Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"The 1%" and what's wrong with that?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Many f you may be aware of the documentary film "The One Percent" that talks about the widening gap of wealth in which 1% of the population earns high amounts of money (42% of all wealth) and rest remain 'mediocre.'

    I haven't seen the cocumentary, but I have a general question: Why do people hate this fact s much and consider it unfair? Shouldn't it just cause us to work harder and try to get into those 1 percent (should we want to)?

    I don't quite understand where all the anger is coming from.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because the wealth should be spread among all people.


    Edit: Let me quote myself in a post I wrote later to avoid confusion or wrong impressions:

    I mean generally I don't think that any one group deserves to have more than others, especially as many of the '99%' work just as hard. Sure, many of the '1%' work hard, and that means that they deserve what they have, it's just that so many people work equally as much but don't get as much money, but some of the '1%' were just born into a rich family, and don't work.

    Of course people who work hard and are from the '1%' deserve the money they have. But I believe that those who work equally as hard but live poor, money-lacking lives deserve more money. It's a simple question of inequality: Just because somebody comes from a rich background, does it mean that they deserve more money from working hard than if, say, a poor person works equally as hard, if not harder?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Because the wealth should be spread among all people.
    Can you clarify, please?

    Even the people who do not contribute anything to society?

    It's a bit unfair, considering the "top 1%" may put a lot of effort into building and maintaining the wealth, for the government to spread it to people who may not deserve it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    :dontknow: It seems even sillier when you consider that the comparative wealth gap is tiny in the West, as opposed to Westerner's wealth versus the wealth of those in Africa and parts of Asia.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

    Some people (in developed countries) aren't content with what they have. People should learn to be happy with what they have; after all money isn't everything. And if they aren't happy then they should study/work harder to get into the next bracket. My parents aren't well off but it hasn't prevented me from studying and making something of myself.

    However we need to make sure we help those people who are truly in need; those who don't have a roof over their head or struggle to eat on a day-to-day basis.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because people are jealous of, and resent, those that are better than them in some way.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politics_student)
    Can you clarify, please?

    Even the people who do not contribute anything to society?

    It's a bit unfair, considering the "top 1%" may put a lot of effort into building and maintaining the wealth, for the government to spread it to people who may not deserve it.
    I mean generally I don't think that any one group deserves to have more than others, especially as many of the '99%' work just as hard. Sure, many of the '1%' work hard, and that means that they deserve what they have, it's just that so many people work equally as much but don't get as much money, but some of the '1%' were just born into a rich family, and don't work.

    Of course people who work hard and are from the '1%' deserve the money they have. But I believe that those who work equally as hard but live poor, money-lacking lives deserve more money. It's a simple question of inequality: Just because somebody comes from a rich background, does it mean that they deserve more money from working hard than if, say, a poor person works equally as hard, if not harder?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because in order for someone to acquire wealth somewhere down the line someone/something must be exploited. Always has been the way, always will be.

    EDIT- just read a corporate "think-tank" is arguing abolishing Bank holidays to boost the economy... that'll mean the poor working harder for the rich... Honestly, couldn't make it up.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    There are two ways of looking at this. The 1% generally pay more tax so are giving back to society. I do aim to be in the 1% and am working hard to maybe get there one day rather than complaining about it. I do not really understand the mentality of billionaires though. Some of the top billionaires can earn around £3000000000 a year and that's more money than they'll ever need. If they say invested £1000000000 a year from that into additional jobs, they'd solely take 40000 people out of unemployment. If these people were used in the right way, like provided good customer service in call centers at virgin media for example, a billionaire like Richard Branson would recoup some percentage of the investment. Sure he'd be making a loss but the benefit to families and communities would be immense.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lulamae)
    Why do people hate this fact s much and consider it unfair? Shouldn't it just cause us to work harder and try to get into those 1 percent (should we want to)?
    This is just my opinion, but here goes.

    Part of the anger is that you can't just "work harder" to get into the 1%. The 99% are the people who work bloody well hard, day in day out, and for a basic wage, and with little or no prospects of climbing the career ladder. In other words, they're going to be stuck in the same convenience store, or fast food restaurant, or same delivery van for the rest of their foreseeable lives. And before you say this is due to qualifications, remember that this 99%/1% movement originated in America, where university fees are huge, even for state residents, and without the loan system that enables the majority of British students a chance at higher education.
    It's also considered unfair because the 1%, or more correctly the elite, caused the economic downturn that is impacting so heavily on ordinary citizens. Particularly in the US, thousands have had, or face having their homes repossessed and their lives turned upside down. Why? Because greedy, blind fools in the bank gave them loans they couldn't realistically pay back, and when the economic crisis hit (arguably caused by other reckless and greedy bankers and traders), the 99% started losing their jobs, and then their homes.

