Conditions ripe for uprising across America

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

This falsely presupposes that wealth and privilege are automatic generators of character and work ethic. I think Paris Hilton is an authoritative refutation of that notion. On the other hand, Donald Trump's children have never been a free ride in the working world. Yes, they enjoy luxury and opulence, but their father makes them work for their living, and he's a harsh taskmaster. He's also said publicly that none of his children will inherit a dime from him when he dies. They are responsible for making their own way, and wealth, in the world. Trump's a great man, and a good father.

There are too many bankrupt trust-fund babies to make the broad comment that family wealth guarantees economic success. Too many dead celebrities too.

Adversity breeds character, and the very best among us of the ultra wealthy have made their fortunes all on their own, like Warren Buffet and even people like the founder of Texaco, John W. "Bet a Million" Gates, who started out selling barbed wire in Texas and Oklahoma before the turn of the century. He would buy a few acres of land near a ranching community and would erect a barbed-wire enclosure and then challenge ranchers to put their meanest livestock inside, just to prove the fencing could contain them. He sold a lot of wire, but in the process, he ended up owning patches of land on some of the richest oil fields in the United States. When the oil boom happened, Gates took advantage and made his fortune by virtue of hard work and luck.

Anecdotal examples of this nature do not change the overall picture. For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

And why shouldn't it? What do parents work for but to make life better for their children?

Well at least a good part of the motivation for work; I don't dispute that. And I take Lak's point about work ethics, and having solid expectations of your kid's efforts (altough beware over-doing it if you don't want major problems...)

My point, however, is the overall pattern that this produces leads to the accumulation and retention of wealth into a privileged, albeit leaky class. It is not good enough just to accept this; when this pattern is recognised, society needs to act, preferably by a combination of educational policies and taxation reform.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

This falsely presupposes that wealth and privilege are automatic generators of character and work ethic. I think Paris Hilton is an authoritative refutation of that notion. On the other hand, Donald Trump's children have never been a free ride in the working world. Yes, they enjoy luxury and opulence, but their father makes them work for their living, and he's a harsh taskmaster. He's also said publicly that none of his children will inherit a dime from him when he dies. They are responsible for making their own way, and wealth, in the world. Trump's a great man, and a good father.

There are too many bankrupt trust-fund babies to make the broad comment that family wealth guarantees economic success. Too many dead celebrities too.

Adversity breeds character, and the very best among us of the ultra wealthy have made their fortunes all on their own, like Warren Buffet and even people like the founder of Texaco, John W. "Bet a Million" Gates, who started out selling barbed wire in Texas and Oklahoma before the turn of the century. He would buy a few acres of land near a ranching community and would erect a barbed-wire enclosure and then challenge ranchers to put their meanest livestock inside, just to prove the fencing could contain them. He sold a lot of wire, but in the process, he ended up owning patches of land on some of the richest oil fields in the United States. When the oil boom happened, Gates took advantage and made his fortune by virtue of hard work and luck.

Anecdotal examples of this nature do not change the overall picture. For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

And why shouldn't it? What do parents work for but to make life better for their children?

Well at least a good part of the motivation for work; I don't dispute that. And I take Lak's point about work ethics, and having solid expectations of your kid's efforts (altough beware over-doing it if you don't want major problems...)

My point, however, is the overall pattern that this produces leads to the accumulation and retention of wealth into a privileged, albeit leaky class. It is not good enough just to accept this; when this pattern is recognised, society needs to act, preferably by a combination of educational policies and taxation reform.

Your problem is highlighted above. The "wealthy class" don't "retain" their wealth, they recirculate it all the time. It's called "conspicuous consumption for a reason. Every luxury good or service a wealthy person consumes is wealth created by someone working in a factory or doing some useful work for the wealthy. From the gardener to the maid to the people who build the boats and airplanes the wealthy use, to the diamond-miner in South Africa, they all benefit from the recirculation of wealth by the wealthy.

Without the wealthy, when everyone is equally miserable in egalitarian socialist comradeship and economic stagnation where nobody has any money to spend on luxury goods that might employ someone else to serve that need, everybody is taking in everybody else's washing, and the entire economy slowly grinds to a halt, exactly as it did in the USSR.

And not only do the wealthy recirculate their wealth to the benefit of business and labor to serve their direct needs, they invest their wealth in creating new products and services and businesses and factories and industries which employ billions of people.

Drive everyone down into socialist economic equality with "taxation reform," and pretty damned quickly there is no economy at all.

It is the desire to get rich and live a life of a wealthy person that drives innovation, industry and personal excellence. Without that reward, what's the point of working hard in the first place? And if you can claim a living as a "right" from the government, why work at all?

[Warren Dew]

For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

That may be how it is in Australia, but it's very much not how it is in the U.S. For one thing, "taking Dad's place" as a law partner would involve, at a minimum, getting a law degree in the first place, which itself involves a lot of hard work.

[JimC]

For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

That may be how it is in Australia, but it's very much not how it is in the U.S. For one thing, "taking Dad's place" as a law partner would involve, at a minimum, getting a law degree in the first place, which itself involves a lot of hard work.

