The greedy rich owe their ill gotten gains to three factors

[rtwinger]

#1) Staying in school.
#2) Working longer hours.
#3) Living in two income households (wife and husband both work)

Those greedy bastards! How dare they use these methods to get rich!

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_root_causes_of_income_ineq.php

[Felch]

I wasn't aware that Bill Gates stayed in school. Or is he not rich?

[Zoid]

Who are you?

[rtwinger]

I wasn't aware that Bill Gates stayed in school. Or is he not rich?

There are exceptions to every rule.

[Guynemer]

[Naked Gents Rut]

I think Warren Buffett had a three-income household for a while.

[GePap]

#1) Staying in school.
#2) Working longer hours.
#3) Living in two income households (wife and husband both work)

Those greedy bastards! How dare they use these methods to get rich!

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/...ncome_ineq.php

Since when is being in the upper quintile = rich?

That is the sort of bad analysis you can expect from a right winger.

[GePap]

The upper quintile begins with households making around $97,000 a year, which is about twice the national average household income, yet these kinds of households are almost always included in the "middle class" A household making $175,000 puts you in the top 5%, and even that number is hardly bandied about when talking about the rich. A very common number heard is $250,000, but that probably puts you in the top 2-3% only.

[rtwinger]

The upper quintile begins with households making around $97,000 a year, which is about twice the national average household income, yet these kinds of households are almost always included in the "middle class" A household making $175,000 puts you in the top 5%, and even that number is hardly bandied about when talking about the rich. A very common number heard is $250,000, but that probably puts you in the top 2-3% only.

The common number heard is $250,000, simply because Barack Obama decided that number is now the "rich," after initially saying that $500,000 was the number early in his campaign.

[Elok]

$97K per year sounds pretty well-off to me, assuming one doesn't have eight kids or live in NYC.

[rtwinger]

Since when is being in the upper quintile = rich?

That is the sort of bad analysis you can expect from a right winger.

I think you misunderstood what the post or the article meant.

What I am saying is that most left wing and liberal commentators often spew hate on the so called rich, however, all it takes to be rich is to work hard, stay in school, and have a spouse that also works. Ergo, this also means that people who arn't rich are simply have not done those things. It's not a secret, it's not "the man" screwing over other people, it's simply being a responsible, stable citizen.

[Elok]

I think you misunderstood what the post or the article meant.

What I am saying is that most left wing and liberal commentators often spew hate on the so called rich, however, all it takes to be rich is to work hard, stay in school, and have a spouse that also works. Ergo, this also means that people who arn't rich are simply have not done those things. It's not a secret, it's not "the man" screwing over other people, it's simply being a responsible, stable citizen.

It also helps to be white, well-connected, naturally gifted in one area or another, not in any way handicapped, raised in a stable household, and just generally fortunate. Puerto Rican immigrants who come here illiterate at age twenty-seven CAN become wealthy, but it's a hell of an uphill battle and you'd be silly to suggest otherwise.

[rtwinger]

It helps, but it's no secret, it's not a conspiracy, it's not a way for the wealthy to keep the working class down.

[GePap]

I think you misunderstood what the post or the article meant.

What I am saying is that most left wing and liberal commentators often spew hate on the so called rich, however, all it takes to be rich is to work hard, stay in school, and have a spouse that also works. Ergo, this also means that people who arn't rich are simply have not done those things. It's not a secret, it's not "the man" screwing over other people, it's simply being a responsible, stable citizen.

Not true. one can be rich due to happenstance (the lottery) or birth (born to rich people) as well. Hard work by itself does not guarantee wealth at all either - one can labor an entire life and remain in the fourth,third, or second quintile- most Americans do. In a market, its not how hard you work, but whether others value your work that matters most. A public defender might very well work the same sort of terrible hours a trust fund lawyer does, but one works in the public sector, doing something society does not value highly, while the other does work that the wealthy want done, and thus will earn a lot. Right wingers like claiming that all one needs to be rich is work hard, because it feeds into the self-sufficiency arguement, but the fact is that the actual economic worth of ones work is not self-assigned, but set by the marketplace, which in itself is not in any way rational.

As for having a spouse, that is partly a chicken or egg situation - a lot of economic instability itself can lead to divorce and broken homes. A lot of black women aren't married because such a large number of black men are in prison.

And the bit about being "responsible" is pretty funny given the last few months and the immense evidence of how many at the very top of that icome ladder where anything but responsible, a tiny few out of sheer criminality, far more out of a sense that immense risk could be taken without any downside, which is an incredably irresponsible thing to do.

And lets not forget that the entire economy is connected - those on the top get there because of the whole activity of not only themselves, but everyone else. Hard work only "pays" as long as there is someone paying, unless you get to print your own money, which last time I looked is a crime for anyone but the Treasury.

[ZEE]

its not about money is about destroying everybody else with an excuse.

so its all about the money.