Personally, this kind of article doesn't "gratify my intellectual curiosity" and I don't think it belongs on HN.
But maybe it just happens that in order to become wealthy, people more often than not have to repeatedly choose wealth over generosity, exploit other people, take advantage of resources that less privileged ones pay for without explicit consent.
Also, it often happens that people who are already wealthy and possess more than what they and their children would need for comfortable royalty-level lives, continue accumulating wealth, focusing their disproportionally large power in more exploitation, more privilege, more wealth.
I'm not sure where the line between not quite evil and ok, clearly evil lies but sometimes I wonder if accumulating a lot of wealth while creating more and more suffering for many other humans is a healthy behavior.
Of course there are companies that choose to limit their profit in exchange for better conditions for the ones exploited.
As for your statements implying that I am somehow conflating good/evil with the excuse of the poor(/lazy) or that I am somehow dissatisfied with my own status, I don't hold either of these views.
I am dissatisfied with privileged people like me blaming less privileged for their lack of privilege as if that was a function of choice. Being poor is caused by being born that way more often than by anything else.
I am well aware that the conservative view conflates wealth with virtue. Yet somehow, with 62 people owning roughly as much as half the world's population, I have my doubts. That'd be a lot of virtue!
Many people are wealthy because they have exploited the labour of others, exactly as any other commodity might be exploited. I would say this is the biggest screw-over: this great capitalist machine.
First, I had no idea about these kinds of land titles in Hawaii, pretty interesting stuff for me at least.
Second, as someone of pretty low education, I enjoy coming to HN because I get to be in the company of posters who are much smarter and more knowledgable than myself. Admittedly though, this leads me to fall into the trap of viewing everyone posting here as being well informed. Articles like this, and some of the subsequent comments that to me at least sound as if posters didn't even read the article, force me to consider that even people with great domain specific knowledge aren't necessarily open minded or knowledgable about subjects outside of their domains.
> Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
- purportedly by John Steinbeck
> It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?
> Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.
- Kurt Vonnegut
> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
- Lyndon B. Johnson
1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...
I didn't see anything in that article that was definitive proof that blue collar workers are voting against their own interests.
If you give a tax break to the rich, how is that against your own interests? You still have the same money you did before.
If everyone around me gets wealthier and I stay the same, I'm worse off economically, because all that new wealth affects the price of everything. Look at what happens to prices when an area becomes gentrified.
> identify more with the upper class rather than their own class and voting against their own interests.
points pretty clearly at conservative blue-collar workers voting for republicans, no? Although I guess if someone were to actually believe that raising the minimum wage or curtailing payday loans is bad for the working class, then possibly...with enough bending...and some trickle-down, you could come to the opposite conclusion, yes.
Aussies don't want to see themselves as poor, or in the lower socio-economic group. They all have aspirations of grandeur, and act as if pay day is just a great idea away. This is epitomised by the concept of the "little aussie battler" and the "Great Australian Dream".
As Donald Horne wrote in his book, The Lucky Country: "Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."[0]
"The system operates through a complex of inducements, privileges, class interests, etc., relying on the tendency of much of the intelligentsia to conform to power (while proclaiming their courageous independence of mind), and the unwillingness to endure vilification, lies, and denial of the opportunity to work and publish, as punishment for telling the truth."
1%: The Politicians, Bureaucrats & Friends.
19%: The Rich paying with money.
80%: The Poor paying with freedom.
The 1% is primarily made up of people who have enough money that most of their income is passive, in the form of investment income, dividends, etc. Also it's worth pointing out that there's a couple ways of calculating whether or not you're in the 1% -- you can do it based on annual salary or net worth. The people who are _really_ in the 1% are there based on net worth, and it takes almost $9M in assets to get there.
I'd break your list down into 4 categories:
The 1% who can fund a politician's campaign, primarily through super PACs and other funding mechanisms that don't come with limits on the size of a donation.
The people who may look and feel wealthy (they may have a fancy car, a job that pays well, but also a lot of expenses and haven't passed the point where their money has given them enough leverage to trade it for time -- instead they're still trading time for money). These people are the next 5% or so, with a minimum net worth of $2M. They are also likely to be the scapegoats for the true 1%.
