselves by educational status as much as they do now was in the 1920s.

999c60f6b.png
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
The American aristocracy was fully installed before the revolution - indeed the revolution was funded and propelled by them.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,105
UK
For most of us, the process is happily invisible. You meet someone under a tree on an exclusive campus or during orientation at a high-powered professional firm, and before you know it, you're twice as rich. But sometimes—Grandmother understood this well—extra measures are called for. That's where our new technology puts bumbling society detectives to shame. Ivy Leaguers looking to mate with their equals can apply to join a dating service called the League. It's selective, naturally: Only 20 to 30 percent of New York applicants get in. It's sometimes called "Tinder for the elites."
It is misleading to think that assortative mating is symmetrical, as in city mouse marries city mouse and country mouse marries country mouse. A better summary of the data would be: Rich mouse finds love, and poor mouse gets screwed. It turns out—who knew?—that people who are struggling to keep it all together have a harder time hanging on to their partner.

According to the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, 60 years ago just 20 percent of children born to parents with a high-school education or less lived in a single-parent household; now that figure is nearly 70 percent. Among college-educated households, by contrast, the single-parent rate remains less than 10 percent. Since the 1970s, the divorce rate has declined significantly among college-educated couples, while it has risen dramatically among couples with only a high-school education—even as marriage itself has become less common. The rate of single parenting is in turn the single most significant predictor of social immobility across counties, according to a study led by the Stanford economist Raj Chetty.

Suddenly, the focus of parents to get their kids into private or quite prestige colleges/universities just got way more sinister, so that the kids can find a partner of the right class and keep the class segregation going to an extreme intolerant level like it's the caste system of India or Victorian England. No surprise romantic fiction for both these societies (Wuthering Heights, Bollywood) were about rich+poor coupling.

It's one of the delusions of our meritocratic class, however, to assume that if our actions are individually blameless, then the sum of our actions will be good for society. We may have studied Shakespeare on the way to law school, but we have little sense for the tragic possibilities of life. The fact of the matter is that we have silently and collectively opted for inequality, and this is what inequality does. It turns marriage into a luxury good, and a stable family life into a privilege that the moneyed elite can pass along to their children. How do we think that's going to work out?

This is the thing, we in the delusional "middle class"/9.9% are conditioned that because individually we got ourselves through meritocracy, that means we don't have to check our privilege cause we must be helping society out but we're not if we put up the walls to lower classes.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,105
UK
America and other high inequality countries are gonna have to mirror Norway and other low inequality countries with:
  • Free education
  • Universal healthcare
  • Paid maternity leave
  • Long-term unemployment benefits
  • Robust welfare state
  • Redistribution policies
  • Change of attitude to actually feeling bad when inequality is due to bad luck (Norwegians don't like it, Americans are cool with it)
The Atlantic: How Norwegians and Americans See Inequality Differently
 

PanickyFool

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,947
Tell someone at ERA they do not deserve to inherit their parents house tax free, and they throw a shit fit.
 

Hycran

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
1,494
I can only speak to my experience in Canada, but my lawyer's salary puts me in the top 10% of earners. Although I am heavily taxed, the fact remains that my take home income vastly outstrips what the average person makes. I really don't think i'm middle class; there are simply haves and have nots. I feel very fortunate to be where I am (As I didn't come from money) but I definitely do my best to give back. Even if I'll never be a multi-bazillionaire, there is so much the top 10% can do to funnel benefits and well being down to everyone else.
 

SegFault

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,939
I mean just take the money from the rich when they die. Their kids did nothing to earn it. (Nor did their parents really)
 

thewienke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,930
As an upper middle class person I agree that our attitudes need to be more similar to how things were in revolutionary times. Why the living fuck we defend the 0.1-1% as hard as we tend to do is mind boggling. If we suddenly shifted to a Nordic progressive economic system, it's not like my wife and I would suddenly not be upper middle class. The gap between people like us and the 1% is magnitudes greater than our wealth compared to the poor and that is the true issue at hand.

Yet people in our income bracket will continue to vote Republican more than anything else and it's maddening. We're also getting super fucked!
 

MrGerbils

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
314
We can't live in a true meritocracy until everyone has access to the same opportunity.

First up: education, healthcare, and a living wage.

And not just free community or state college, free any college that you can get in to.
 

