Rise of the New Upper Class

George Rebane

[This is the appended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 30 August 2013.]

In these commentaries we have examined major trends like systemic unemployment, income inequality, and the notion of a Great Divide that may rend America across one of its ideological faults.  In this installment I’ll briefly summarize a schism that may be new to some of you, and is definitely not apparent to most Americans – the emergence of a new cognitive upper class.

The existence of such a class of Americans has been heralded and discussed by some of the country’s leading authors, journalists, and sociologists of all political stripe.   Among them are liberal economist and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, New York Times journalist and author David Brooks, and leading sociologist and observer of the cultural scene Charles Murray of The Bell Curve fame.  Murray’s latest best seller to people who follow such trends is Coming Apart – The State of White America, 1960-2010 published last year and updated this year with just released data.

The major thesis of all these authors is that a new class of the cognitive elite has arisen during the last 50 years.  Not only has this class arisen, but it has also pretty much separated from the rest of the country along several important dimensions.  Among these are wealth, income, interests, life styles, locales, and, of course, smarts.  These are the people who manage our businesses and institutions, make up the academic ranks, are prominent in government and shaping public policy, and form the creative cadres of science, technology, and the arts.

This class of so-called “over-educated elitist snobs” came into being in the years after WW2 when the universities became the great cognitive filtering system as they began accepting students on the basis of merit, instead of limiting higher education to the well-to-do or well connected.   The data shows that the big transition took place over the 1950s and was well entrenched in the 1960s.  The fruits of the separation began to be seen in the 1970s.  Then by the 1980s the information age was in full swing with the rapid spread of low cost personal computers.  All of this favored the class of people who were good at manipulating symbols, whether these made up words, numbers, or equations.  Robert Reich named these people “symbolic analysts”.

And with this new class there arose a new kind of segregation.  Since like people like to be with others like themselves, a process called homogamy kicked in to further the separation of classes.  Social scientists use homogamy to describe the interbreeding of individuals with like characteristics.  In the nation’s universities educated students began marrying other educated students which led to a homogamous selection of the best and the brightest offspring, the new cognitive elite.  Since their parents were able to get the best jobs, create the most profitable enterprises, and affect public policies in their favor, their kids went on to repeat the cycle, as the new upper class congregated in communities of residents with like minds and means.

As Charles Murray points out, a moment’s reflection tells us also that today homogamy works on both ends of the cognitive abilities scale.  College grads are more likely to marry college grads, and high school dropouts are more likely to marry other high school dropouts.  So with the information revolution in full swing, newly created wealth poured into the coffers of the new upper class as the ‘cognitive stratification’ that began in the 1950s became established in the nation’s socio-economic landscape.  Data shows that since the 1970s almost all benefits of economic growth have gone to the top half of wage earners.

And since people like to congregate with people they can talk to and who understand them, this class segregation not only continues, but is picking up steam.  The wealth inequality resulting from the last decades of cognitive homogamy will most likely increase as this upper class continues to create more wealth along with public policies that allow them to keep most of it.  This concentration of wealth is abetted by the well-known adage of ‘shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations’ – in other words, not so smart people don’t hang on to wealth very well.

We will revisit this important class division in future commentaries, and examine in greater depth what Charles Murray and other students of the American transition have discovered.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on georgerebane.com where the transcript of this commentary is posted with an addendum and relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[Addendum]  In Coming Apart Charles Murray emphasizes that America has always been a classed society – the rich have always lived differently from the poor, and both have ‘stuck to their own kind’.  Of course, both classes have been dynamic in the sense that their memberships have been fluid in a land of freedom and entrepreneurship.

But his focus is the “American project” (much discussed here as the Great Experiment) – as envisioned by the Founders was “to demonstrate that human beings can be left free as individuals and families to live their lives as they see fit, coming together voluntarily to solve their joint problems.  The polity based on that idea led to a civic culture that was seen as exceptional by all the world.  That culture was so widely shared among Americans that it amounted to a civil religion.  To be an American was to be different from other nationalities, in ways that Americans treasured.”  Murray's demonstrated thesis is that “that culture is unraveling.”

