Who are the top 1% income earners in the US

[ag]

You're very testy all of a sudden?

Oh, come on, its ag.

But as Al and Lewis point out, these are 'bad' people, and 'robbers'.  I don't care for any objective definition of morality, but it is accurate for the 99% to understand the 1% as their enemies who are robbing them.

I think it wouldn't be hard for me to define the notion of morality, under which it would be very clear to the 99% of the world's population that you are exactly in that 1% of the enemy population that is robbing them.  I am sure it would be particularly easy to do in Thailand )

[ag]

I don't know if you could distinguish between honest Wall St. investors and sleazy one.

The one doesn't exist (at least not successfully, not for very long)? Though I guess you could have trouble at times distinguishing between a merely sleazy one and a thoroughly crooked one - though as a general guideline, the latter is probably better at thinking outside the box.

I haven't even attempted to argue I am simply trying to figure out what is it that you argue. You know, that's not really easy to get )

It is absolutely standard left-wing stuff, ag.  No innovation here.

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "standard left-wing stuff". You might have something in mind, but, to the best of my knowledge you are asking me to guess, whether flying crocodiles are red or blue in color )

Brown.

And yellow simultaneously. Just saw one flying out of the window acrosst the street )

[opebo]

But as Al and Lewis point out, these are 'bad' people, and 'robbers'.  I don't care for any objective definition of morality, but it is accurate for the 99% to understand the 1% as their enemies who are robbing them.

I think it wouldn't be hard for me to define the notion of morality, under which it would be very clear to the 99% of the world's population that you are exactly in that 1% of the enemy population that is robbing them.  I am sure it would be particularly easy to do in Thailand )

Your post is extraordinarly poorly written and also irrelevant (Argumentum Ad-hominem).  Who I am makes no difference to my point.

[ag]

But as Al and Lewis point out, these are 'bad' people, and 'robbers'.  I don't care for any objective definition of morality, but it is accurate for the 99% to understand the 1% as their enemies who are robbing them.

I think it wouldn't be hard for me to define the notion of morality, under which it would be very clear to the 99% of the world's population that you are exactly in that 1% of the enemy population that is robbing them.  I am sure it would be particularly easy to do in Thailand )

Your post is extraordinarly poorly written and also irrelevant (Argumentum Ad-hominem).  Who I am makes no difference to my point.

It's not ad hominem ) I am sure I could define morality in such a way that everyone of us here - and, for that matter, everywhere else - would be in that 1% of the enemies of the people. You aren't special at all )

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The idea that top income earners are necessarily bad people is pretty prejudiced in my opinion.

Not necessarily, but mostly; the distinction is important. And I don't necessarily mean in their personal lives (I'm sure that many people who do things that are borderline evil at work are very nice people in a domestic setting), I'm just judging them based on what they do. Sacking thousands of people to boost profit margins is pretty bad as far as I'm concerned, as is, say, selling tobacco products to children in the third world. And so on.

Related to this, amusingly enough, are the very points you raised upthread...

[Gustaf]

The idea that top income earners are necessarily bad people is pretty prejudiced in my opinion.

Not necessarily, but mostly; the distinction is important. And I don't necessarily mean in their personal lives (I'm sure that many people who do things that are borderline evil at work are very nice people in a domestic setting), I'm just judging them based on what they do. Sacking thousands of people to boost profit margins is pretty bad as far as I'm concerned, as is, say, selling tobacco products to children in the third world. And so on.

Related to this, amusingly enough, are the very points you raised upthread...

It's not as if most of the top income earners are sacking people or selling tobacco though. And to the extent that they sack people it's not as if they do it out of spite or because they're evil people. Typically it's not, at the core, a management decision anyway.

It isn't as if no one can ever get laid off either. I'm not saying all those people are great but I don't see how they're the scum of the earth for earning money. Plenty of poor people are bad persons too.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not as if most of the top income earners are sacking people or selling tobacco though.