PanickyFool

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,947
As an upper middle class person I agree that our attitudes need to be more similar to how things were in revolutionary times. Why the living fuck we defend the 0.1-1% as hard as we tend to do is mind boggling. If we suddenly shifted to a Nordic progressive economic system, it's not like my wife and I would suddenly not be upper middle class. The gap between people like us and the 1% is magnitudes greater than our wealth compared to the poor and that is the true issue at hand.

Yet people in our income bracket will continue to vote Republican more than anything else and it's maddening. We're also getting super fucked!
This conversation shifts way to quickly into deflection to the 1%.

Far more blame and responsibility lies at the feet of the top 15% than the top 1%.

Pretty much comes down to segregated housing, housing wealth, and public school segregation.
 

rstzkpf

Self-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,072
The last time things were like this it took an economic collapse and a world war to redistribute the wealth. I don't think that will happen this time though.
 

Deleted member 6230

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,118
This conversation shifts way to quickly into deflection to the 1%.

Far more blame and responsibility lies at the feet of the top 15% than the top 1%.

Pretty much comes down to segregated housing, housing wealth, and public school segregation.
Yeah just look at that thread we had on that upper west side NYC School trying to integrate.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
For most of us, the process is happily invisible. You meet someone under a tree on an exclusive campus or during orientation at a high-powered professional firm, and before you know it, you're twice as rich. But sometimes—Grandmother understood this well—extra measures are called for. That's where our new technology puts bumbling society detectives to shame. Ivy Leaguers looking to mate with their equals can apply to join a dating service called the League. It's selective, naturally: Only 20 to 30 percent of New York applicants get in. It's sometimes called "Tinder for the elites."
It is misleading to think that assortative mating is symmetrical, as in city mouse marries city mouse and country mouse marries country mouse. A better summary of the data would be: Rich mouse finds love, and poor mouse gets screwed. It turns out—who knew?—that people who are struggling to keep it all together have a harder time hanging on to their partner.

According to the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, 60 years ago just 20 percent of children born to parents with a high-school education or less lived in a single-parent household; now that figure is nearly 70 percent. Among college-educated households, by contrast, the single-parent rate remains less than 10 percent. Since the 1970s, the divorce rate has declined significantly among college-educated couples, while it has risen dramatically among couples with only a high-school education—even as marriage itself has become less common. The rate of single parenting is in turn the single most significant predictor of social immobility across counties, according to a study led by the Stanford economist Raj Chetty.

Suddenly, the focus of parents to get their kids into private or quite prestige colleges/universities just got way more sinister, so that the kids can find a partner of the right class and keep the class segregation going to an extreme intolerant level like it's the caste system of India or Victorian England. No surprise romantic fiction for both these societies (Wuthering Heights, Bollywood) were about rich+poor coupling.

It's one of the delusions of our meritocratic class, however, to assume that if our actions are individually blameless, then the sum of our actions will be good for society. We may have studied Shakespeare on the way to law school, but we have little sense for the tragic possibilities of life. The fact of the matter is that we have silently and collectively opted for inequality, and this is what inequality does. It turns marriage into a luxury good, and a stable family life into a privilege that the moneyed elite can pass along to their children. How do we think that's going to work out?

This is the thing, we in the delusional "middle class"/9.9% are conditioned that because individually we got ourselves through meritocracy, that means we don't have to check our privilege cause we must be helping society out but we're not if we put up the walls to lower classes.
I don't think it's sinister. However, it is a trend that excerbates inequality.

A good example are HOAs. HOAs fees are a tax of sorts, but it benefits only those on that area. Yet when new taxes to improve the public commons that would benefit everyone such as transit initiatives, low income housing, and so on these same groups vote them down. Same with access to quality education and affordable housing. This type of self segregation by income leads to this.
 

Deleted member 1852

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,077
This article is incredibly long and incredibly thoughtful and well-written. It crystallizes everything I've thought about for the past 2 years. If you make it to the end, you will emerge a more informed person because of it. This section in particular is fire and I have quoted it in it's entirety because it's really the heart of the piece and the most important part.

8.
The Politics of Resentment

The political theology of the meritocracy has no room for resentment. We are taught to run the competition of life with our eyes on the clock and not on one another, as if we were each alone. If someone scores a powerboat on the Long Island waterways, so much the better for her. The losers will just smile and try harder next time.