In his dissertation Murray does “not make a case for America’s decline as a world power.  The economic dynamics that have produced the class society (he deplores) have, paradoxically, fostered the blossoming of America’s human capital.  Those dynamics will increase, not diminish, our competitiveness on the world stage in the years ahead.  Nor (does he) forecast a decline in America’s military and diplomatic supremacy.”

The arguments to be made are that the transformed America will not be anything like the one we had fifty years ago when only 18 out of 100,000 were arrested for drug offenses (today that number is 1,284), and Jim Crow still ruled the South.  During this half century the poor did not get poorer, considering their total income, only that they also did not get any richer, and in the interval the first step onto the ladder of self-sufficiency was made more difficult.  And that systemic character of our society will not change as the cognitive elite continue to command the development and benefit of the new avenues of wealth they create.

And why may we expect that kind of future as the alternative to a Mad Max dystopia?  Simply because (as we have argued) the hoi polloi are not and will not be able to command the cognitive and other types of capital to enable them to make such contributions in this age of accelerating technology and global intercourse.  This story unfolds in its data-rich details.

Comments

[Bill Tozer]

I come here to rub elbows with my lower companions. Just like when Robert Downey Jr was asked about his stint in jail, he replied "it was just like Palm Springs without all the riff-raff".

[Al]

If I Were a Rich Man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc

[George Rebane]

See 31aug13 update to 'Slap a Wrist to Extract a Foot'.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2013/08/slap-a-wrist-to-extract-a-foot.html

[Walt]

Watch out! 49ER 2 has just took off!!
George. If it gets into the canyon, you could be in it's path.

[George Rebane]

Thanks Walt.

[Walt]

Update
From Air attack. " Has potential to get really, really big".
Spotting 300 yards in front of main fire.

No,,, this isn't good at all.
Our turn was coming, and this could be it.

[Russ Steele]

All,

For those without a scanner here is one online: http://www.spiralinternet.com/scanner.php

Russ

[Walt]

Love it. Pot plants are used for landmarks for the air tankers.

" Start just below that pot plant, and go upslope from there."

[Walt]

Went and found a good view, and the fire appears to be burning in a West by N.W.
direction. As long as the wind doesn't change Gorge is free and clear.

[Bill Tozer]

Thanks Walt for the good news.

Birds of a feather flock together. This includes addicts, homeless, highly educated and successful. The old expression "Stupid people should not breed" comes to mind. But they do and are in good company when one reflects upon their numbers. Nothing earth shaking about Mr. Murray's observations, yet very interesting and plain as day.

Nevada County might be an exception was far as neighborhoods are concerned. Guess we got along fine until somebody tried to make housing more uniform. A huge multimillion dollar McMansion with a nice spread could have a dilapidated miners shack on one side and a mobile home on the other. But, all in all, the educated hang out together, are attracted to each other, and enjoy each other. They make such wonderful babies.

We may not have the cast system here, but there are enough folks to look down upon and enough folks to throw rocks at for looking down on the those that live in fly over country. We are so friggin special here. Its not like the Northeast where they have 250 and 300 hundred year old buildings. We have a history dating back to 1849 which makes us walk on water. And no 7-11s.

But all in all, good people are found everywhere no matter their station in life. Just like I prefer to hang out with pleasant people, others like to hang out with them rich snobs who find me rather coarse, crude, rude, and socially unacceptable. Some people have no sense of humor and take themselves sooooo seriously.

I hope our energetic hard working successful and educated folks continue to breed and produce a few leaders of vision and intellect. Our nation currently is longing for leaders as we watch our nation perish.
Stupid dumb leaders can destroy a country, but not its best and brightest. How would like to come home to Maxine Waters after a hard day at work and listen to her talk about her feelings. No, she is better off hanging out with other dumber than fence posts birds of her feather.

[Joe Koyote]

America has always been a class oriented society. In the beginning, very few people could read or write except the clergy and the educated elite and most of the money was concentrated among the business class and the large plantation owners. For the most part, this is who the founding fathers were. The rest of the population were slaves, indentured servants, and the former indentured servants who populated the big city slums and rural subsistence farms. It was mostly those of lower economic status who provided the soldiers for the revolution and the elite provided the money (and made the money), the generals, and the rationalization for war. Not much has changed between then and now.