    And what punishment has there been for the rich? In the public perception, nothing. They still spend the average house price on a car so their child can sleep, or the average yearly wage on a handbag, they still host lavish parties, and most sickeningly they still get million pound bonuses, even though they screw up. Hell, I'd love to be in a job where I can still completely **** up and get a massive bonus!

    Yes, I'll admit, I am jealous of the lives of the 1%, simply because it would be great to just sit on my hundreds of millions and never have to worry about the car needing repairs, or the oven breaking, or a water pipe bursting, and be able to buy whatever I want without thinking about it. But personally, I'm more angry about the injustice and the sheer lack of accountability that has let these people ruin lives and skip off to the bank to cash their bonuses.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    I mean generally I don't think that any one group deserves to have more than others, especially as many of the '99%' work just as hard. Sure, many of the '1%' work hard, and that means that they deserve what they have, it's just that so many people work equally as much but don't get as much money, but some of the '1%' were just born into a rich family, and don't work.

    Of course people who work hard and are from the '1%' deserve the money they have. But I believe that those who work equally as hard but live poor, money-lacking lives deserve more money. It's a simple question of inequality: Just because somebody comes from a rich background, does it mean that they deserve more money from working hard than if, say, a poor person works equally as hard, if not harder?
    You do raise some interesting points, such as those 'at the bottom' working just as hard, and their jobs are valued by society. However, people should be paid on the basis of how extraordinary their skills are; it's simply demand and supply.

    For your point on the inequality, I believe that is an issue when there are no opportunities for the person born into a poor family to better themselves and the poorest people of society are living in dire circumstances. It is a person's freedom to have children and build up inheritance for them, so whilst they may not be 'deserving' in the sense of working to build that wealth; someone has earned it for them and I don't believe they should be disallowed from receiving it.

    Lastly, equality of opportunity is key and there needs to be a "top 1%" to encourage aspiration.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politics_student)
    ... for the government to spread it to people who may not deserve it.
    Someone being rich does not mean they deserve it. A lot of very rich people did work very hard (a lot didn't too...), but even if they are director of a company or something, do they really 'deserve' more money than... the hard working corner shop guy who is open til midnight every day? The really good nurse who works overtime every week to support her family but gets paid a pittance for it? And they don't just get 'more'... they get 50x, 100x, even 1000x more.

    I'm not saying we should not reward those that are of economic value - that is a necessity - but i object to the drastic further step in saying they necessarily 'deserved' it.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politics_student)
    You do raise some interesting points, such as those 'at the bottom' working just as hard, and their jobs are valued by society. However, people should be paid on the basis of how extraordinary their skills are; it's simply demand and supply.

    For your point on the inequality, I believe that is an issue when there are no opportunities for the person born into a poor family to better themselves and the poorest people of society are living in dire circumstances. It is a person's freedom to have children and build up inheritance for them, so whilst they may not be 'deserving' in the sense of working to build that wealth; someone has earned it for them and I don't believe they should be disallowed from receiving it.

    Lastly, equality of opportunity is key and there needs to be a "top 1%" to encourage aspiration.
    I'm sorry but you can't just base it on supply and demand, as well as skills. There's so much more to it. You have to also base it on the amount of effort involved (many people work very long hours of manual labour but get paid hardly enough to get by), the amount of help it does to Society (or whether Society relies on it), and finally the skill and ability of the worker (this isn't as important as the other factors, but is a contributing factor nonetheless). I just don't think that it's right or fair that so many people work their arses off when quite a few rich people do not (and simply rely on Daddy's money) but get so much less. Yes, many poor people don't contribute to society, but that's a different matter; that is up to the Government to get them off their backsides and start working (albeit not through cuts or force - it should be desirable to work).

    Edit: I didn't see your last point, so here's my response to that: I don't think you need a '1%' for aspiration; it should be larger than that. Say the '25%', meaning that these people worked their way up from poor backgrounds to comfortable well-offness. This "top tier" as I shall refer to it, should increase over time, and in, say, 100 years, there'll be a top '75%' rather than a '1%' or even a '25%'. because Society gets richer, economy grows, and people get richer in turn. This is fairer than just having a tiny minority with loads of money, and the overwhelming majority with average-very low amounts of money.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    I mean generally I don't think that any one group deserves to have more than others, especially as many of the '99%' work just as hard. Sure, many of the '1%' work hard, and that means that they deserve what they have, it's just that so many people work equally as much but don't get as much money, but some of the '1%' were just born into a rich family, and don't work.