In the real world, we humans are always looking from side to side. We are intensely conscious of what other people are thinking and doing, and conscious to the point of preoccupation with what they think about us. Our status is visible only through its reflection in the eyes of others.

Perhaps the best evidence for the power of an aristocracy is to be found in the degree of resentment it provokes. By that measure, the 9.9 percent are doing pretty well indeed. The surest sign of an increase in resentment is a rise in political division and instability. We're positively acing that test. You can read all about it in the headlines of the past two years.

The 2016 presidential election marked a decisive moment in the history of resentment in the United States. In the person of Donald Trump, resentment entered the White House. It rode in on the back of an alliance between a tiny subset of super-wealthy 0.1 percenters (not all of them necessarily American) and a large number of 90 percenters who stand for pretty much everything the 9.9 percent are not.

According to exit polls by CNN and Pew, Trump won white voters by about 20 percent. But these weren't just any old whites (though they were old, too). The first thing to know about the substantial majority of them is that they weren't the winners in the new economy. To be sure, for the most part they weren't poor either. But they did have reason to feel judged by the market—and found wanting. The counties that supported Hillary Clinton represented an astonishing 64 percent of the GDP, while Trump counties accounted for a mere 36 percent. Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, found that the median home value in Clinton counties was $250,000, while the median in Trump counties was $154,000. When you adjust for inflation, Clinton counties enjoyed real-estate price appreciation of 27 percent from January 2000 to October 2016; Trump counties got only a 6 percent bump.

The residents of Trump country were also the losers in the war on human health. According to Shannon Monnat, an associate professor of sociology at Syracuse, the Rust Belt counties that put the anti-government-health-care candidate over the top were those that lost the most people in recent years to deaths of despair—those due to alcohol, drugs, and suicide. 
To make all of America as great as Trump country, you would have to torch about a quarter of total GDP, wipe a similar proportion of the nation's housing stock into the sea, and lose a few years in life expectancy. There's a reason why one of Trump's favorite words is unfair. That's the only word resentment wants to hear.

Even so, the distinguishing feature of Trump's (white) voters wasn't their income but their education, or lack thereof. Pew's latest analysis indicates that Trump lost college-educated white voters by a humiliating 17 percent margin. But he got revenge with non-college-educated whites, whom he captured by a stomping 36 percent margin. According to an analysis by Nate Silver, the 50 most educated counties in the nation surged to Clinton: In 2012, Obama had won them by a mere 17 percentage points; Clinton took them by 26 points. The 50 least educated counties moved in the opposite direction; whereas Obama had lost them by 19 points, Clinton lost them by 31. Majority-minority counties split the same way: The more educated moved toward Clinton, and the less educated toward Trump.

The historian Richard Hofstadter drew attention to Anti-intellectualism in American Life in 1963; Susan Jacoby warned in 2008 about The Age of American Unreason; and Tom Nichols announced The Death of Expertise in 2017. In Trump, the age of unreason has at last found its hero. The "self-made man" is always the idol of those who aren't quite making it. He is the sacred embodiment of the American dream, the guy who answers to nobody, the poor man's idea of a rich man. It's the educated phonies this group can't stand. With his utter lack of policy knowledge and belligerent commitment to maintaining his ignorance, Trump is the perfect representative for a population whose idea of good governance is just to scramble the eggheads. When reason becomes the enemy of the common man, the common man becomes the enemy of reason.

Did I mention that the common man is white? That brings us to the other side of American-style resentment. You kick down, and then you close ranks around an imaginary tribe. The problem, you say, is the moochers, the snakes, the handout queens; the solution is the flag and the religion of your (white) ancestors. According to a survey by the political scientist Brian Schaffner, Trump crushed it among voters who "strongly disagree" that "white people have advantages because of the color of their skin," as well as among those who "strongly agree" that "women seek to gain power over men." It's worth adding that these responses measure not racism or sexism directly, but rather resentment. They're good for picking out the kind of people who will vehemently insist that they are the least racist or sexist person you have ever met, even as they vote for a flagrant racist and an accused sexual predator.

