"The pitchforks are coming for us plutocrats"

[TheBlueVue 177]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

[homersapien 12,353]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

[TheBlueVue 177]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

[TitanTiger 21,584]

Classic liberalism is a lost art.

Conservatism isn't faring much better. In some ways it's worse.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Classic liberalism is a lost art.

Conservatism isn't faring much better. In some ways it's worse.

Well, I'll disagree with that on the basis of the stark contrast the end result of both movements have resulted in. I believe much of what you say is a function of just how far to the left the so called center has been moved. Conservatism is alive and well but not so much for those buying what the msm is selling.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

First, the ACA doesn't make someone work full time to get healthcare coverage. In fact, being retired, I don't work at all and was able to get covered, even with pre-existing conditions.

Not sure what point you were making, but the status quo ante certainly didn't provide for wider coverage than we have now. Just the opposite, the status quo ante allowed insurers to exclude more people and accentuate the problems the article was actually about.

No. That's not what I was saying. I know you can still get insurance on your own without getting it through your employer but it'll likely(depending on your personal situation) cost you more than it would to get insurance through your employer. Most people that work full-time get their health insurance through their employer. Part-time workers aren't offered insurance through their employer or if they are, it doesn't meet the minimum ACA standards of coverage. Now if you're a part-time worker and you try to get insurance through your employer, you're still going to have to pay the penalty from the individual mandate on your tax returns because part-time workers aren't going to get the minimum ACA standards of coverage through their employer.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Stop me, or I'll make more money!!!

Help me, Imperial Federal Govt ! Make a law ! Take my money !

[homersapien 12,353]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

Wow. Now that's a very bad-ass straw man.

First, you tell me I am "lying" about the Tea Party, presumably because it doesn't fit with your fantasy then turn around and characterize me personally in a way to fit your warped paradigm. As if you know me better than I know myself. (There's that extreme irony alarm clanging again! )

FYI My opinion of the Tea Party comes from:

1) Personal observation (I live in one of their "hot-beds")

2) Reading The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Skocpol and Williams (http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Remaking-Republican-Conservatism/dp/019997554X#) which provides a quantified analysis of the movement.

3) http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm

However, I can totally relate to the "you have to be one to know one" perspective. I guess you've got me there.

[homersapien 12,353]

First, the ACA doesn't make someone work full time to get healthcare coverage. In fact, being retired, I don't work at all and was able to get covered, even with pre-existing conditions.

Not sure what point you were making, but the status quo ante certainly didn't provide for wider coverage than we have now. Just the opposite, the status quo ante allowed insurers to exclude more people and accentuate the problems the article was actually about.

No. That's not what I was saying. I know you can still get insurance on your own without getting it through your employer but it'll likely(depending on your personal situation) cost you more than it would to get insurance through your employer. Most people that work full-time get their health insurance through their employer. Part-time workers aren't offered insurance through their employer or if they are, it doesn't meet the minimum ACA standards of coverage. Now if you're a part-time worker and you try to get insurance through your employer, you're still going to have to pay the penalty from the individual mandate on your tax returns because part-time workers aren't going to get the minimum ACA standards of coverage through their employer.

Before ACA, insurance for a part-time worker wasn't available at all, at least through a group plan.

I don't get the part of paying a penalty for not getting the minimum standard. You'll have to explain that.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Before ACA, insurance for a part-time worker wasn't available at all, at least through a group plan.

I don't get the part of paying a penalty for not getting the minimum standard. You'll have to explain that.

Yes, part-time workers are offered insurance coverage through the employer but will still have to pay the tax penalty from the individual mandate because the employer's part-time employee insurance plan doesn't meet the "minimum coverage" set by the ACA.

Part-time workers have the choice to either go with the employers plan that doesn't meet the ACA standards and pay the penalty or they can go to the marketplace and buy insurance that does meet the ACA minimum standards.

[TheBlueVue 177]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

Wow. Now that's a very bad-ass straw man.

