The Have and Have Nots OK, this is going to be a difficult one. We hear so often now about income inequality, how the richest 1% own 90% of the wealth in America. I just listened to one of the TED talks that said that 20 years ago you Forbes richest 400 had a total wealth of about $350 billion, so you didn’t even have to be a billionaire to be on the list, but now the 400 are worth $1.3 trillion. And, the richest person in all of human history is alive today, but it’s not an American. It’s Carlos Slim of Mexico, the telecom billionaire. And now, the richest .1% have as much wealth as the 1% did 20 years ago. I see complaints all the time about how this is a terrible thing; how the middle class is getting eliminated; how soon we will only have the super rich and the super poor. The super rich are portrayed as greedy, buying politicians to keep the laws so they don’t have to pay as much taxes as the rest of us; how they buy politicians to block an increase in the minimum wage or wage parity for women or a living wage. I even hear that this income/wealth inequality proves that capitalism is failing the mass of people and has to change. Somehow I just have a hard time accepting that the very existence of the super rich is bad for society. Here is my reasoning. First, I start from a point of believing that society should be based on a meritocracy, i.e., people get and keep what they have based on their ability and effort. I am not naieve enough to believe that there will ever be a perfect meritocracy, but I do believe that is the model we should strive to achieve. That means also, that I fall in the “conservative” camp because I believe everyone should have the same opportunities to develop their abilities and use their efforts to accomplish whatever makes them happy, within the criminal law. That means that when people are in need of a helping hand for reasons beyond their control, that help ought to be available, first from private sources, but if not, from public/government sources. But, when the need for the helping hand is because people make bad, foolish, even self-destructive choices, the help should be very limited, at least from public/government sources for the simple reason that any government help can only be provided as a result of taking from people who are taking care of themselves to give to those who are not. Second, except for inherited wealth, which I think ought to be essentially eliminated except for a small amount and for sentimental things, I think wealth accumulated in one’s lifetime is the result of ability and effort, and often with a good dose of luck. When I look at some of the super rick of today, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Curtis, Turner, Bezos ... I see people who have made fortunes with their abilities, but more important they could not have made their fortunes providing some product or service that a very large number of people found valuable enough to voluntarily part with their money to allow the other to get very rich. Microsoft provides software that runs over 70% of the computers in this world. Not only did Gates develop that product, his company employed thousands of people and gave them the opportunity to use their ability and effort to accomplish what they want, and many to become multi-millionaires. Buffett made many people millionaires and created many jobs. Zuckerberg has provided a service, for FREE no less, that nearly 1 billion people like and use. His company employs over 10,000 people, and he has given millions of dollars to education. Curtis just sold tumblr, a program that did not exist until he created it and the company to operate it, for $1.1 billion. Turner created a television network that provides entertainment to millions of people at virtually no cost to them–until cable came along–and employs many people. Bezos changed the way we buy books, and may other things, reduced the cost of those books by being able to sell and deliver them more efficiently that other people, and has also employed many people, some of whom have also become multi-millionaires. These people who built great fortunes in their lifetime didn’t do it by taking the wealth of other people from them. They did it by providing something the other people wanted enough to pay for it voluntarily–unlike what the government decides to provide. Third, the wealth of many of these people has reached the point, like Buffett and Gates say, where they cannot eat, dress, drive, fly, in short live any better regardless how much more money they make. So what do they do with it? Well Gates and Buffett started the Billionaires Club that has two requirements for membership: 1) you have to be a Billionaire, and 2) you have to agree to give away at least 50% of your wealth, either in your lifetime or by your will. How terrible is that? Zuckerberg gave $120,000,000 to Bay area schools. How terrible because he has billions left. Truth is, most people who are very wealthy want to do something with their money to either build a lasting name for themselves or help others or both. Fourth, are the “little people” better off or worse off because there are the super rich? Here is a test to propose to answer the question: If the super rich person never lived, and never created the means of acquiring his/her wealth, would you be better off or not; would your life be easier, more healthy, more comfortable, or not? Would you have a job; would you be making more or less money than you do? If the answer is better, then you should be glad the super rich have become super rich. Now, let’s total up all the answers of everyone in the country whether their life is better or worse, and I suspect for most all of these people the answer will be better. If I am right, that is one half of the answer to the issue of income/wealth inequality for me. Fifth, the other half of the answer is do the rest of us common people have the same opportunities for education and work that the super rich did before they became super rich? Do we still have the means to survive and live our lives according to our own ability and effort? If the answer is yes to both questions, then I am satisfied. If one has the ability to live life as one chooses based on their ability and effort, what does it matter that someone else has a lot more money? Finally, I have often referred to what I call the 98% rule whenever I start feeling sorry for myself about anything. The rule is, would 98% of the people in this world gladly swap places with me? As long as the answer is yes, I shut up and stop complaining and feeling sorry for myself. I think 98% of the people in this world would gladly swap places with anyone in the US for the opportunity and economic security standpoint. The proof for this, to me, is that so many people risk their lives to try to get into the US for the opportunity to have a job that often pays less than minimum wage. P.S. The super rich should pay their share of the taxes to maintain the society, and that means an effective tax rate at least equal to that of the rest of us.
Posted on: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:06:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015