No one is born resentful. As mass phenomena, racism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, narcissism, irrationalism, and all other variants of resentment are as expensive to produce as they are deadly to democratic politics. Only long hours of television programming, intelligently manipulated social-media feeds, and expensively sustained information bubbles can actualize the unhappy dispositions of humanity to the point where they may be fruitfully manipulated for political gain. Racism in particular is not just a legacy of the past, as many Americans would like to believe; it also must be constantly reinvented for the present. Mass incarceration, fearmongering, and segregation are not just the results of prejudice, but also the means of reproducing it.

The raging polarization of American political life is not the consequence of bad manners or a lack of mutual understanding. It is just the loud aftermath of escalating inequality. It could not have happened without the 0.1 percent (or, rather, an aggressive subset of its members). Wealth always preserves itself by dividing the opposition. The Gatsby Curve does not merely cause barriers to be built on the ground; it mandates the construction of walls that run through other people's minds.

But that is not to let the 9.9 percent off the hook. We may not be the ones funding the race-baiting, but we are the ones hoarding the opportunities of daily life. We are the staff that runs the machine that funnels resources from the 90 percent to the 0.1 percent. We've been happy to take our cut of the spoils. We've looked on with smug disdain as our labors have brought forth a population prone to resentment and ripe for manipulation. We should be prepared to embrace the consequences.

The first important thing to know about these consequences is the most obvious: Resentment is a solution to nothing. It isn't a program of reform. It isn't "populism." It is an affliction of democracy, not an instance of it. The politics of resentment is a means of increasing inequality, not reducing it. Every policy change that has waded out of the Trump administration's baffling morass of incompetence makes this clear. The new tax law; the executive actions on the environment and telecommunications, and on financial-services regulation; the judicial appointments of conservative ideologues—all will have the effect of keeping the 90 percent toiling in the foothills of merit for many years to come.

The second thing to know is that we are next in line for the chopping block. As the population of the resentful expands, the circle of joy near the top gets smaller. The people riding popular rage to glory eventually realize that we are less useful to them as servants of the economic machine than we are as model enemies of the people. The anti-blue-state provisions of the recent tax law have miffed some members of the 9.9 percent, but they're just a taste of the bad things that happen to people like us as the politics of resentment unfolds.

The past year provides ample confirmation of the third and most important consequence of the process: instability. Unreasonable people also tend to be ungovernable. I won't belabor the point. Just try doing a frequency search on the phrase constitutional crisis over the past five years. That's the thing about the Gatsby Curve. You think it's locking all of your gains in place. But the crystallization process actually has the effect of making the whole system more brittle. If you look again at history, you can get a sense of how the process usually ends.

This section finally and comprehensively answers the 2-year old question of why so many people voted for Trump. If we want to avoid getting him re-elected, or avoid getting others like him elected, we would do well to actually understand what is written here and take steps to remediate the issue. Otherwise there will be other Rust Belts, and other Trumps, and the decline of American democracy will continue until the inevitable occurs and the American Experiment ends in much the same way other great empires of Men have fallen.
 

Luchashaq

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
4,329
The romantic part of this is super interesting considering me and my wife met super randomly.

My parents are actual middle class, my wife's parents are in the top I'm guessing 5%. They were very concerned about us being together but I told them IDGAF I'll sign whatever pre nup I don't want to take her parent's money. By the time we were getting married 6 years later they didn't even bring up the prenup since they loved me.

Having that wealth as a safety net is huge. We don't take any money directly from them (they do include us and pay for everyrhing on pretty expensive bi annual vacations) but knowing we have the small safety net of my family AND her families massive safety net makes us riskier.

Instead of us both using our degrees to make good but not amazing money we took the risk of starting our own business (just our savings no parental loan Trump style) and might be making two or three times what our degrees career tracks would have been by the end of 2018.

If my parents were still middle class but hers were poor? Maybe we don't take that risk. Maybe in that situation we stixk with our mediocre career paths that would be enough money to live but wouldntw be exciting or super financially rewarding. If the business bombed hard we would never be at risk of being homeless or starving. Yes it would be embarrassing to admit failure and ask her parent's for a loan, but that would be better than not paying our mortgage or going hungry.
 

Cocaloch

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
4,562
Where the Fenians Sleep
The American aristocracy was fully installed before the revolution - indeed the revolution was funded and propelled by them.