Technology has always driven wealth creation and concentration. When new technology is developed in a capitalistic economy, that technology is expensive to buy, thus giving an advantage to those with enough wealth to take advantage of it. Everyone else just gets a little farther behind, especially the poor, because by the time they can afford the technology they are already behind the cutting edge, and thus less competitive.

So is this a good thing, a bad thing, just a thing? What kind of ramifications can be expected if these trends continue? What kinds of mitigations might be necessary?

[Joe Koyote]

I forgot to add immigrants to the list of the non-elite along with the indentured servants, etc.

[Bill Tozer]

Mr Koyote: Good reasoned thought process there. But....there is always a but or a butt....er..but,

"The rest of the population were slaves, indentured servants, and the former indentured servants who populated the big city slums and rural subsistence farms."

You forgot to include them foreigners (immigrants) from Europe. Don't want to piss off the Irish on such a summer's day. Nor them French or Germans or Swedes either. The poor will always be with us, myself included. And I don't forget where I came from, where I have been, and how I got here.

Opportunities abound, even at my age. There are no more victims anymore, just volunteers. I may be less competitive, but that is because I am a sluggard and choose to remain that way. But, there is hope for all of us, even those who don't marry a rich girl. Even hope for the Irish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw

[George Rebane]

re JoeK's 144pm - The point not to be missed here is that the class division occurring over the last fifty years is a new one, based primarily on the distribution of smarts and the ability to educate those smarts into wealth producing skill sets. The proportion of this new cognitive upper class to the rest is now much larger than the old rich vs poor.

Also, it is a mistake to imagine that our history of the successful is only limited to the preemptive haves. Instead, our history describes a very dynamic and mobile society of permeable classes in which the less wealthy had the ideas (both technical and business) through the implementation of which they rose from rags to riches (and sometimes the other way around), and brought more millions up the financial ladder with the new jobs their enterprises offered.

Teaching the thesis of JoeK's second paragraph to the young and ill-informed is a staid socialist paradigm that today has enjoyed enormous success in our government dictated, unionized public schools.

[Bill Tozer]

Mr. Koyote, the so-called rich or privileged are the dummies for buying new technology. I remember once I was at a TV producer's place and he told his secretary to buy 12 VCR's for his buddies. They cost about a $1,100.00 a pop back in 1979. They were Christmas presents and he was Jewish, haha. That kind of money spent for something I purchased at K-Mart a dozen years later for 69 bucks. So, whose the dummies? Those gifts were probably Beta Maxes. Later, he didn't have the money to pay 600 clams he owed yours truly.

Us po uneducated folks fall behind the cutting edge? Ok, so some spent tens of thousands going to some computer school in the 80's and learned...drum roll please....learned DOS. I supposed doing everything by command prompt on a black and white screen made sense to them at the time. Those old fancy Windows 95s and 98s are what we call "boat anchors" in my field on non-expertise.

Nowadays technology is the great equalizer as any teenager can do on a hand held gizmo what once only the best and brightest could demonstrate at lectures behind plexiglass. Went to one of those demonstrations myself back in the day. The computer was about 4x6x8 feet tall and looked like a Buck Rogers Space Cadet control booth. There was a big glitch in the demonstration as the Doctor of Scientific Knowhow could not get the U-Haul transported computer to work. Come to find out he kept entering the letter o instead of the number zero, another hahaha oppps moment. No women were at the demonstration either.

With technology becoming more user friendly for knuckleheads like me, even our military grunts and 6th graders operate them new fancy gizmos with ease. Its darn near 2nd nature to them. Nobody bothers to buy Computers for Dummies anymore.

Us po folk don't have access to technology and thus are destined to fall on our foolish faces?? Talk to the hand.

[George Rebane]

BillT 713pm - Mr Tozer, all that is fine. But let us not forget the unforgivable dictum of tech products performance - the easier it is to operate on the front end, the harder it is to design the necessary back end. That kids 14 can program in some of the web design languages does not give them the ability to develop the cutting edge UI designs, back-end learning and data handling systems, and the sophisticated latency reducing resource management algos that make those gizmos such a pleasure to operate. For that you still need years of training - formerly only at universities, now in MOOCs. We stay tuned for tomorrow.

