Why have the rich gotten richer?

Mostly because of tax policies that have favored them since Reagan

 

Because they are intelligent, and work very hard, is the answer to the question posed.

 

How abou people like me who find it somewhat concerning, but don't have a complaint?

I do worry about the ever-growing wealth stratification. I fear the super-rich who exert ever more control over our freedoms. Google and Facebook are continually increasing their control over the flow of information.

 

Thanks for a well thought out post. I did read all of it. You cited stagnant wages as part of that. I would say illegal immigration, globalization, and automation are the reasons for stagnant wages.

Also we see in the late 70s and early 80s women began entering the work force thus increasing the supply of labor. You seem to suggest that wages were suppressed by the shear will of employers and this is not true. Supply and demand drive wages as well as prices.

 

Nope.

 

I'll discuss these in more detail when I have more time. But for now, are you arguing that "trickle down" policies I mentioned (FICA taxes that working middle class pays (but the very rich effectively do not) were dramatically increased. Top marginal income tax rates, investment taxes, and estate taxes (taxes the wealthier mostly pay but the bottom 90% mostly do not) were slashed by half or more. The minimum wage was not increased (in real terms). Overtime laws were scaled back or not enforced. Unions were demonized and busted. Regulations protecting workers and consumers were cut back) have had no effect on how income and wealth have been distributed between working folk and the rich?

 

I would not say these things have had no effect. Are you claiming globalization has had no effect?

 

When you devalue your currency the $ value of assets is increased but the practical value of them is not.

So measured in $ the rich have got richer.
Measured in assets, the things that a $ can buy, they have got poorer. Same as the rest of us.

 

I disagree. Very few came from literally nothing. Many didn’t inherit much of their wealth but they do tend to come from comfortable middle-income families with the educational and support that brings as a basis for their achievements. In most cases they still needed the skills, effort and determination to reach the dizzy heights of wealth they have done but in the context of this thread, there is still generally an element of having some starting capital to allow them to achieve that. The literal rags-to-riches scenario remains extremely rare.

 

Clearly you know of what you speak

2017 Poorest countries on earth

 

It was mentioned before that somehow lowering taxes caused this. It was also mentioned that the rich offshore their money. If this is the case then raising taxes definitely would not help.

 

About 8 in 10 millionaires were not born wealthy.

 

What you have historically ignored (for political reasons) is that this also coincided with a huge change in immigration into this country, where we changed our preferences from well-off Western Europeans to uneducated 3rd world Hispanics who came here in HUGE numbers over an uninterrupted period of several decades. This huge influx of low-skilled labor put downward pressure on wages, since there was more than enough supply to meet demand. Employers had no real reason to raise wages, but to make matters worse, wages have been destroyed in certain job fields like roofing and masonry that used to command a middle class lifestyle. At the same time, high skilled jobs (like technology) were either being exported to other countries, or given to educated foreigners who came here, usually from Asia, who were also willing to work for less compared to Americans.

So the left sought to globalize the world and then started complaining when Western standards started dropping. Well, what did you expect? If the West is above all other societies, and you want "equality" with them, the West could have only gone down. There was nowhere else for it to go. That's how we know you are not being sincere when you complain about this issue. It was the logical result of policies you support, so you have no grounds to be upset about it.

 

Many feel that rich people buy political influence with their money then use it to rig the game in their favor and against the interests of working people. The ever widening gap between the uber rich and the now dwindling middle class has coincided with the attacks on unions and the appointment of Supreme Court Judges who always rule in favor of corporations and billionaires while ruling against working people. Since the early '80s the top 1% have more that quadrupled their share of total wealth. My take is that bank swindlers and billionaires have paid our elected officials and gotten them to give them free reign to charge outrageous interest rates which were only seen by street gang loan sharks only a couple decades before. With this unlimited access to the courts by these legal loan sharks, people who create absolutely nothing are able to make huge fortunes.

 

Can you support this argument?

Can you show that the courts favored "corporations and billionaires while ruling against working people." as opposed to law and justice?

 

We keep trying to replace the integral 'buyer beware' dynamic of competition with authoritative regulation.

There is no substitute for 'voting with your dollars.'

 

Due TO EVERY form of government having the same task. KEEP the ones with power and influence, powerful and influential. PERIOD. They have lobbyists and such, to promote their interests.

The REpublicans will NOT ALLOW the low people to have representation. They hate unions, guilds, any ability to control how the rich manipulate them.

 

We have started socializing losses for the very top of the money chain, while ensuring we continue to privatize gains. Who lost in the crash in 2007/2008? The most uber wealthy MADE money during the collapse, because they used their vast wealth to bet against their fellow citizens. Collapse = windfall for the bankers.

When you have enough money, you can risk it all and still get the government to bail you out. If you are poor, take a risk, and lose everything, you are called a failure.

So inability to fail due to government bailouts is another reason.

 

Then why didn't things change under obama. At one point he had a democratic party congress.

 

Did you not catch the part about EVERY form of gov?

 

Hell, I'm left and I don't complain about people getting richer. I'm one of them and I love it.

 

Oops...

 

Yes but that is still a vague concept.

 

So you agree that they came from positions equal to the majority of their peers, yet gained substantial amounts of wealth?

 

You don't want to know or you already would.