What's with the animosity towards the wealthy?

I grew up poor and I'm not wealthy. Yet, I don't harbor resentment towards those who are wealthy. I'm grateful for what I have, and I'm motivated to do better for myself and my children. I'm happy for those that have an overabundance. Unless someone has blatantly obtained their wealth by violating the law, I see no need to take issue with them. Is there something wrong with my view?

 

Envy, greed and lies. Leftists have to justify stealing their money, so they have to tirn them into the bad guys.

 

Nothing wrong with your view, mine is similar. I am employed because of wealthy people and thankful for it as well.

 

I don't have a problem with the wealthy.

I do have a problem with those who use their wealth to leverage more of it out of those who already have less. This is a small and often difficult-to-identify percentage of the wealthy. Though, the wealthier one is, the more likely they fit in to this category. I thus hold some possibly but unlikely misplaced animosity for those at the very top of the 'pyramid', as it were.

FTR, I don't advocate that their wealth be bureaucratically redistributed. But I will shed no tears if those who can prove they've been leveraged show up with proverbial pitchforks and torches to take justice.

 

I agree with most of the post except for the part I highlighted. There are indeed quite a few businesses that are less than straightforward about what they do. These can range from storefronts to warehouses, and even though one might observe little foot traffic for that particular business, they sure seem to keep trudging along, even as other businesses shutter their doors.

So, if it is not blatantly criminal, it's okay?

 

Good catch, fair point. Scrutiny is deserved where it's warranted. If someone's wealth has been obtain through skimming the bounds of legality, they're certainly not beyond reproach.

 

It's fuel for how dictators get rich and small businesspersons are found dead on the side of the road:

"Cuban President Fidel Castro Monday night challenged Forbes magazine to put its money where its mouth is. "If they can prove that I have a bank account abroad, with $900 million, with $1 million, $500,000, $100,000 or $1 in it, I will resign," he declared in a television appearance.

The Cuban leader, surrounded by several of his close collaborators, usurped regular TV programming for four hours to refute a story in the May 22 edition of Forbes, "Kings, Queens and Dictators." In it, Forbes alleges Castro has a personal fortune of $900 million. That's $400 million more than the magazine attributes to Queen Elizabeth."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/castro-i-am-not-rich/

 

There is - Your view assumes that the law and system is not corrupt. Such that some can obtain wealth through means which are nefarious - but either legal or not enforced.

 

Freedom is choices. If those more wealthy than you, don't just have more choices than you because of more wealth, but also actively seek to deprive other people of choice, of freedom... that's when resentment isn't just natural, it should be expected. If a billionaire deprives his employees of the right to unionize, if he lobbies government to make unionizing more difficult, then he expects government to put his freedom above the freedom, above the opportunities, of his fellow citizens.

And that should be resented. To do any less, is to be submissive, like a feudal serf begging for scraps using the most deferential language he can muster, or the way Samuel L. Jackson's characters speaks to his master in "Django Unchained". To be "grateful" to people who treat you like dirt, while expecting you to kiss their ring... yes, there is something wrong with that view. You should have more respect for yourself. Using your wealth to deny other people the same right as you, the same right to increase their opportunities, to increase their wealth, their living standards, their working conditions... that's not "liberty", not "freedom", nor even capitalism. It is undignified capitalism. Capitalism is sensible. Private property is good. But it is not an ideology. It's just an economic model. Good capitalism is when the players in the market forces, which include unions, recognize each other's right to bargain contracts, to make deals, basicly a recognization of the capitalist premise of "I own this, but I expect a fair price for it." Respect based on mutual acceptance of wanting to profit. When that respect is NOT there, when wealth disparity is rising and those who make less but work most somehow aren't finding their wages increasing as proportionately as the owners at the top, why shouldn't there be some resentment?

Tl;dr: It isn't actually about resentment against "the wealthy". It is about resentment against using your wealth to decrease other people's freedom, about elitism. If the super rich of the world respected other people having the same right to freedom as themselves, most people - even most Leftists - would have absolutely no problem with that.

 

the wealthy censor our President's speech on twitter

 

Duh..

Greed, envy, and sloth.

..pretty basic human conditions. It is ironic that the progressive left has elevated these to virtues. ..but such is the Brave New World we now live in.

“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” ~Thomas Sowell

 

I think such situations are extremely rare.

However unions are crap.. lots of American jobs were destroyed by greedy unions...

Large swaths of Michigan are 3rd world shitholes because of unions.

 

Getting paid is taking someone else's money. They hand it over voluntarily, sure, but you're still taking it. Are you greedy? If your employer decides to only pay as much for your labor as he would pay the same worker in Bangladesh, is he just "keeping the money he earned" and you greedy for asking for more in wages?

Need is not greed.

 

I am aware that US unions are extremely ineffective. A large part of that has to do with corrupt US government's oppressing them on behalf of even more corrupt people who love freedom only when it benefits them, and hate freedom when it benefits others. It's never your unions that were "greedy", it's been American workers that were unwilling to stand up to their employers, knowing the power they had over them, and being resigned to finding "their place" like a good, little serf vs their lords. That's been true for over a century in the US. Unions resorted to crime to beat the odds, like any good rebel should. As a sad result, American workers only see labor unions only ever being capable of being anything more than corrupt, inefficient, powerless institutions. But pretending that that's some sort of eternal, foregone conclusion is wrong. Anything can change and so can US unions.