[Bill Tozer]

Dr. Rebane, thanks for spanking my bum bum with such gentleness. Barely left a hand print. Felt delightful, but I digress for the 4th time today.

Yes, I know what you meant and what the whole post means. Not about rich and poor. Its about the successful, their education, training and preparedness that makes "miracles happen". Miracles don't happen TO them, they MAKE them happen. . The successful thinkers, the courageous, the innovative, the daring to think outside the box and with skill, wit and fortitude to get hold of enough capital to make it happen. To boldly go where no man has gone before. The trailblazers. The ones in the parade as opposed to the throngs sitting on the sidewalk watching the passing festivities. I am running out of phrases. Oh ya, "To Infinitely and Beyond."

Yes, I went off on another tangent about telling any kid they are locked in place. This is how it is and this is how it always will be. Hogwash. Off topic and to the discriminating eye, irrelevant. The ironic thing is your topic Rise of the New Upper Class is not about being rich, but about wealth creation. Wealth creation for oneself and others as well. A rich man has money. A wealthy man is prosperous in all his ways.

[Joe Koyote]

George- "Teaching the thesis of JoeK's second paragraph to the young and ill-informed is a staid socialist paradigm that today has enjoyed enormous success in our government dictated, unionized public schools." I can also make the claim that practically everything you say is just rightwing propaganda desperately thrown out to the public in an effort to defend otherwise untenable positions and ideas and close people’s minds to actual reality.

Other than being a "staid socialist paradigm" which says nothing of substance and proves no point, how is it not true that those of lesser economic power have less access to cutting edge technology and thus are less competitive (over all as a group of people)?

[George Rebane]

JoeK 952am - My 337pm accurately characterized your thesis and related it to the extensive debates on this forum where the point has indeed been dissected and proven to receptive minds. The short comment was never intended to be 'proof' of anything.

As to your question, where is such a proposition about "those of lesser economic power" made? The economically disadvantaged have always had less access to everything desirable, and will always find themselves in that situation. That is part of the operational definition of being poor, and has also served as the motivation to stir minds and loins to pursue a different future. And America has always rewarded such efforts.

[Bill Tozer]

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/8-technologies-that-will-shake-stocks

I am waiting for someone to come up with an app that will tell me each and every ingredient and calorie content in any percentage combination of 10,001 different kinds of pizzas so I don't have to look at those stupid ingredient posters in fast food joints. Maybe an app for every possible food served by every restaurant on the entire planet for the discriminating pallet and our over zealous food police.

[George Rebane]

Please note the 2sep13 update to 'Slap a wrist ...'

[Joe Koyote]

“The short comment was never intended to be 'proof' of anything." You are correct; it was not proof of anything. Your characterization more resembled a thinly veiled ideological dismissal of a valid assertion that receptive minds (meaning those of the same ideological persuasion as yourself) would agree with. This tactic is called “Reuctio ad Hitlerum”: the association of an idea with a negative concept (to those with a receptive mind ‘socialism’) to produce a negative connotation. However, the thesis that those of lesser means are at a technological and competitive disadvantage you later seem to agree with. "The economically disadvantaged have always had less access to everything desirable, and will always find themselves in that situation" which was exactly my point; apparently we agree.

Nor do I disagree with your last two sentences, “That is part of the operational definition of being poor, and has also served as the motivation to stir minds and loins to pursue a different future. And America has always rewarded such efforts.” only to the degree of difficulty. It is a much steeper hill to climb for the economically less advantaged than the children of the privileged class. Intelligence is not confined to nor is it at all related to wealth. It's real easy to become wealthy when you inherit a billion dollars and it requires no intelligence at all. In fact most shrink types agree that growing up in a nanny/boarding school environment often coincides with unhealthy psychological mindsets around issues of trust creating narcissism and delusions of grandeur ala GW Bush, who as we know, was a couple of corndogs short of a picnic.

My question for you is how does a society make that hill more equitable? As a society must we always follow the course of action dictated by the perceptions and experiences of the wealthy and technological elite? What if their perceptions and experiences are so different from the masses as to render them meaningless except to themselves? Under democratic institutions should not the ideas and perceptions of the less affluent have equal weight and exposure in the discussion?