    Of course people who work hard and are from the '1%' deserve the money they have. But I believe that those who work equally as hard but live poor, money-lacking lives deserve more money. It's a simple question of inequality: Just because somebody comes from a rich background, does it mean that they deserve more money from working hard than if, say, a poor person works equally as hard, if not harder?
    You have a valid point and this went on longer than I thought it would so this firt bit related to you but the rest is more general

    I understand where you are coming from and to a certain extent you are right about some rich people inheriting their wealth and so not working so hard; however, this is not the case for most of the 1%. The majority of the 1% have got their because they have worked hard to get there and are not all from rich backgrounds.

    Also you're point about people working equally as hard...in terms of what? Physical effort, mental effort and hours etc. there are many ways of measuring that.

    I would be pretty certain to say the majority of the 1% are there because they do a job which involves 'thinking' (i.e. they have come up with and idea and made a business or they have the thinking skills needed to be good doctors or lawyers), not something which you can easily learn but something which you have a knack for or you have inherited. In this day and age what pays most is 'thinking' jobs, where there job does not involve repetitive tasks but thinking tasks and sadly the majority do not do these sorts of jobs (of course there will be people who do these jobs and not in the 1%, but I would imagine they would be paid more than average even if it's not in the 1%). A lot of people work hard a jobs which the majority of other people could do (granted some minimal training may be needed and this probably wont include skilled workers, i.e carpenters) whereas the 1% often do work which the majority 'can't' as they didn't get the right grades, go to the right university or study the right things.

    I think the 1% is important, you would pay more for a designer items whys? because someone has spent more time making it and thinking about the design and then the high street 'copy' and you pay less. Same with people you pay more for the few which think and less for the people that 'do' and I guess to a certain extent that's unfair, if you believe in communism.

    Anyway this is just my view on things feel free to disagree
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I look at it this way,

    I would rather have the wealth gap between the top and the bottom greater, and even the wealth gap of the middle-bottom (not the middle-top though) if everyone was richer than the alternative (or alternative in practice), and that is more "equality", the gap(s) decrease, yet everyone is poorer. Though, the richest never get any poorer, but the middle-top and everyone below may be poorer.

    However, in my opinion, I feel tax burdens should be pretty much lifted from everybody aside the richest, in the intitial stages on an ideal society.

    Here is a slightly different opinion, but the direction is the same.

    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lulamae)
    Many f you may be aware of the documentary film "The One Percent" that talks about the widening gap of wealth in which 1% of the population earns high amounts of money (42% of all wealth) and rest remain 'mediocre.'

    I haven't seen the cocumentary, but I have a general question: Why do people hate this fact s much and consider it unfair? Shouldn't it just cause us to work harder and try to get into those 1 percent (should we want to)?

    I don't quite understand where all the anger is coming from.
    I see where you're coming from and your reasoning would be fine assuming we live in a society where hard work equates to higher earnings. The reality is plenty of people are stuck in poverty and no matter how hard they work, they can't break out of it.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princess of China)
    You have a valid point and this went on longer than I thought it would so this firt bit related to you but the rest is more general

    I understand where you are coming from and to a certain extent you are right about some rich people inheriting their wealth and so not working so hard; however, this is not the case for most of the 1%. The majority of the 1% have got their because they have worked hard to get there and are not all from rich backgrounds.

    Also you're point about people working equally as hard...in terms of what? Physical effort, mental effort and hours etc. there are many ways of measuring that.

    I would be pretty certain to say the majority of the 1% are there because they do a job which involves 'thinking' (i.e. they have come up with and idea and made a business or they have the thinking skills needed to be good doctors or lawyers), not something which you can easily learn but something which you have a knack for or you have inherited. In this day and age what pays most is 'thinking' jobs, where there job does not involve repetitive tasks but thinking tasks and sadly the majority do not do these sorts of jobs (of course there will be people who do these jobs and not in the 1%, but I would imagine they would be paid more than average even if it's not in the 1%). A lot of people work hard a jobs which the majority of other people could do (granted some minimal training may be needed and this probably wont include skilled workers, i.e carpenters) whereas the 1% often do work which the majority 'can't' as they didn't get the right grades, go to the right university or study the right things.

    I think the 1% is important, you would pay more for a designer items whys? because someone has spent more time making it and thinking about the design and then the high street 'copy' and you pay less. Same with people you pay more for the few which think and less for the people that 'do' and I guess to a certain extent that's unfair, if you believe in communism.