Questionable. There were American aristocracies, but they were neither united politically or by interest nor, with the exception of the Virginians, the ones pushing the Revolution. Thomas Paine was certainly no aristocrat, and that's undeniably where much of the revolutionary sentiment derived from. Meanwhile the revolution was mostly bankrolled by the French.
 
Last edited:

Mimosa97

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,754
THis is the same everywhere. Not just in the US. I grew up in an upper middle class household in France and we didn't mix with anyone except for people from the same background. I don't know anyone from my highschool who's married or who's in a relationship with someone from a different background.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,602
One of the best solutions I've seen to this problem is to revamp public education by federalizing it (schools are currently a state concern), decoupling funding from property taxes (so that rich areas don't have better schools by default), and by abolishing private schools (ensures that even the rich have a stake in the success of public education, meaning they won't always be under attack).
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
One of the best solutions I've seen to this problem is to revamp public education by federalizing it (schools are currently a state concern), decoupling funding from property taxes (so that rich areas don't have better schools by default), and by abolishing private schools (ensures that even the rich have a stake in the success of public education, meaning they won't always be under attack).

We have a two party system and one of those parties is completely controlled and owned by that aristocracy and has existential plans for poor people's schooling that involve reducing them to serfdom. This is not a hyperbolic position and Betsy DeVos is its harbinger.
 

leder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,111
About halfway through, great article so far. The 9.9ers definitely showed their asses in liberal bastion Seattle recently. The city council passed a small employee hours tax on the largest of corporations in the city to raise money to help the people at the very bottom of our skyrocketing regional inequality, and the 9.9er vanguard of the aristocracy threw a complete shitfit.

This article really brings into focus how Seattle is "so liberal" and "so socially concerned", yet we have the most regressive tax system in the country. People putting up walls to insulate their tribe's class-status.
 

PanickyFool

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,947
One of the best solutions I've seen to this problem is to revamp public education by federalizing it (schools are currently a state concern), decoupling funding from property taxes (so that rich areas don't have better schools by default), and by abolishing private schools (ensures that even the rich have a stake in the success of public education, meaning they won't always be under attack).
Additional funding has had eh effects.

Busing rich kids to or districts and poor kids to Rich districts had positive outcomes.
About halfway through, great article so far. The 9.9ers definitely showed their asses in liberal bastion Seattle recently. The city council passed a small employee hours tax on the largest of corporations in the city to raise money to help the people at the very bottom of our skyrocketing regional inequality, and the 9.9er vanguard of the aristocracy threw a complete shitfit.

This article really brings into focus how Seattle is "so liberal" and "so socially concerned", yet we have the most regressive tax system in the country. People putting up walls to insulate their tribe's class-status.
You are mis-allocating blame. Seattle's wealth inequality comes from the fact that the middle class who owns the 60% of the city, keeps that 60% zoned for single family housing.

I don't. Screw that.

Don't actually need to raise taxes for a lot of this fix. Except the death tax, definitely need that back. Maybe a tax on parent paid college education as well.
 

Raven117

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,112
I read the article last week.

I mean...rich people, amirte?
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
THis is the same everywhere. Not just in the US. I grew up in an upper middle class household in France and we didn't mix with anyone except for people from the same background. I don't know anyone from my highschool who's married or who's in a relationship with someone from a different background.
Well the whole class is dead thing has been a part of the American mythos for a while. It's one of those things we criticized Europe for.

It's obviously BS mostly, especially now as the article contends.

Also, look at the royal wedding of late. Part of the fascination with it is Merkel now attaining even higher status via marriage. We still love these stories.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
Questionable. There were American aristocracies, but they were neither united politically or by interest nor, with the exception of the Virginians, the ones pushing the Revolution. Thomas Paine was certainly no aristocrat, and that's undeniably where much of the revolutionary sentiment derived from. Meanwhile the revolution was mostly bankrolled by the French.

Almost all revolutionary movements have Bourgeois or professional-class leadership, that is, people who were educated enough to know how to build a political movement and could afford to leave their day jobs behind to do so.
 

Mimosa97

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,754
Well the whole class is dead thing has been a part of the American mythos for a while. It's one of those things we criticized Europe for.

It's obviously BS mostly, especially now as the article contends.

Also, look at the royal wedding of late. Part of the fascination with it is Merkel now attaining even higher status via marriage. We still love these stories.