[George Rebane]

JoeK 115pm - All your nostrums seem predictably to point to a forced redistribution of wealth to create your "more equitable" society. If that is your intent, then you are doing what I highlighted - brandishing socialism cum tyranny. And if that is your ideology, to have the poor ameliorated by a statist elite, then fine and good. I don't happen to share that approach as this forum has made abundantly clear.

The hill for all of us is made more equitable when government diktat is minimized and private charity is maximized. This will not guarantee equal outcome, only equal opportunity from each station in life. The socialist's ideal of making everyone equal at the same starting line is a demonstrated error. People from all walks of life bring a different and unique kit of skills and abilities to a starting line made common by a beneficent state (e.g. America).

I do think you have an erroneous understanding of our wealthy class - its provenance, membership, and dynamic. And you seem to have missed the point about homogamy regarding wealth and intelligence.

In the end, which set of elites making decisions about equity, fairness, and social justice do you prefer? the ones now gathered in Washington and Sacramento, or ...?

(Alas, all of this would be a more productive exchange if we both shared a common logic, no matter how our social utilities might differ.)

[Gerry Fedor]

"The income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family’s incomes barely budged" President Obama claimed in a report published in late 2011 by the Congressional Budget Office (the nonpartisan budget-analysis arm of Congress).

The study looked at income trends between 1979 and 2007 for various income levels, from the "average family" to the top 1 percent.

CBO found that over that period, the top 1 percent’s inflation-adjusted, after-tax income rose by a cumulative 275 percent. Over 28 years, that averages to almost a 10 percent increase each year.

That’s not quite quadrupling -- a 300 percent increase would have been a quadrupling -- but Obama did say "nearly quadrupled," and I think this qualifies under that basis.

As for President Obama’s claim that the "typical family’s incomes barely budged," that seems to be accurate as 60 percent of the population (in the middle of the income scale -- that is, excluding the top one-fifth and the bottom one-fifth of earners -- the cumulative growth in inflation-adjusted, after-tax household income was just under 40 percent).

While this may sound like a healthy increase, but it actually averages to just 1.4 percent per year, and if you consider that gasoline was $0.86 per gallon while today we're looking at $4.00, and the average cost of a home was $71,000 and today you're looking at $327,000.

While an income increase of 1.4 percent a year above inflation does mean the middle 60 percent advanced economically during the period studied, the increase was only about one-seventh as fast as it was for the top 1 percent. In this context, we think the description "barely budged" is reasonable.

We should point out that the CBO’s findings about the top 1 percent were a little different than the conclusions. I calculated that income for the top 1 percent grew between 1979 and 2012 by 212 percent, well below the 275 percent the CBO found.

My calculations were based on data compiled by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, who are specialists in income inequality, which was found in their published report from 2012.

The problems that I had was that the Piketty-Saez data set excluded capital gains. Capital gains refers to income earned from investments such as stocks, and the lion's share of the nation’s capital gains go to the very wealthy.

The CBO data, unlike the data from Piketty and Saez, included capital gains income, so that explains a discrepancy many have found.

Our President said "the income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007', but calculations by the CBO, show an increase of 275 percent for the top 1 percent, which is pretty close to quadrupling.

The average households income rose by comparatively modest amounts of 1.4% increase per year, while power (gasoline and electricity combined) costs have consistently moved upwards at 2.7-5.2% per year.

The top 1% have consistently gained @10%.......

We want a better society, we need to make sure that the middle class have the same type of educational and financial opportunities that has allowed the upper classes to move into their positions.

[Joe Koyote]

"All your nostrums seem predictably to point to a forced redistribution of wealth to create your "more equitable" society." I never stated nor alluded to a forced redistribution of wealth, that was information your decoding process added to the mix as you seem to want to associate equity with taking someone's wealth. I am talking about equality of opportunity for as many people as want to better themselves. If that requires government money to purchase technology, education, etc. for the less economically fortunate than so be it. I would much rather see my tax dollars go toward that then decimating middle eastern countries and subsidizing large corporations who shelter as much money as possible to avoid paying taxes altogether. It is all a matter of priorities isn't it?