    Anyway this is just my view on things feel free to disagree
    I'm afraid I have to disagree on most of what you've said, but mainly due to the fact that I don't think that these "thinking jobs" as you've called them deserve to be paid any more than those who work hard to create the products they "think". I shall dissect what you've said paragraph by paragraph simply because it's easier to answer your points

    Fair enough, if they work hard then they deserve what they've got, but the general idea that a tiny percentage deserves much, much, much more than others is, to me, unfair. It might just be because I'm a Cosmopolitan, but I see all humans as equal, and want to see this social divide (which is quite evident even today) be closed.

    I've answered that question in my last comment in reply to politics_student, and I'm basing it on hours worked, effort involved, benefit to society and ability.

    Firstly, many of the '99%' have degrees, often from top universities, and performed excellently academically, so it's not like only the '1%' performed in school. That's a myth with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Secondly, that's fine. It really is. If people are artistic, or are inventors, fine. If they ("thinking" workers) actually contribute to society and genuinely improve the lives of people, then I've got nothing against them earning the money they earn. It's just that, as I've previously stated, those that actually make the products deserve more as well. Thirdly, as you've said, these "thinking jobs" as you've called them, are not just done by the '1%'. They're also done by ordinary people, and if they work just as hard, and contribute just as much, surely they deserve the same amount of money as the '1%' "thinking job" employees (or employers for that matter). Fourthly and finally, it's not like the majority "can't do these jobs". Many people can, but these jobs are already taken up by the successful '1%'. It's not fair, and your analogy just isn't correct. As I've said, most people now have degrees, and loads of people do well in school, so what you've said is really just not correct (I mean about the grades and the "majority not able to do these jobs".

    It's unfair that people work their arses off and don't get paid enough to live. Have you seen the working conditions of many people in this country who earn the least, and of workers in South America, Asia, and Africa? They're disgusting, and unfair. This is something I'd like to see change as it's really a problem when there are people in society who live comfortable lives in nice neighbourhoods, get degrees without trying, and go on to do nothing with their lives or take on from Daddy's business. On a side note, I don't buy designer clothes as I think they're pretty ugly usually, but it comes down to personal taste I guess
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    Because in order for someone to acquire wealth somewhere down the line someone/something must be exploited. Always has been the way, always will be.

    EDIT- just read a corporate "think-tank" is arguing abolishing Bank holidays to boost the economy... that'll mean the poor working harder for the rich... Honestly, couldn't make it up.
    Personally I would keep New Year's Day, Good Friday, Christmas Day and Boxing Day and scrap the rest.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeddows)
    This is just my opinion, but here goes.

    Part of the anger is that you can't just "work harder" to get into the 1%. The 99% are the people who work bloody well hard, day in day out, and for a basic wage, and with little or no prospects of climbing the career ladder. In other words, they're going to be stuck in the same convenience store, or fast food restaurant, or same delivery van for the rest of their foreseeable lives. And before you say this is due to qualifications, remember that this 99%/1% movement originated in America, where university fees are huge, even for state residents, and without the loan system that enables the majority of British students a chance at higher education.
    It's also considered unfair because the 1%, or more correctly the elite, caused the economic downturn that is impacting so heavily on ordinary citizens. Particularly in the US, thousands have had, or face having their homes repossessed and their lives turned upside down. Why? Because greedy, blind fools in the bank gave them loans they couldn't realistically pay back, and when the economic crisis hit (arguably caused by other reckless and greedy bankers and traders), the 99% started losing their jobs, and then their homes.

    And what punishment has there been for the rich? In the public perception, nothing. They still spend the average house price on a car so their child can sleep, or the average yearly wage on a handbag, they still host lavish parties, and most sickeningly they still get million pound bonuses, even though they screw up. Hell, I'd love to be in a job where I can still completely **** up and get a massive bonus!

    Yes, I'll admit, I am jealous of the lives of the 1%, simply because it would be great to just sit on my hundreds of millions and never have to worry about the car needing repairs, or the oven breaking, or a water pipe bursting, and be able to buy whatever I want without thinking about it. But personally, I'm more angry about the injustice and the sheer lack of accountability that has let these people ruin lives and skip off to the bank to cash their bonuses.
    Although I agree with what you are saying. Those that took out loans that they knew they couldn't afford to are just as bad as those people that gave them out.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Many rich people started off extremely poor (Carnegie for example). If you look at all the rich and successful people, they all had one thing in common: luck. They were in the right place at the right time. Harrison Ford for example was a poor carpenter until he did some home repairs for George Lucas, and Lucas then hired him for American Graffiti, and later Star Wars. Real opportunity comes down to chance.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 11, 2012
New on TSR

Single, dating or in a relationship?

Chat about your life and loves in our Relationships forum!

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.