No, they just profit from it. Yes, obviously this is a systemic issue. But in order to get to that point a degree of - as you rightly called it - talent is needed. That's the issue to me, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know. The main part of the Llanwern steelworks was shut down nearly a decade ago mostly in order to boost the share price of the company that owned it (Corus). I'm using this example because it was clear-cut and because I know the area well (my Nan grew up nearby). Now that wasn't done out of spite, but was it not an evil - or at least morally dubious - thing to do? To an extent I suppose it depends on how you view the world, but from my point of view it's clear enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that's true. But I've never suggested otherwise.

[Vepres]

Well, Al, you seem to have a different definition of rich than I. True, the top 1% may be more likely to have done morally questionable things to get their wealth (though I disagree that a majority do so). On the other hand, would you honestly argue that most of the top 10% gained their wealth through immoral behavior?

[opebo]

Well, Al, you seem to have a different definition of rich than I. True, the top 1% may be more likely to have done morally questionable things to get their wealth (though I disagree that a majority do so). On the other hand, would you honestly argue that most of the top 10% gained their wealth through immoral behavior?

Of course, by definition.  Now, I don't believe in objective moralty, but the only way to gain wealth is through having power over other people (exploiting them), so your wealth is their harm.  I wouldn't call that objectly bad, just a reason everyone below you in the social heirarchy should hate you.

[Earth]

Well, Al, you seem to have a different definition of rich than I. True, the top 1% may be more likely to have done morally questionable things to get their wealth (though I disagree that a majority do so). On the other hand, would you honestly argue that most of the top 10% gained their wealth through immoral behavior?

Would you consider the behavior, at a fundamental level, to be unethical? You wouldn't, but I would. That's the big difference. Everyone speaks of the bad apple within the economy, but no one alleges the economy itself is based on 'bad apple'-ism.

The fundamental drive for profit is to f*ck over another because in no way can profit be sustained in a fair and equitable manner.  

[Storebought]

It's not as if most of the top income earners are sacking people or selling tobacco though.

No, they just profit from it. Yes, obviously this is a systemic issue. But in order to get to that point a degree of - as you rightly called it - talent is needed. That's the issue to me, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know. The main part of the Llanwern steelworks was shut down nearly a decade ago mostly in order to boost the share price of the company that owned it (Corus). I'm using this example because it was clear-cut and because I know the area well (my Nan grew up nearby). Now that wasn't done out of spite, but was it not an evil - or at least morally dubious - thing to do? To an extent I suppose it depends on how you view the world, but from my point of view it's clear enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that's true. But I've never suggested otherwise.

You're implying that a man can own his employment in the same sense that a man can own property, and can feel indignation at it being taken away unfairly, if not unlawfully. I have a hard time recalling if that has that ever been true.

[Gustaf]

It's not as if most of the top income earners are sacking people or selling tobacco though.

No, they just profit from it. Yes, obviously this is a systemic issue. But in order to get to that point a degree of - as you rightly called it - talent is needed. That's the issue to me, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know. The main part of the Llanwern steelworks was shut down nearly a decade ago mostly in order to boost the share price of the company that owned it (Corus). I'm using this example because it was clear-cut and because I know the area well (my Nan grew up nearby). Now that wasn't done out of spite, but was it not an evil - or at least morally dubious - thing to do? To an extent I suppose it depends on how you view the world, but from my point of view it's clear enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that's true. But I've never suggested otherwise.

They're not necessarily benefiting from sacking people or selling tobacco either.

Most of the richest people are people who come up with good ideas of various kinds. The richest Swede, last time I saw a list, was Ingvar Kamprad who came up with a concept for selling furniture that basically allowed people with lower incomes to get decent furniture for their homes. I don't think he's an evil person. In fact,  a lot of people probably have him to thank for making their lives at least a little bit better. This goes for most of the richest people (ignoring for a while those who are the heirs of other such people).

Of course there are some who are definitely not likeable. But that exists in all income groups.

When it comes to your example I obviously don't know about it. Generally, I'd say that if the people providing the capital for a company aren't willing to do so, that's their right. I definitely think society can have a role to soften the effects of such decisions, but I don't really view that as the company's role in the process.