"The hill for all of us is made more equitable when government diktat is minimized and private charity is maximized." It seems that in recent times as the discrepancy between rich and poor (technology, money, etc) has statistically increased, the private charity side of your equation seems not to have stepped up to the plate, else the discrepancy would have decreased. I think any society would be in better shape with less discrepancy which would translate into less poverty, crime, drug use, welfare, etc.. As far as the private charity goes, most people don't want charity just opportunity. Perhaps in the inner workings of society, when the private charity (I am not sure what you mean by this. Is this when the job creators decide to create jobs for the riff-raff?), isn't stepping up the government has to which seems to be the case more often than not.

[Account Deleted]

"If that requires government money to purchase technology, education, etc. for the less economically fortunate than so be it."
Most of the 'less economically fortunate' are in that condition due to serial bad decision making. Giving them stuff won't force them to make better choices, it just subsidizes their lifestyle. But Joe the K wants to take that money from me at gunpoint and claims - "I never stated nor alluded to a forced redistribution of wealth". I'm throwing the B***S*** flag on you Joe. Tell me where and how the govt gets all of this money to pour down the same rat hole we have been tossing money into by the hundreds of billions for decades? You socialists are good with vague theories, but reality just doesn't work like you think. Folks better themselves every day without any govt help. You lefties absolutely refuse to acknowledge this fact of life.

[Joe Koyote]

Scott: "Most of the 'less economically fortunate' are in that condition due to serial bad decision making." If you change the "most" to "some" I might agree but to say that most poor are that way because of poor decision making simply isn't true. Talk about throwing the BS flag that is the same rhetoric the right has been using as an excuse not to fund social services since the Great Depression. Poverty is not the fault of greedy people with wealth making bad decisions about what they do with their wealth, it's about poor people who makes bad decisions about the money they don't have and how to get some. The government gets its money to throw down a rat-hole by not throwing it down another rat hole.

"But Joe the K wants to take that money from me at gunpoint " No Scott .. all I stated was that I would rather see my tax money go for educating and helping less fortunate people than enriching a bunch of billionaires and millionaires by militarily decimating other countries' landscapes and people. Perhaps a checkbox on tax forms like the one for political campaigns would solve the problem. You righties refuse to acknowledge that greed is a fact of life that effects all of us. Why else would multi-millionaires and billionaires continue to accumulate such massive sums of money? Greed and power go hand in hand. Most super wealthy people are probably psychotic from being pampered their whole lives.

Folks better themselves every day without any govt help. - On this we agree.. but sometimes a little help is all a person needs to turn the corner.

NO!! None of my money can be spent on foreign military expenditures only... check..

[Joe Koyote]

correction -- strike the word "only" from the last sentence. this is what a tax form check box might look like. If that box is checked then all of my tax dollars must be earmarked for domestic non-military spending only.

[Account Deleted]

Sorry Joe - They already tax me at gunpoint and give it out to slackers. I haven't seen you talk against that setup ever. So, yes you do believe in 'forced redistribution of wealth'. It's not voluntary. You are free to spend your own money as you see fit.
Next BS from Joe -
"You righties refuse to acknowledge that greed is a fact of life that effects all of us."
Wrong-o Joe. You just made that up. Greed is a human weakness and it can afflict folks of all financial strata. Most of the folks that went tits up with homes they couldn't afford were greedy and that weakness made them blind to common sense. And that caused us all problems. Now I see that we're supposed lower their principal in order to reinforce their poor decision while those who bought what they could afford are rewarded for their good judgement by footing the bill for the fools.
"Folks better themselves every day without any govt help. - On this we agree.. but sometimes a little help is all a person needs to turn the corner."
I see those folks all the time at the off ramp, Joe. I'm not sure what planet you come from in saying 'a little help'. It's an entire multi-trillion dollar industry, filled with greedy poverty pimps. They have no interest in ending poverty as they would be out of the cushiest job they will ever have.
The good folks that make money from the military would all be making good money doing something else if the military didn't buy their goods. The same industrious attitude and tech know how would be turned to making widgets of some other kind. Now, the folks at the assembly line making tanks might go on the dole, but the fellow at the top will take a vacation and come back to work at something different. Joe's hostile attitude towards those in high income brackets is palpable.
Joe - you know nothing about the wealthy outside of the cartoon image you have created in your fevered brain. There are greedy and psychotic people of every sort. The amount of money they have has nothing to do with their neurosis. If you want to talk about power mad folks - now we're talking about the govt. They wield the badge and the sword and I fear them with good reason.