Next up are _some_ politicians (the ones with real influence -- your local mayor may or may not count, depending on the size of the city you live in. Your governor may or may not count, depending on the state you live in. Your House representative may or may not count, depending on how long they've been in office, which party currently controls the House and what committees they're on. There's your Senators -- hey! they probably count!) These are the 1%ers of politians -- the rest of them don't make a ton of money _and_ don't have a ton of influence. These guys are hoping to get cushy boardships, lobbying jobs, speakers fees, etc -- stuff that they're well-trained for by being a career politician.
Then you have everyone else... Roughly 90% of Americans, just trying to keep their heads above water, hoping they have enough money to pay the mortgage, the rent, their kid's college education, the electric bill, or what-have-you. They are translating their time into money, but have almost no economic mobility -- meaning they have almost no chance to join 1%, and will only join the 5% at retirement at best.
I am, of course, ignoring the prospect of truly insane shit like starting a nuclear war with Russia. That would affect me pretty dramatically. :) But low level bureaucrats don't have the power to start a war, thankfully.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index
[2] https://qz.com/860230/here-a-raid-there-a-raid-everywhere-a-...
In an immediate and direct sense, perhaps. Of course that cop and many, many others are just one of many means by which the governor excercises power over you.
It is also absolutely a case of an ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man is availing himself of state (ultimately, military) support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands.
You made an error in your comment. You said their shares were useless. Clearly, they have a use to the individuals in question - both the natives and Zuckerberg.
I don't like this topic, but when someone talks about this I'd like to know their opinion on this:
- what is his/her ethnicity - what ethnicity does he/she think jews have.
Why I raise these questions? Becase if someone talks about this topic this is pretty sensite, and also pretty context sensitive.
Do "privilieged white" people consider jewish people also "privilieged white" people, or of a different ethnicity?
Do jewish people consider themselves "privilieged white" people?
Do other ethnicities consider them as the same?
What ethnicity does Mr Zuckerberg consider himself? His is of jewish herritage, as far as I know.
This "white people" narrative is pretty destructive, but also is an overgeneralization, and just as destructive as overdifferentiation. I beleive both are a form of destructive, retrogade racism which has crept into Public language lately and is plaguing the thinking of people and destroying the progress of the last half cetury.
I don't blame you for using it, and I don't beleive you wanted to say anything nasty, nor do I want to do so, just formulated some questions the topic raises in me.
I'm no Zuckerberg apologist, but it's clear from the article that there are varying situations represented here and at least some reasonable fraction of them are totally happy to sell him whatever percentage they own. The one person interviewed who actually had a connection to the land is supportive of the sale, because he probably can't pay taxes on it, at which point it goes to the government.
This is basically employing eminent domain to strength Zuckerberg's little fiefdom.
Surely its nothing compared to Govts with multi-trillion dollars in (extorted) revenue because thats what have been my observation.
As opposed to inherently thinking anything rich people do must be evil? And that all your problems are caused by the "1%" ?
Maybe most people just take responsibility for their own lives and their finances.
But if half of the people are born on someone else's land, have to work multiple jobs to cover basic expenses, have no chance of getting good education without becoming debt slaves and get thrown under the bus if they ever get sick, then maybe, just maybe, the expression "personal responsibility" has completely different meaning for them from the meaning that the people born as land owners, and can enjoy free* (or very affordable) education and healthcare as well doors opening for them throughout their whole lives because of their name or relations.
(For a household making $2m or more per year, a $60k/year education is close to free.)
Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind of a (10th-to) last place aversion-like response. [1]
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234
An interesting quote. Notice how the behavior I describe is actually the opposite of this. It's kind of Stockholm syndrome like, actually (people on the top end, but not anywhere near the top, wanting to maintain the status of those at the top, in hopes of getting their themselves).
> Last-place aversion – and the accompanying lack of support for redistribution – is particularly pronounced when people near the bottom of the distribution have their attention focused on keeping the people below them down, rather than on redistributing wealth from those at the top. [2]
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-stree...