When elitist politicians and pundits in Old Media rail against "the rich," the implicit assumption is that it's the same people, year after year, who are getting over on the rest of us.
On Friday, using the 1982 and 2007 Forbes 400 lists (2007's main page is here), John Tamny at Real Clear Politics nuked that perception (HT Instapundit; bolds are mine), and landed a not-so-subtle broadside on the campaign of John Edwards:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓..... capitalist economies are far from stationary, and for evidence we need only look to a graph in the latest issue that shows the makeup of the first Forbes 400 in 1982 compared to the latest.
Even though the wealth gap is a positive in most economies for driving the economic creativity of those not-yet-rich, much is made of it in the media and among politicians who worry about individual wealth consolidation even more than they do the corporate kind. A quick look at the Forbes 400 would surely assuage some of their fears.
Indeed, of the charter members of the first Forbes 400, only 32 remain today. Far from a country where only the rich get richer, the wealthy in the US are very much a moving target. While there are 74 Forbes 400 members who inherited their entire fortune, 270 members are entirely self-made. Though many attended Harvard, Yale and Princeton, there are countless stories within of high school and college dropouts, not to mention others who grew up extremely poor. Politicians who regularly engage in class warfare would do well to keep the Forbes 400 out of the hands of their constituents, because it makes a mockery of the kind "Two Americas" rhetoric suggesting the existence of a glass ceiling that keeps hard workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. To read the Forbes 400 is to know with surety that the U.S. is still very much the land of opportunity.
To read many business journalists today, one might assume that the U.S. economy is stratified, offers little room for advancement, and that those at the top are impervious to market forces while enjoying market power that enables them to fleece the less fortunate. Thanks to the lessons offered up yearly in the Forbes 400, we know the opposite is true. Successful people are that way because they make our lives exponentially better, while yearly dropouts from the Forbes list frequently offer evidence showing that consumers punish those who falter. For that, we should be glad that the Forbes 400 goes against the conventional grain and celebrates successful American enterprise.
This previous post at BizzyBlog from September 2005 ("Income Inequality + Economic Mobility = Long-Term Prosperity"), based on income-inequality information from the Census Bureau, and economic mobility data from the Heritage Foundation, goes into more detail.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com and the Cleveland Plain Dealer's "Wide Open" blog.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So...
October 1, 2007 - 00:08 ET by cleverpigThe contention, then, is that because the makeup of the top 10,000th of a percent of the U.S. population has changed between 1982 and 2007, there isn't any real economic disparity in this country? Where do you derive any meaning at all from that list? You could have 1 percent of the population who had literally all of the wealth, and who was in the top 400 would still change from year to year. One person making it to the top from the bottom is great, it's the American dream, but it doesn't in any way prove that prosperity is equally available to all of us.
Government
October 1, 2007 - 00:23 ET by River CityThe only impediments I see to my prosperity are government and my own ambition. I don't understand why you can't see the obvious. No one said there aren't economic differences. The point is what is each person going to do to overcome his situation.
If the names change on the list that means some people got more money and other people have less. The list is not static. People move up all the time. Just because some people still have their money like last year doesn't take away from me getting more and doing better. Only the government can prevent me from improving my situation, at the end of a gun with the threat of jail.
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
No.
October 1, 2007 - 00:25 ET by sarcasmoThe contention is that there's economic disparity (reading is fundamental -- like some conservatives here, you should try it!) and that it's changing all the time, rather than static as statist Democrats like Edwards imply -- even though his own life's trial-lawyer-jackpot experience disproves the notion. Prosperity is available, but not equally available (and nobody here ever said it was). People have ability & motivation, but not equal ability & motivation. That's life.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
That was kind of my point.
October 1, 2007 - 00:43 ET by cleverpigThat was kind of my point. One person's experience can't actually disprove anything... well okay, it could disprove that it is impossible to raise yourself up from humble beginnings, but no one is saying that.
So what's Edwards saying
October 1, 2007 - 00:50 ET by sarcasmoWhen he bleats about "2 Americas," if not "it's impossible for normal people to do what I did with trial-lawyer jackpots"?? Seems like we've refuted him, handily, and you're just upset about it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
No, it's "we set up a
October 1, 2007 - 01:25 ET by cleverpigNo, it's "we set up a system that tends to confer advantages upon the already-advantaged." It's not about absolutes, so nothing is disproved by any one person failing or succeeding. It is not about making everybody equal, it is about providing equality of opportunity. I think as a general rule conservatives seem to think we've succeeded in that, liberals think we can do better. The Forbes 400 list, while an interesting snapshot, is not really meaningful to the argument.