[George Rebane]

JoeK 352pm - You've addressed none of my points. Where oh where does the government get the money to do all the things that you and your socialist elite prescribe if not from our pockets at gunpoint?

And as predictable as the diurnal sunset, you have not understood anything about the discussion of the causes of systemic unemployment in this forum. (Evidenced by your "the private charity side of your equation seems not to have stepped up to the plate, else the discrepancy would have decreased.")

[Apologies for the late post of this comment. Our power went out intermittently today, and this comment was a casualty. ScottO has covered most of my points.]

[Jesus Betterman]

All taxes, fees, paid by anyone, are gotten "at gunpoint." Nothing special about your case, Scott. For some reason this laptop is back to Jesus again, not going to bother to change it, God might smite me.

[Gregory]

"Most super wealthy people are probably psychotic from being pampered their whole lives."

What an incredibly bigoted and ignorant claim. Let me guess, you've never actually met someone that wealthy?

The one person I know born to vast wealth (earned fairly by her dad) had an old near-junker of a station wagon when she went home for vacations. He showed me the first capital equipment his company (him and his partner) bought... a cross cut table saw he used to built the workbench and stools he used and the small furniture grade cabinets the first product (instrument grade electronics) was packaged in. Her dad could afford any high fidelity audio system he wanted (his products were key in many of them) but didn't bother buying anything his 50 year old ears weren't capable of appreciating. He drove a nice but not ostentatious car, lived in a nice neighborhood devoid of mini mansions and most of his money got plowed back into the company, closely held between him and, in trust, his two daughters. The girls inherited billions when he died and are *major* stockholders listed on the SEC filings of the Fortune 200 company their dad sold out to shortly before he passed away.

I've met a couple borderline psycho trust fund babies in Nevada City but I think it was guilt that they didn't deserve it that pushed them way past the middle to the hard left side of the house.

The three key choices you need to make to avoid poverty in the US?
Graduate from high school.
Don't have kids before you're married, especially if you're female.
Work.

Not 100% effective but pretty close. I think you'll find those right wingers you hate aren't particularly upset at helping folks in need who did their damnedest to follow those three rules but came up short.

[Bill Tozer]

"The three key choices you need to make to avoid poverty in the US?
Graduate from high school.
Don't have kids before you're married, especially if you're female.
Work."

The 4th is quit diluting the gene pool.

Dr. Rebane's topic is quite simple so even an idiot can understand: Those with innate talents, gifts, skills, foresight and other natural born assets hone their skills with education and years of hard work tackling challenges and becoming problem solvers. In the process they meet and bred with others of their kind. Thus the rise of the NEW upper class.

Nothing to do with sluggards and whiners and cry babies, Its not even personal. Its what made this country special, the envy of the world.

[Bill Tozer]

Mr. Koyote: It is not like the rise of the NEW upper Class is saying "let them eat cake". The GI Bill dramatically changed higher education for us po folks. The U of Michigan was akin to an Ivy League School prior to World War II where only the rich elitist kids could attend.

What bothers me is your attitude about how do we get into the new Upper Class's pockets. What can I get out of it disguised as caring for the untalented or less fortunate. Why folks are opposed to No Child Left Behind and yet demand equal results and outcomes is beyond me.

Each is given a shot at the starting line. The cruelest trick I know is to take a kid with above average intelligence and stick him/her in an Ivy League School where they fail behind quickly, become discouraged, and drop out. That kid who got straight A's in a California public school can't past the muster when the bar is raised to a new level. Why was the kid placed in Harvard when he/she would have excelled at a Cal State Sac or similar university? Because it was unfair, they were poor, or whatever piss poor reason you can come up with to make "things fair" for us little people.

Once spoke with an Heisman Trophy winner from the 40's. He got cut right off the bat in the pros. He said from the very first snap in the Pros, he knew he was on a much higher level of competition than at Notre Dame. Just the louder sounds of helmets and bodies crashing into each other, the quickness of snap and the blink of an eye speed the play was unfolding made him know he wasn't in Kansas anymore, Dorthy. He did go one to be a successful CEO of many companies and an inspirational motivation speaker, as well as a general in the military. He used his talents off the gridiron. But, how can we get a hold of his money?

