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.
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.