 

Ohh. BS. Auto workers were not anything like serfs nor are any other American full time workers who bothered to make themselves valuable.

Unions in America need to change alright, change to nothing and go away.

America had great manufacturing jobs but they were all unionized and either the companies went out of business or they moved overseas to stay afloat.

I have a crappy job that anyone with a work ethic and people skills can do, yet it comes with decent pay, and all the benefits.

It hardly takes any skill to get a half way decent job in America.
This concept of abusive employers is nearly entirely bogus.

 

If people make their money by a combination of talent, hard work and good luck, then I have no problem with that. Inherited wealth is another matter, especially when they live in luxury, party a lot and do little good in the world.

 

Simple, greed and jealousy. Its the socialist way.

 

You shouldn't have any problems with anyones legally gotten wealth, it is absolutely none of your business..

 

Getting a paycheck is done via the work you do for that other person. It's a contract. It's earned. Of course I am greedy for taking it, I worked for it though...and yes I will ask for a raise because I am greedy.

That's different then getting money, that was never earned from an entity that took the money from other people by force.

 

Blaming unions for jobs fleeing the US, when countries with much greater levels of unionizing can retain their manufacturing jobs, is obviously BS. The level of unionization in the US has never been high enough to make that a reasonable excuse for outsourcing. That happened simply because those companies could get cheaper labor elsewhere. I guess you think Bengalis have better "work ethic" than you since they're the ones getting those outsourced US jobs? xD

This idea some Americans have that asking their employers for better pay and better terms is "Socialist", or hurts business, is submissive talk. If you had strong unions, you wouldn't need the State to set a minimum wage - you could settle that by collective bargaining directly and in mutual respect between employers and employee representation. Also, you could save money on unemployment insurance by letting unions establish private unemployment insurance. That would make them really powerful, sure, but they'd also work as private alternative to government assistance and thereby bring down public costs. The idea that the only thing you can get from unionizing is worse work ethic, because that's what unions supposedly are associated with now... is like believing that because you had alot of racism in the 1960's, you still have the excat same racism today. Things can change if you're willing to work for it... that's called work ethic. ;-P

 

Yes, it is different. It's just not a greedy difference. I'd also say that you wouldn't be "greedy" for taking a paycheck. Greed is wanting more than you need or deserve. A contract, a business contract, is the acknowledgement that both of you have a right to make money off of your transactions. You want to earn as much money, your employer wants to pay you little. Fairness is meeting in the middle, so you both get what you want. You're not greedy for wanting to earn some extra, and he is not greedy for wanting to pay a little less than the average. But there is a line.

The need for hospitals, disaster relief, roads, schools, etc. is not "greed". It's a need. It would be a greed if your government had some king at the top, enriching himself personally for your tax dollars. You don't, so it isn't. Or do all rise in taxes in your country go directly into raising the paychecks of your bureaucrats, congressmen and presidents?

 

Nobody saying those things are...they are services provided by the Govt. With that said this thread is about why people are so envious of others wealth...not about Govt

 

Yes it is. Tax them on it, income tax and inheritance tax.
At least the wealthy will never ascend to heaven: 'It's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle then to ascend to Heaven'. You of all people should appreciate that: Greed is a terrible sin. The wealthy should donate to the poor, not just for the right reason but to avoid boiilng in Hell....

 

Well, you were the one mentioning "entities" taking your money by force, which I took to mean government, hence why I brought up govt. too. And in the context of the discussion, which isn't envy of the wealthy, but resentment of the wealthy, discussing what government should or shouldn't do, who it shouldn't or should help and why would seem relevant.

 

The problem with blaming wealthy as a general policy is that the people doing the blaming are often guilty of the same or worse conducts. Some examples of this-

Every retailer has an allowance in his financial numbers for- "shrinkage". That means shoplifting, theft by employees, etc- and that number will often be 3%. That means in a $100 grocery bill, the shopper has put up 3 bucks to offset the losses created by others who are somewhat less than honest.

Unions- do their best to get as much as possible for the worker. No problem with that, so long as it is done legitimately. However, they also try to do as little as possible for that higher wage. From personal experience, I've had top quality employees told to slow down and do less when we were in an area that was largely union, because it made the local tradesmen look bad. Many unions have acted in ways that would be criminal if the same thing were to be done by the employer.

The point is we don't have a good guy-bad guy scenario when we compare the wealthy and the not wealthy classes of people. We do have a lot of tolerance for dishonesty among average people- and a hostility for it among the wealthy.

If you feel a business isn't acting fairly- don't patronize them. If enough people agree with your point of view, that business will fail. Ultimately, all business depends on the approval of it's customers. While it may be inconvenient to do business elsewhere, and possibly more expensive, if one's moral commitment is more important than their convenience, that is what they should do. If it's not- they shouldn't be complaining, because they support what they complain about.