Agreed it still takes hard work, but here at least, the majority of the offspring of the wealthy seem to do that (or enough, anyway - they don't need to be top of their class, or plan on being law professors...). In other words, that mythical creature, the lazy drone offspring of the high achiever, is pretty rare here.

My main point will be that these children have so many educational, financial and practical advantages, (plus tapping in to a network of relatives) that most sail through to a high end job with much greater ease than childen of the poor. Simply, society needs to think creatively about reducing the excessive height of barriers that some have climb...

Seth wrote:

Your problem is highlighted above. The "wealthy class" don't "retain" their wealth, they recirculate it all the time. It's called "conspicuous consumption for a reason. Every luxury good or service a wealthy person consumes is wealth created by someone working in a factory or doing some useful work for the wealthy. From the gardener to the maid to the people who build the boats and airplanes the wealthy use, to the diamond-miner in South Africa, they all benefit from the recirculation of wealth by the wealthy.

The poor dears! All that hard work of sipping cocktails around the pool, and gorging at expensive restaurants, just so working class stiffs can hold down a job. I'm sure that the poor are properly grateful for the self-sacrificing, community-minded effort this takes...

[Seth]

For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

That may be how it is in Australia, but it's very much not how it is in the U.S. For one thing, "taking Dad's place" as a law partner would involve, at a minimum, getting a law degree in the first place, which itself involves a lot of hard work.

Agreed it still takes hard work, but here at least, the majority of the offspring of the wealthy seem to do that (or enough, anyway - they don't need to be top of their class, or plan on being law professors...). In other words, that mythical creature, the lazy drone offspring of the high achiever, is pretty rare here.

My main point will be that these children have so many educational, financial and practical advantages, (plus tapping in to a network of relatives) that most sail through to a high end job with much greater ease than childen of the poor. Simply, society needs to think creatively about reducing the excessive height of barriers that some have climb...

Reducing barriers is not a problem unless it involves creating barriers for those who have already worked hard to make their fortune...like by redistributing their wealth.

Seth wrote:

Your problem is highlighted above. The "wealthy class" don't "retain" their wealth, they recirculate it all the time. It's called "conspicuous consumption for a reason. Every luxury good or service a wealthy person consumes is wealth created by someone working in a factory or doing some useful work for the wealthy. From the gardener to the maid to the people who build the boats and airplanes the wealthy use, to the diamond-miner in South Africa, they all benefit from the recirculation of wealth by the wealthy.

The poor dears! All that hard work of sipping cocktails around the pool, and gorging at expensive restaurants, just so working class stiffs can hold down a job. I'm sure that the poor are properly grateful for the self-sacrificing, community-minded effort this takes...

Tell it to Bill Gates, who just gave away forty BILLION of his own money.

[Coito ergo sum]

For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

That may be how it is in Australia, but it's very much not how it is in the U.S. For one thing, "taking Dad's place" as a law partner would involve, at a minimum, getting a law degree in the first place, which itself involves a lot of hard work.

Agreed it still takes hard work, but here at least, the majority of the offspring of the wealthy seem to do that (or enough, anyway - they don't need to be top of their class, or plan on being law professors...). In other words, that mythical creature, the lazy drone offspring of the high achiever, is pretty rare here.

My main point will be that these children have so many educational, financial and practical advantages, (plus tapping in to a network of relatives) that most sail through to a high end job with much greater ease than childen of the poor. Simply, society needs to think creatively about reducing the excessive height of barriers that some have climb...

The reality is, in my experience, that success is mainly due to have a sufficient level of knowledge and education, a sufficient level of ambition, drive and determination, and friends in the right places. Who you know is as important as what you know. There doesn't appear to be anything government can do about that, and in fact from my experience it seems government only exacerbates that problem because it is among the most common things in politics to grant jobs and perks to one's friends - and, it's much easier to put marginally competent people in a government position than a private position because generally in the latter the lack of competence results in money out of the private businessman's pocket.

[Warren Dew]

That may be how it is in Australia, but it's very much not how it is in the U.S. For one thing, "taking Dad's place" as a law partner would involve, at a minimum, getting a law degree in the first place, which itself involves a lot of hard work.

Agreed it still takes hard work, but here at least, the majority of the offspring of the wealthy seem to do that (or enough, anyway - they don't need to be top of their class, or plan on being law professors...). In other words, that mythical creature, the lazy drone offspring of the high achiever, is pretty rare here.

Well, hard work is pretty rare in the U.S. If the offspring of the wealthy happen to be the ones working hard, I'd say they deserve their success for being the ones working hard, and shouldn't be penalized just because their parents have money.

The truth is, though, here we also have plenty of offspring of wealthy who end up being druggies or whatever.

My main point will be that these children have so many educational, financial and practical advantages, (plus tapping in to a network of relatives) that most sail through to a high end job with much greater ease than childen of the poor. Simply, society needs to think creatively about reducing the excessive height of barriers that some have climb...

Australia is clearly very different from the U.S. in these respects, then. It's simply not difficult to get a good education here as long as you work hard in school and don't mind taking on hundreds of thousands in student loans. And before you say "the wealthy" don't have to take on the loans, the more expensive universities here have policies of effectively charging more when the parents have more money. If your parents own a house, they're required to remortgage it to pay your tuition; if they don't, you get financial aid.