*Markle

And yeah that's very true. The whole " peasant marrying a prince and becoming a princess " fairytale. However Meghan Markle was already part of the aristocracy thanks to her fame as an actress. She was part of the social elite of Canada back in Toronto. There have been plenty of articles about her past life. Now of course she's reached the pinnacle of old elites but it's not like she wasn't already part of the bourgeoisie.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
*Markle

And yeah that's very true. The whole " peasant marrying a prince and becoming a princess " fairytale. However Meghan Markle was already part of the aristocracy thanks to her fame as an actress. She was part of the social elite of Canada back in Toronto. There have been plenty of articles about her past life. Now of course she's reached the pinnacle of old elites but it's not like she wasn't already part of the bourgeoisie.
While she was high status, she was not royal status. There are still tiers up there too.
 
Feb 11, 2018
211
This perfectly fits a lot of the demographics of ERA. Its crazy how easily the conversation gets shifted to the top 1%
 

PanickyFool

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,947
It isn't wrong, but beyond educating your kids and preparing them to stand on their own you shouldn't be able to entrench priviledge and wealth for them. An educational leg up is more than enough, inheritance should be off the table.
"But I grew up in and live in that house. You are telling me I can't live in my own house after my parents die?"
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
Is it really wrong to want to be with someone on your own level? That just makes it easier to have have things in common.
Not at all. However, those benefits of these couplings tend to be self isolating by class. The HOA example I gave illustrates this. Many are fine paying these private taxes, yet use their voting power to deny improvements to the public good with much smaller public taxes.

The solution is to better fund public services and commons. The Scandinavian model has clues.
 
Apr 20, 2018
138
It isn't wrong, but beyond educating your kids and preparing them to stand on their own you shouldn't be able to entrench priviledge and wealth for them. An educational leg up is more than enough, inheritance should be off the table.

Huh? Education alone won't ensure success.

What's wrong with providing and investing to hand it off as an inheritance?

Should the fruits of your labor count for nothing?
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,079
Arkansas, USA
Huh? Education alone won't ensure success.

What's wrong with providing and investing to hand it off as an inheritance?

Should the fruits of your labor count for nothing?

The fruits of your labor give you a good life. And if you were a good parent and invested in your kids while they were growing up they should have a good life as well. Why do you deserve more than that?
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,602
We could rework inheritance to work closer to copyright law. Make it to where wealth can only be passed down for so many years or generations, then it becomes "Public domain."

So you die with an estate of $100mil, and 80% of that is paid in taxes up front, with $20mil being sent on to your heirs. However, when they pass, not only do they owe the 80% in tax, but also the $20mil they received.
 

PanickyFool

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,947
Huh? Education alone won't ensure success.
You are correct! Children need to be allowed to fall in class standing as well to make it more merit based. By definition not everyone can be middle or upper class.
What's wrong with providing and investing to hand it off as an inheritance?
Because it literally comes at the expense of others, who have less advantage.

Should the fruits of your labor count for nothing?
Ultimately the Universe dies, so it really does count for nothing! But apart from that no over is saying a parent can't give their child wealth. We are seeing that is a lot of income for that child and should be taxed as such.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
Huh? Education alone won't ensure success.

What's wrong with providing and investing to hand it off as an inheritance?

Should the fruits of your labor count for nothing?
I think you're looking at the advantages from a narrow view. It's not just education, but the safety nets, margin and networks this group has access to.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's how inequality grows.

For example, Bill Gates didn't graduate Harvard, but his grandfather had connections that allowed him to work with the early mainframes that were the precursors to the PC. That gave him a massive advantage. Couple that with his inborn intelligence and quality primary and secondary education and obviously other factors, it would be very difficult for Gates to fail.

Now compare that to kid growing up in the inner city. He doesn't have access to that social capital, his schools are crap, and he's financially insecure.

The full article talks about these hidden advantages that privileged people have. Failure is still possible. It's just massively harder.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,602
Huh? Education alone won't ensure success.

What's wrong with providing and investing to hand it off as an inheritance?