The problem I always have seen is we commoners wave our pitchforks and plot how to get hold of that stack of gold coins up there in the castle on the hill. We spout good talks about playing Robin Hood and distributing them gold coins to the poor, lame, blind and slow. But, what each one of us pitchfork carrying peasants are really saying is "how do I get a hold of that gold for MYSELF?. When I get that stack of gold, I will give a few alms to the poor. Envy is an evil that corrodes one's soul.

I know of hardly any person that says "let them eat cake." There is an account in history where one did say "Let them eat grass." Didn't turn out too well for that man. My people made sure of that, but Washington always gets the last laugh.

There is a difference between taking the bull by the horns and storming the hill for the little people.

"By 1862, shortly after a failed crop the year before and a winter starvation, the federal payment was late. The local traders would not issue any more credit to the Santee and one trader, Andrew Myrick, went so far as to say, "If they're hungry, let them eat grass." On August 17, 1862 the Dakota War began when a few Santee men murdered a white farmer and most of his family. They inspired further attacks on white settlements along the Minnesota River. The Santee attacked the trading post. Later settlers found Myrick among the dead with his mouth stuffed full of grass."

[Douglas Keachie]

So George deleted poor old Jesus, do I get to make the point that Scott complains about taxes at gun point, when in fact ALL taxes, fees, etc are gathered at gun point, and that Scott is not "special." Let's see if this one sticks.

[Bill Tozer]

correction. Should have wrote "he knew he was on a much higher level of competition than AGAINST Notre Dame." instead of than at Notre Dame.

[George Rebane]

DougK 947am - George has deleted nothing on RR without notification. TypePad misfired its spam filter again, and your complaint alerted me to override and publish it. But for the sake of other readers, I wish you'd fix the 'Jesus Betterman' tag so that we will all appreciate the single fount from which your wisdom pours. Perhaps others can offer hints on how that is done since many commenters have changed their monikers slightly for reasons best known to them.

[Douglas Keachie]

Just for experimentation's sake, this laptop is allowed to keep its cookies, my main machine is not. Let's see what happens with the next reboot. Will Sheldon turn Japanese?

[Account Deleted]

My 'complaint' was that Joe the K claimed he was not advocating 'forced redistribution of wealth'. He tried to weasel out of that statement and now I find the lefties are back to using a straw man argument.
Pointing out that all taxes, levies and fees are taken from me at gunpoint in no way constitutes an argument that I am 'special' in that regard. Of course it applies to all.
Speaking of 'fees' - I received my notice the other day to pay a 'fee' for fighting forest fires on Fed and State land. Do folks living in earth quake zones pay extra fees for repairing public infrastructure that was damaged by earth quake? You know they don't. This nonsense will get worse and worse. I'm quite sure it's only a total coincidence that the folks that pay the extra fire fee are overwhelmingly white and conservative.

[MikeL]

Gerry Fedor is back with mathie-like figures. Please Gerry tell me how you are able to obtain the large windfall from PG and E with your solar system.

[MikeL]

Gerry,
I would be considered middle income. I personally don't like the label of class being used since the three magic levels of class are not used consistently. We have "the poor" which in the class systems should be labeled as "low class"'. Then we have middle income also commonly called middle class and finally we have the much hated by the jealous left "the rich" which for consistency would be the high class. Low class and high class have connotations beyond the meaning of income status that make them sometimes applicable to either rich of poor.
Anyways I digress...
Both of my daughters have had the same opportunities as the so called super rich..they both have university degrees...so the educational wall that you speak of is nonesense.
Oh by the way they both took those really hard sciencie classes and graduated with BS degrees. I have no doubt that they will make is in this world and perhaps move into the realm of the 1% ers that you are so envious of.

Really all it takes to make it is hard work, perseverance and a little luck, not the bullshit government imposed equal outcomes that Obummer and you want.

[Hydroxatone Free trial $1.00]

What's up, just wanted to say, I enjoyed this post. It was inspiring. Keep on posting!

[Caren]

Hello, after reading this remarkable piece of writing i am as well happy to share my knowledge here with colleagues.