When you invest money in a company you take a risk of losing the money and if people are to make such investments they need to be paid a return on their invested capital. Otherwise they won't do it.

You can think there are problems with this system but I can't really see people as evil for functioning in it.

(And before someone Goodwins me, I don't think it's comparable to being a Nazi camp guard... )

My point is that people might have other reasons for wanting to be a CEO than that they take pleasure in sacking people. And they will have to sack people occasionally so it doesn't really prove their evil nature either, imo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They're not necessarily benefiting from sacking people or selling tobacco either.

No, but how many would feel as much as a twinge of guilt if they were? Because if there's one thing that is obviously true about the top 1% or so is that they are - for the most part - completely out of touch with the world that exists outside the circles in which they live in. Of course this can easily be applied to other settings; I don't think that many people in the West (regardless of income, class or anything else) know much about the people that make most of our clothes, fancy electronics and so on, to say nothing of the people who extract the raw materials that... etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most? Nonsense. Some? Of course. Though I suppose 'good idea' is subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legally it is their right, of course. Morally? Over a thousand good jobs lost in an area not exactly noted for its vibrant economy, so that the directors could buy themselves second yachts? I can understand that you approach this from a different position to me (and that's fine), but wouldn't you at least accept that to do that is, at the very least, perhaps a little morally dubious?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, of course not. But who cares about their intentions? Especially as we all know from a very early age that if you want to 'get on'  f***ing people over makes things so much easier. The intention to become very rich is not really a pure one in the first place.

'Bad' is a weaker word than 'evil', btw. It's one thing to argue that 'the system' (such as it is) is evil or to point to specific actions as being so, quite another to argue that individuals are (though, as I'm sure everyone would acknowledge, some certainly are), which is why I've done no such thing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But then I'm a puritanical lefty with a stronger belief in sin than I care to admit, so I would think that, wouldn't I?

[opebo]

But then I'm a puritanical lefty with a stronger belief in sin than I care to admit, so I would think that, wouldn't I?

There's really no need to bring 'sin' into it, given opposing interests.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But then I'm a puritanical lefty with a stronger belief in sin than I care to admit, so I would think that, wouldn't I?

There's really no need to bring 'sin' into it, given opposing interests.

Well, no. But it's there

[Gustaf]

They're not necessarily benefiting from sacking people or selling tobacco either.

No, but how many would feel as much as a twinge of guilt if they were? Because if there's one thing that is obviously true about the top 1% or so is that they are - for the most part - completely out of touch with the world that exists outside the circles in which they live in. Of course this can easily be applied to other settings; I don't think that many people in the West (regardless of income, class or anything else) know much about the people that make most of our clothes, fancy electronics and so on, to say nothing of the people who extract the raw materials that... etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most? Nonsense. Some? Of course. Though I suppose 'good idea' is subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legally it is their right, of course. Morally? Over a thousand good jobs lost in an area not exactly noted for its vibrant economy, so that the directors could buy themselves second yachts? I can understand that you approach this from a different position to me (and that's fine), but wouldn't you at least accept that to do that is, at the very least, perhaps a little morally dubious?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, of course not. But who cares about their intentions? Especially as we all know from a very early age that if you want to 'get on'  f***ing people over makes things so much easier. The intention to become very rich is not really a pure one in the first place.

'Bad' is a weaker word than 'evil', btw. It's one thing to argue that 'the system' (such as it is) is evil or to point to specific actions as being so, quite another to argue that individuals are (though, as I'm sure everyone would acknowledge, some certainly are), which is why I've done no such thing.

I have to say that I find the argument odd to say that since you assume those people would not feel bad about doing certain things they are bad. That strikes me as a weak way of reasoning.

Of course many of them are "out of touch." That still doesn't make them bad people, imo. Most people don't see things from other perspectives than their own. We tend to think of this as worse when you're rich and in some ways it probably is but I don't really see it as a moral fault.