Should the fruits of your labor count for nothing?
Try thinking of the opposite scenario, where instead of passing on your positive position in society, you are passing on a negative one. Your children go to jail because you still had time on your sentence, and their wages are garnished their entire lives, and because you didn't go to school they can't either. It's not fair to pass that on to children that had no hand in accumulating those debts, so it's not fair to pass on the wealth either.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,079
Arkansas, USA
Try thinking of the opposite scenario, where instead of passing on your positive position in society, you are passing on a negative one. Your children go to jail because you still had time on your sentence, and their wages are garnished their entire lives, and because you didn't go to school they can't either. It's not fair to pass that on to children that had no hand in accumulating those debts, so it's not fair to pass on the wealth either.

I love this counter example.
 
OP
OP
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,976
I don't mind inherited wealth. It just needs to be properly taxed.
 

Malovis

Member
Oct 27, 2017
767
I think you're looking at the advantages from a narrow view. It's not just education, but the safety nets, margin and networks this group has access to.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's how inequality grows.

For example, Bill Gates didn't graduate Harvard, but his grandfather had connections that allowed him to work with the early mainframes that were the precursors to the PC. That gave him a massive advantage. Couple that with his inborn intelligence and quality primary and secondary education and obviously other factors, it would be very difficult for Gates to fail.

Now compare that to kid growing up in the inner city. He doesn't have access to that social capital, his schools are crap, and he's financially insecure.

The full article talks about these hidden advantages that privileged people have. Failure is still possible. It's just massively harder.

At most, in a capitalist society, the only realistic option is to expand welfare to a level of including "free" accommodation, education and healthcare etc. The rat race will always be there, it's how the system is set up. Even in "communist" countries certain families and people always had inherited advantage.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,602
I don't mind inherited wealth. It just needs to be properly taxed.
Yeah, being against inheritance is essentially being against wealth accumulation at all (if inheritance becomes heavily discouraged the wealth will just be spent entirely in life instead, so you'd need to tax that out of existence too), so like most of these things, it just comes down to a sensible and just tax system.
 

Deleted member 1852

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,077
About halfway through, great article so far. The 9.9ers definitely showed their asses in liberal bastion Seattle recently. The city council passed a small employee hours tax on the largest of corporations in the city to raise money to help the people at the very bottom of our skyrocketing regional inequality, and the 9.9er vanguard of the aristocracy threw a complete shitfit.

This article really brings into focus how Seattle is "so liberal" and "so socially concerned", yet we have the most regressive tax system in the country. People putting up walls to insulate their tribe's class-status.

The most regressive tax systems in the country occur in states with no state income tax. This is because sales tax is inherently the most regressive form of taxation and (graduated) income tax is the most progressive. Washington, and then by extension Seattle, is the most regressive tax regime state and city in the Union because it doesn't have a state income tax but it has some of the highest sales taxes and gas taxes in the Union. You can read a good article about that here: https://itep.org/whopays/
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,079
Arkansas, USA
It's fantastic that publications like the Atlantic are taking supposed 'progressives' to task. They aren't nearly as progressive as they think. They likely are when it comes to social issues, but economic ones? Yeah....

There is a massive common ground with ordinary people on both sides of the political divide when it comes to economics, but they are prevented from ever realizing it because too many are easily manipulated. So we go round and round in political cycles while life for the median citizen gets worse and worse. This is also why the 'both sides' complaint has more truth than a lot of people would prefer to admit.

If the Democratic party does not go hard in the direction of pushing just taxation when they are in power again they are failing the country.
 
Last edited:

leder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,111
You are mis-allocating blame. Seattle's wealth inequality comes from the fact that the middle class who owns the 60% of the city, keeps that 60% zoned for single family housing.
One feeds the other. These aren't wholly distinct issues where you can just look at one aspect and say "see, it's the NIMBYs!" Wealth, privilege and zoning do not exist in their own vacuums.

The most regressive tax systems in the country occur in states with no state income tax. This is because sales tax is inherently the most regressive form of taxation and (graduated) income tax is the most progressive. Washington, and then by extension Seattle, is the most regressive tax regime state and city in the Union because it doesn't have a state income tax but it has some of the highest sales taxes and gas taxes in the Union. You can read a good article about that here: https://itep.org/whopays/

Yep, exactly. But look at the taxes that have popular support when we want to raise additional revenue. Soda taxes that largely affect poorer people? Fuck yeah, we should have done that long ago. Business taxes that largely affect giant corporations? FUCK THAT SOCIALIST NONSENSE.