First, you tell me I am "lying" about the Tea Party, presumably because it doesn't fit with your fantasy then turn around and characterize me personally in a way to fit your warped paradigm. As if you know me better than I know myself. (There's that extreme irony alarm clanging again! )

FYI My opinion of the Tea Party comes from:

1) Personal observation (I live in one of their "hot-beds")

2) Reading The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Skocpol and Williams (http://www.amazon.co.../dp/019997554X#) which provides a quantified analysis of the movement.

3) http://www.ontheissu...g/Tea_Party.htm

However, I can totally relate to the "you have to be one to know one" perspective. I guess you've got me there.

The master straw man hypocritically seeing in others what he is himself. Good stuff!

[homersapien 12,353]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

Wow. Now that's a very bad-ass straw man.

First, you tell me I am "lying" about the Tea Party, presumably because it doesn't fit with your fantasy then turn around and characterize me personally in a way to fit your warped paradigm. As if you know me better than I know myself. (There's that extreme irony alarm clanging again! )

FYI My opinion of the Tea Party comes from:

1) Personal observation (I live in one of their "hot-beds")

2) Reading The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Skocpol and Williams (http://www.amazon.co.../dp/019997554X#) which provides a quantified analysis of the movement.

3) http://www.ontheissu...g/Tea_Party.htm

However, I can totally relate to the "you have to be one to know one" perspective. I guess you've got me there.

The master straw man hypocritically seeing in others what he is himself. Good stuff!

I'm a straw man?

That doesn't make any sense at all. No wonder you like it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

Wow. Now that's a very bad-ass straw man.

First, you tell me I am "lying" about the Tea Party, presumably because it doesn't fit with your fantasy then turn around and characterize me personally in a way to fit your warped paradigm. As if you know me better than I know myself. (There's that extreme irony alarm clanging again! )

FYI My opinion of the Tea Party comes from:

1) Personal observation (I live in one of their "hot-beds")

2) Reading The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Skocpol and Williams (http://www.amazon.co.../dp/019997554X#) which provides a quantified analysis of the movement.

3) http://www.ontheissu...g/Tea_Party.htm

However, I can totally relate to the "you have to be one to know one" perspective. I guess you've got me there.

The master straw man hypocritically seeing in others what he is himself. Good stuff!

I'm a straw man?

That doesn't make any sense at all. No wonder you like it.

It makes perfect sense. Are ALL those on the left schooled in convenient lack of awareness about certain issues?

You accuse others of using straw man arguments every time you want to redirect the debate and make it about the person you're debating and NOT the issue. You're a legend for doing that. Did you read a hand book?

[AUFAN78 4,174]

Very interesting read. Thank you!

I agree big business and the 1% could afford to implement, but I fear raising the minimum wage that drastically would kill the mom and pop dream.

Anyone have info on how mom and pop stores fared in Seattle?

It's in the article: "Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle."

The premise makes business size irrelevant with a simple assertion: if a business is selling something, they can sell more of it if there are more people that can afford to buy it. I do not mind paying a little more to support a local business that employs fellow locals. However, when rising costs (and/or inflation) and stagnant income changes your priorities and spending habits, maximizing how far your dollar goes becomes far more important. When that is the case, Wal-Mart and their ilk always win, as the dollar simply goes further there. The 40+% inflation rate over the last 15 years has not been offset by wage increases, and this affects everyone.

You are correct about the article. Problem is the article is misleading and withholds pertinent data. For ex., In looking at the Seattle SBA website, you'll notice 7 of the top 15 start up companies are no longer in business. Also, I mentioned the impact the wage hike would have on mom and pop? Care to guess how mom and pop are faring?

I will share a single link, but further research details major flaws and quite frankly debunks the entire article.

http://money.cnn.com...sees/index.html

That article focused on the competitive disadvantage resulting from a non-universal imposition of minimum wage. The only thing that was "absolute" was a statement that it would "eat into their margins".

But if the law were universal, everyone could increase their prices slightly which would address their margins without creating a competitive disadvantage.

A little further research addresses major flaws in the system. For ex. how it crushes mom and pop and how nearly 50% of small business start ups are failing in Seattle.

What's the normal failure rate of small business start-ups? 50% doesn't sound so bad.