As for good ideas, again it depends on definitions of course. My point is that people do not, in general, just get rich by walking around and being mean. Lots of people want to be rich and lots of people are mean, after all. Lots of rich people come up with something. It may be an invention. It might be a realization that there is a demand for some product or other. And so on. And some inherit other such people. And some do focus on making money (although even then you do need certain qualities, I believe).

I understand where you're coming from about the lay-offs. I appreciate the personal tragedy involved there. I just don't really think that someone who happened to invest in a company has to pay for that mistake by endlessly supporting those dependent on it. That's for society to handle, imo. After all, there are other rich people who could pay for those people having jobs. Ultimately, that is why we have democratic states rather than systems of patronage in modern societies.

Towards the end of your post you seem to be agreeing with what I said earlier - I understand opposing the system but calling the individuals in it psychopaths or bad human beings is a bit strong imo. To be honest, I think I know those kind of people better than you do - at my university most people aspire to belong to these circles. Many of them are pretty uncultured and some are right down unpleasant, sure. Then again, when I did philosophy at another university there were plenty of those people too. And many of my co-students are actually pretty kind people. They care about the environment and the poor more than many self-styled radicals that I've come across.

Again, I'm not after the glorification of success that seems to be common in the US, for instance. Many of those people are undeniably bad people and some are probably not very deserving of their riches. But I think the notion that being rich in itself is an indication of bad character to be a dangerous prejudice.

I've met many good and bad people but I can't say that I've ever noted much of a correlation between income. This guy I did philosophy with who proudly announced over a late beer that he had finally managed to get sick leave benefits and that it had done him so much good (he had never felt better) certainly wasn't rich and had no aspiration to be so. That didn't really make him a particularly moral person though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have to say that I find the argument odd to say that since you assume those people would not feel bad about doing certain things they are bad. That strikes me as a weak way of reasoning.

I probably didn't explain it well, or maybe I'm not properly explaining where I'm coming from. It's a background issue; I was raised to believe that passively assenting to something wrong is about as bad as actively joining in. Difficult to become rich without... and there you are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But this has nothing to do with whether or not it is unfair to describe them as being mostly bad people, is it?
Besides, by that standard almost everyone comes up with something. My dad probably does certain aspects of wiring in a different - and presumably better - way than someone who hasn't been an electrician for nearly forty years. To do things differently is not a defining feature of people who end up rich. Though there's no doubt that it helps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are the people in charge of large companies separate from society? Is it wrong to expect them to at least bear in mind that they are part of it? They used to, for a couple of decades anyway, so it isn't alien to the way the world works or such bullsh*t.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know; the logic of patronage is often used in the context of industry and employment. Usually by major employers and their patsies in the media.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I wrote 'psychopaths' either

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most people on this forum do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it were a prejudice it could hardly be a dangerous one; the reality is that the most you can do is shake your fist.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are the people in charge of large companies separate from society? Is it wrong to expect them to at least bear in mind that they are part of it? They used to, for a couple of decades anyway, so it isn't alien to the way the world works or such bullsh*t.

Who is to say most don't view themselves as part of society? I doubt either you or I or Gustaf or most on this forum have met many people who reside in the top 1% of earners, no?

And, of course, you would think that most are bad because you are far more likely to hear about the bad rich people than the good Breaking News: CEO Doesn't Outsource Jobs. It's easy for you to say they're mostly bad people, just as it is easy for me to say most poor are lazy, that doesn't mean either of us really know what the Hell we're talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I wrote 'psychopaths' either [/quote]

You came very close to saying that, though

[Gustaf]

I've actually come across plenty of people who are likely in the top % in Sweden (or at least close enough to that to be representative). I'm not saying met because I don't have personal friends making that kind of money but several such people come and lecture at my university and some of the people attending come from such families. I never seem to become friends with those people, but oh well.

And my general impression is not that they're bad people. Some are, but that goes for any group.

I'm even reminded of some of those guys who came to speak to us students. One guy had been an swimmer in the olympics. He had then gone into business, and had during one period been the head of the Swedish state-run liquor company. A student asked him if this was ethical. His reply was that you always had to think about those things and that his standard had always been whether he would be comfortable with his 14-year old daughter coming into contact with what he worked with (and I think the strict age limits of the state-run liquor stores here kept his conscience safe). I'm not saying that's the best philosophy or anything, but it doesn't strike me as evil, really.

