Quality of life should improve for everyone; the bigger issue will likely be that people are very sensitive to relative fairness.
It seems like such a blasphemous thing to say, that there is nothing wrong with the top 1% of people owning 99% of stuff. But it's true, as long as their ownership has not come at the expense of others. Why is that so hard for most people to grasp?
99.999999% of sports TV coverage and endorsement income goes to the top 0.000001% of athletes, but its hard to argue that the world isn't a better place for it.
The thing that causes political instability is not that the 1% derive their gains at the expense of the 99%, but the perception that they do.
In sports, it's pretty easy to demonstrate which athletes are superior. Nobody even argues about it except when it's a close call and "home team" loyalty comes into play.
But for some reason, perhaps a legacy of the Puritan ethos that hard work will produce deserved prosperity, Americans have always felt like their net worth is a measure of their worth as individuals. So when the relative purchasing power of the 99% decreases in relation to that of the 1% (as it has over the past few decades), people tend to feel that the game is stacked against them in a very personal way. If, the thinking goes, they have still been working hard all this time, why are they suddenly valued less? Surely someone must be conspiring to steal the fruits of their labor and allocate it to the 1%.
It's the kind of thinking that revolutions are born out of, which is a scary thought.
Surely someone must be conspiring to steal the fruits of their labor and allocate it to the 1%
That's not necessary at all, and I think everybody knows it. The thing I think people often perceive as unfair is that there's a level of wealth beyond which you don't have to do anything at all, and you will continue to gain wealth - often at a rate that's much faster than people who do work very hard. I can see that feeling unfair. I tend to think in more pragmatic terms personally - I don't care too much if it's fair or unfair, I care more about whether it works (and on that, I'm undecided).
Beyond that level of wealth, you can also lose incredible fortunes very quickly. That's probably more common than gaining without doing anything at all, don't you think?
I don't think the 99% believe that the 1% can lose incredible fortunes quickly. The perception is that the 1% prop each other up or are propped up/rescued by someone. Yeah, there was Bernie Madoff. But when Donald Trump is facing bankruptcy, the people holding the paper work with him because they can't afford his bankruptcy. That rarely happens in the 99%. The banks and auto companies were bailed out in ways that individuals rarely are. Yes, jobs were saved...but the fortunes of the top management were, too.
I honestly don't know. My gut feeling would be no - the rich people I know personally tend to be very conservative with the bulk of their wealth, and at least one of them does just pay someone else to grow it for him. I'd love to see more data though!
But for some reason, perhaps a legacy of the Puritan ethos that hard work will produce deserved prosperity, Americans have always felt like their net worth is a measure of their worth as individuals.
It's also the kind of thinking a lot of genocides have been born out of .. a perhaps even scarier thought. That said, it's not quite yet the time to fear such things.
It seems tricky to me to define what "at the expense of others" means. I can see some people saying pretty much any private gain is that the expense of others because others could have had it. On the opposite end of the spectrum I can see someone arguing as long as you didn't physically harm someone in acquiring your wealth then it's not at their expense. How do you classify it?
So, what about using someone's frailties against them. Doing a time-constrained, cleverly marketed and salesman pushed, complex contract product agreed to by someone just this side of the line of legal competence due to low IQ?
there is nothing wrong with the top 1% of people owning 99% of stuff
Presumably you can imagine a point at which inequality would cause the world to grind to a halt; in the extreme, let's say just one person on the whole planet owns everything that can legally be owned. If you can imagine that not being a particularly good thing, then the argument just becomes one of "how much is too much".
Of course, which is why I used % rather than absolute numbers. In terms of relative inequality, there is no real limit, the limit comes from when a segment of the population falls under some absolute threshold where they can't sustain themselves and therefore cannot create their own wealth.
It seems like such a blasphemous thing to say, that there is nothing wrong with the top 1% of people owning 99% of stuff. But it's true, as long as their ownership has not come at the expense of others. Why is that so hard for most people to grasp?
99.999999% of sports TV coverage and endorsement income goes to the top 0.000001% of athletes, but its hard to argue that the world isn't a better place for it.