50% is approximately double year one failures, so the data supplied by Seattle SBA does not support the author. I will say, i was initially intrigued by the article, but felt the need to research further. It only took a few minutes to find error in the report. Still an intriguing article, just not totally accurate.

[TitanTiger 21,584]

The figure you'd want to be looking for would be the failure rate of businesses in Seattle prior to and after the minimum wage hikes. Different regions, states and cities have different issues that contribute to startups succeeding.

[homersapien 12,353]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

Wow. Now that's a very bad-ass straw man.

First, you tell me I am "lying" about the Tea Party, presumably because it doesn't fit with your fantasy then turn around and characterize me personally in a way to fit your warped paradigm. As if you know me better than I know myself. (There's that extreme irony alarm clanging again! )

FYI My opinion of the Tea Party comes from:

1) Personal observation (I live in one of their "hot-beds")

2) Reading The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Skocpol and Williams (http://www.amazon.co.../dp/019997554X#) which provides a quantified analysis of the movement.

3) http://www.ontheissu...g/Tea_Party.htm

However, I can totally relate to the "you have to be one to know one" perspective. I guess you've got me there.

The master straw man hypocritically seeing in others what he is himself. Good stuff!

I'm a straw man?

That doesn't make any sense at all. No wonder you like it.

It makes perfect sense. Are ALL those on the left schooled in convenient lack of awareness about certain issues?

You accuse others of using straw man arguments every time you want to redirect the debate and make it about the person you're debating and NOT the issue. You're a legend for doing that. Did you read a hand book?

Yeah right. I always ignore the issue and focus on ad hominem attack. (As if the record is not there to examine.) :-\ Project much?

[cooltigger21 0]

Billionaire Nick Hanauer says that growing income inequality has turned the US into less of a capitalist society and more of a feudal society.

Memo: From Nick Hanauer

To: My Fellow Zillionaires

You probably don’t know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries—from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I’m no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can’t even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I’m talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family’s business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough—and that time wasn’t far off—people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene’s. And Borders. And on and on.

Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff—Bezos—called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren’t yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don’t vary in quality—Bezos’ great insight). Cybershop didn’t make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.

***

The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.

The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.

What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too...

Read the rest:

http://www.politico....08014_full.html

The inequality isn't the fault of the rich. FDR didn't fix anything. He made it worse. The government always makes it worse when they intervene like some are advocating.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Billionaire Nick Hanauer says that growing income inequality has turned the US into less of a capitalist society and more of a feudal society.

Memo: From Nick Hanauer

To: My Fellow Zillionaires

You probably don’t know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries—from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I’m no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can’t even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I’m talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family’s business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough—and that time wasn’t far off—people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene’s. And Borders. And on and on.

Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff—Bezos—called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren’t yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don’t vary in quality—Bezos’ great insight). Cybershop didn’t make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.

***

The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.

The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.

What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too...

Read the rest:

http://www.politico....08014_full.html

The inequality isn't the fault of the rich. FDR didn't fix anything. He made it worse. The government always makes it worse when they intervene like some are advocating.

No offense to you Cool but, this made me laugh (in a good way). My father hates the Democrats and FDR so much, he gives Hitler credit for ending the depression, the Russians all the credit for ending WWII, and good ole private enterprise all of the credit for Post-WWII economic expansion. It's like it all happened despite FDR.

[TheBlueVue 177]

This isn't as clean as it might appear. Businesses may be growing with increases minimum wages and SOME people have more income to spend. But those business pass along their increased wage cost to others.......you and me.....so we have LESS to spend. There has to be some limit I the wage increase. Is it $15, $20 or what?

Typical zero-sum argument. If anyone is getting more I must necessarily be getting less or otherwise having to pay for it. The tea party is founded on such logic.

Are you a member of the TEA Party? This comment is utterly ridiculous and not true. The TEA Party is primarily for fiscal accountability in the govt but more than anything else simple compliance with the Constitution. You can make false statements about what it is about all you wish but that certainly does not make them true.

