https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
It’s a long article and section 4 is related to higher education.
None of it is surprising, but the “upper middle class who does not get financial aid anywhere” seems to resent when it gets pointed out.
Take a look at figure 1. I’m not seeing where the 9.9% is making more progress. There are basically holding steady, which is not too bad. The massive accumulation of wealth is in the top .1% and will get worse when the new tax plan kicks in.
According to this, they already hold 60% of the wealth. Why should they be making progress toward a LARGER percentage???
In one word: greed. Capitalism without sufficient constraints will inevitably lead to excesses.
Yes, the top 0.1% is gaining at the expense of the bottom 90%, while the top 10% except the top 0.1% is “merely” hanging on (but with about 60% of the overall wealth, versus about 20% each for the top 0.1% and the bottom 90%).
However, one of the points of the article may be that the top 10% except for the top 0.1% is a more visible target of resentment, and manipulation of such resentment may help the top 0.1% keep attention away from it as it acquires more and more of the wealth.
No, not greed. According to the article, in a privileged class there’s always someone else on top of you. Really no one wins in the end.
I loved the article. It expressed many of my thoughts that were at the tip of my tongue.
There is also a substantial difference within that 9.9% which is where the resentment comes from.
https://www.thenation.com/article/20-people-now-own-as-much-wealth-as-half-of-all-americans/
@1NJParent – right. that was what I was getting at. Not sure why the earlier poster thought it was an issue that the top 9.9% wasn’t increasing their already ginormous percentage of wealth.
@NoKillli – in a group whose bottom floor of wealth is 1.2 million dollars, I really don’t care where their “resentment” comes from. People who are so full of resentment of others having more, when they already have so much, don’t get a lot of sympathy from me.
It isn’t a matter of getting sympathy or not. When we move away from meritocracy, resentment builds up since you are not creating your destiny so to speak. Besides, I didn’t think the author was saying that 9.9%ers are resentful. I thought he meant resentment in general public.
^I was addressing the comment which discussed resentment within the 9.9%.
For those who find the article too tedious…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb28kAavh0M&feature=youtu.be
What I meant is there is general resentment against the “rich”. When you are “poor” someone making 100-200K looks rich.
Like my prior post with the article from thenation.com article says. The uber rich really control the wealth in this country.
Someone with a primary residence in a high COL area (NYC,BOS,LA,SF), makes it into the 9.9%. They are rich, but not really.
The only way to get the bottom 90% more wealth at this point in history are higher taxes on the rich and put that money into lifting up everyone. Maybe infrastructure, definitely education.That means estate taxes up to 100% of the estate value. This would take care of the passing on of appreciated assets at the value at death. When George Steinbrenner died there were no estate taxes. IIRC he bought the Yankees for peanuts from CBS. They are worth billions. When his sell the team someday they will only pay taxes on the appreciation since his death. Billions of taxes were never paid.
We also need to put the breaks on the tax free foundations. Bill Gates might be doing great work, but no taxes were ever paid on all that Microsoft stock appreciation. With the new tax law, I won’t even be able to deduct the few dollars I donate, whereas Bill and Warren can move billions into the foundation. God only knows what the Walton and Koch families are up to. Nothing good I’m sure.
Estate tax would help as the author noted. Taxing the estate will demote heirs. I think that would be a great equalizer. I always thought that’s how the US maintained democracy. Getting rid of tax deductions should also help. We give a huge tax break to private institutions while squeezing out public universities. Tax benefits at Princeton is at $10,000 per student. Compare that with the state uni Rutgers, $1,000 per student. They should reverse the titles, public and private.
When you are poor, someone making 100 to 200k IS rich.
Also, this isn’t just talking about salaries; the article is about net worth. 1.2 million is the floor for its definition of “9.9 %”
Which, net worth if 1.2, can easily have happen to “our” generation even with the market drops and with the recent drop in real estate both of which have rebounded nicely. Home equity, savings by two working spouses and frugal living, spending and heavy investments in the eighties when both spouses are hitting their salary growth can get my generation to 1.2 million in net worth. You don’t have to have a ton of cash if you aren’t living a spendo life. But then again if you live like that you aren’t living a super rich life either…basically saving to withstand retirement without having to drastically change your lifestyle and hopefully leave alittle but for your kids.
Right. But that puts you ahead of most folks. I get it; I’m in the same generation. I do not have that net worth, though we are comfortable. And that, again, is the floor for the 9.9 percent. The median is much higher in this article.
An interesting critique of the original Atlantic article:
https://slate.com/business/2018/05/forget-the-atlantics-9-9-percent-the-1-percent-are-still-the-problem.html