Al: I think the difference between acting and non-acting is the main dividing line between us here. I guess that is your prerogative, but to me it would seem that we're all part of the capitalist system in that case. Top income earners, IIRC, actually donate more to philanthropy which, in a manner of thinking, goes against the system of capitalism.

Oh, and when it comes to doing things differently...the topic I originally came in to discuss was what makes people rich. As in what makes them different. It was contended that the only difference between average income-earners and rich people was that the latter really loved money. Were greedy to use a less euphemistic word. You and Lewis then seemed to elaborate on this definition to define them as bad people. So, the difference between rich people and non-rich people is that that former are bad while the rest of us are regular humans.

This, as I said, strikes me as prejudiced class-hatred, to be completely frank. Of course many people do different things differently. But not all these differences are worth as much on the market. Being good at wiring is worth something and your dad presumably would have an easier time finding work as an electrician than someone like me who knows nothing about it. Coming up with an innovative way of picking your nose is not worth much. And, of course, some skills are more easily acquired than others. To make it in the investment banking industry you have to pass mathematical tests that few people can handle for instance. You must be ready to work 80-hour weeks and few people can handle that kind of stress.

For an economist it is actually simply put as a function of demand and supply. A service such as doing dishes is not in high demand because most people can do their dishes themselves. Handling capital transactions is in higher demand because fewer people can perform that sort of task.

Now, I don't think the difference between me and Warren Buffet is that he wanted money more than I do. It's a comforting thought,  of course, that the reason I make less money than someone is because I'm a morally superior person, but I don't see it as convincing. I don't think anyone here can just drop their conscience and moral principles, venture out into the world and join the top 1% income earners by virtue of them being ready to  people over. It takes something else, imo.

In contrast to your mining story, I would say that thinking that constitutes not knowing how the world works...

(I suspect some of this may be strawmanning - I'm not solely debating you here but all the people who voiced opinions on the subject. So I'm not necessarily claiming that you believe all the things I'm going against here, but it at least wasn't clear that you didn't to me)

[opebo]

Oh, and when it comes to doing things differently...the topic I originally came in to discuss was what makes people rich. As in what makes them different. It was contended that the only difference between average income-earners and rich people was that the latter really loved money. Were greedy to use a less euphemistic word. You and Lewis then seemed to elaborate on this definition to define them as bad people. So, the difference between rich people and non-rich people is that that former are bad while the rest of us are regular humans.

This, as I said, strikes me as prejudiced class-hatred, to be completely frank.

No, it isn't prejudice, Gustaf, it is recognition of what makes the rich different - they are rich because others are poor.  In other words they are using the rest through their power.  It doesn't matter if they are 'greedy' or have any other personal character flaws, or are by contrast personally very sweet.  The fact remains that they are the beneficiaries of a social organization which holds the non-rich in a state of servitude.  Thus, the top 1% is the enemy of the bottom 99%. 

[Gustaf]

Oh, and when it comes to doing things differently...the topic I originally came in to discuss was what makes people rich. As in what makes them different. It was contended that the only difference between average income-earners and rich people was that the latter really loved money. Were greedy to use a less euphemistic word. You and Lewis then seemed to elaborate on this definition to define them as bad people. So, the difference between rich people and non-rich people is that that former are bad while the rest of us are regular humans.

This, as I said, strikes me as prejudiced class-hatred, to be completely frank.

No, it isn't prejudice, Gustaf, it is recognition of what makes the rich different - they are rich because others are poor.  In other words they are using the rest through their power.  It doesn't matter if they are 'greedy' or have any other personal character flaws, or are by contrast personally very sweet.  The fact remains that they are the beneficiaries of a social organization which holds the non-rich in a state of servitude.  Thus, the top 1% is the enemy of the bottom 99%. 

Oh dear. Really? Tell me more about this intriguing new theory of yours.