No matter how noble the values sound, it's positions on specific issues that really matter. Immigration, tax policy, healthcare, minimum wage.... it's all about keeping the worthless poor from getting more (at the expense of the rest of us.)

Meanwhile, "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I agree it IS positions on specific issues that matter and The TEA Party has NO interest, whatsoever, in playing zero sum games....you'll just have to trust me on that. What really matters, in the context of this exchange, is that you made a false statement and I corrected it for. For some reason, at that point, you decided to change the subject.

The "center" has been moved so far to the left since the introduction of "Great Society" legislation that, anyone espousing even moderate conservative ideals, these days, is painted, rhetorically, as a "jihaist extremist" and people, like you, lap it up like a thirsty dog. Its really sad to see what has happened to classic liberalism.

Wow. Now that's a very bad-ass straw man.

First, you tell me I am "lying" about the Tea Party, presumably because it doesn't fit with your fantasy then turn around and characterize me personally in a way to fit your warped paradigm. As if you know me better than I know myself. (There's that extreme irony alarm clanging again! )

FYI My opinion of the Tea Party comes from:

1) Personal observation (I live in one of their "hot-beds")

2) Reading The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Skocpol and Williams (http://www.amazon.co.../dp/019997554X#) which provides a quantified analysis of the movement.

3) http://www.ontheissu...g/Tea_Party.htm

However, I can totally relate to the "you have to be one to know one" perspective. I guess you've got me there.

The master straw man hypocritically seeing in others what he is himself. Good stuff!

I'm a straw man?

That doesn't make any sense at all. No wonder you like it.

It makes perfect sense. Are ALL those on the left schooled in convenient lack of awareness about certain issues?

You accuse others of using straw man arguments every time you want to redirect the debate and make it about the person you're debating and NOT the issue. You're a legend for doing that. Did you read a hand book?

Yeah right. I always ignore the issue and focus on ad hominem attack. (As if the record is not there to examine.) :-\ Project much?

Another straw man. I didn't say a word about ad hominem attacks....but you did.

[autigeremt 7,263]

Was that meant for a different thread?

They just have one script.

They......both sides of a worm.

[TitanTiger 21,584]

Billionaire Nick Hanauer says that growing income inequality has turned the US into less of a capitalist society and more of a feudal society.

Memo: From Nick Hanauer

To: My Fellow Zillionaires

You probably don’t know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries—from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I’m no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can’t even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I’m talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family’s business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough—and that time wasn’t far off—people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene’s. And Borders. And on and on.

Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff—Bezos—called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren’t yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don’t vary in quality—Bezos’ great insight). Cybershop didn’t make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.

***

The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.

The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.

What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too...

Read the rest:

http://www.politico....08014_full.html

The inequality isn't the fault of the rich. FDR didn't fix anything. He made it worse. The government always makes it worse when they intervene like some are advocating.

You're right. And it's the changes in government policy over the last several decades that have exacerbated the issue. So rolling back some of those changes would help greatly. But what he's advocating here is really even better...businesses treating employees like people rather than machines and tools for personal enrichment.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"You're right. And it's the changes in government policy over the last several decades that have exacerbated the issue. So rolling back some of those changes would help greatly. But what he's advocating here is really even better...businesses treating employees like people rather than machines and tools for personal enrichment."

Does anyone honestly believe that a progressive administration will ever treat citizens as anything other than subjects to the state? I mean, seriously, they do not believe in unalienable rights because they must have a govt with powers unbounded by anything and definitely NOT by God.

[TitanTiger 21,584]

No one said anything about a progressive administration. Nothing in the article advocated for such. This is a red herring.

[TheBlueVue 177]

No one said anything about a progressive administration. Nothing in the article advocated for such. This is a red herring.

No its not because it is a relevant thought to the discussion. I mentioned the progressive movement, so, you're wrong about that unless of course you consider me to be "nobody". No problem if you do.

I was counterbalancing the point you made against the likelihood of those sentiments ever emerging with current leadership in place. I would say those chances of that happening would be somewhere around the 9th of Never.

[AUFAN78 4,174]

Was that meant for a different thread?

They just have one script.

They......both sides of a worm.

Nicely played.