I'll consider Edwards refuted when the wealth of this country trickles down a little more from the top 2%, or when the incomes at the bottom and middle of the scale increase faster than the ones at the top. We all know that extraordinary individuals can make it even if they start from nothing-- liberals just want to increase their odds.
If you wanted to increase their odds
October 1, 2007 - 01:36 ET by sarcasmoYou'd want to decrease the size of government, instead of increasing it. There will never be equality of outcome, but as long as the playing field is fair and understandable that's the best that can be done in an imperfect world. And guess what? People with an advantage already have an advantage in the real world even with a totally-fair set of rules.
The Forbes 400 list is meaningful because, as I said, its turnover alone effectively-refutes the "2 Americas" argument. As for wealth trickling down, we'd see a lot more of that under a less "progressive" & flatter tax system like Estonia's,
but the left continually opposes that type of simplification & reform. Why?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I still think the playing
October 1, 2007 - 02:01 ET by cleverpigI still think the playing field could be flatter. And decreasing taxes on the rich may cause more wealth to trickle down, but it does not cause a greater percentage of wealth to trickle down. Growth is great, but as long as the Gini coefficient stays at .4something that growth will disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
The Forbes 400 does not refute anything. It is one piece of evidence on your side of the argument. You have others. There is also evidence on my side of the argument-- the range of income between the richest and poorest Americans is growing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg), the average income of the middle class is down since 2000. No list of 400 people changes those statistics.
I never denied it could be flatter.
October 1, 2007 - 02:37 ET by sarcasmoBut I explicitly-deny that Edwards' plans to increase the size of government will help the poor. I think dishonest monetary policy (in the process of increasing the size of government at the expense of our grandkids...) has done a LOT to help the politically well connected at the expense of the middle class & poor, but Edwards doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve too much, does he?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
So what?
October 1, 2007 - 08:38 ET by motherbelt- the range of income between the richest and poorest Americans is growing -cleverpig
I apologize for "butting in" here, and coming late to the party, but my response to that is....so what? When even "poor" families have cars, own homes, have air conditioning, TV's, microwaves, cell phones, and take vacations, why does the "gap" matter, except as a matter of "it's just not fair"????
I bet cleverpig is a fan of the "working families" model. Just like "black" is not a skin color to liberals, but an attitude and a political philosophy, "working families" does not mean families that "work", but families with incomes below a certain level, as if those that earn $75,000 a year don't "work" but just have it handed to them. People who made themselves wealthy by founding their own business, for example, usually work far more than the "average" joe who puts in a 40-50-hour week. 16 hour days are the norm. They don't even know what a "day off" is.
To suggest that they are not "working families" or are "winners in life's lottery" as Rep. Dick Gephardt once said, is grossly unfair to them and their work ethic.
In saying the playing field
October 1, 2007 - 11:27 ET by dscottIn saying the playing field could be flatter, you are implying either there is a conspiracy to keep people down by the elites and that government must level the field by taxing the wealthy, i.e. taking their money in a redistribution of wealth scheme. We as conservatives reject both ideas. The point of government is to keep the playing field level by insisting everyone play by the same rules, not by penalizing those who succeeded by playing by the rules. Wealth is a reward, not an entitlement. Income disparity is not a bad thing, it is a good thing as it movtivates those at the bottom in their self interest and thus we reject redistribution of wealth schemes offered by Socialists and Dems. Redistribution schemes only hold people down not lift them up since, we maintain people make choices, and choices have consequences, as long as people receive handouts to get by they have no reason to make different choices.
What the Forbes list illustrates is people making choices with the resulting consequences, therefore it validates the conservative premise. Capitalism is a rewards based system, those who don't play by the rules or don't play at all, don't get rewarded. What you essentially have expressed as we interpret it is you feel sorry for or pity those who didn't get the rewards, your pity is misplaced. The point of freedom is the ability to make choices, under the Socialist system someone else makes the choices under the guise of security (false equality) thus you are not free. Those who sacrifice their freedom for security, deserve neither. B. Franklin
When you feel you have to walk on eggshells to avoid problems with the MSM you are being codependent, the cure is to stomp on the eggshells
The best way to level the economic playing field
October 1, 2007 - 11:34 ET by sarcasmoIs LESS REGULATION. As various businesses become more and more paperwork-intensive, they entrench the haves at the expense of entrepreneurial have-nots who might serve markets better. At the same time, extant businesses find devious ways to further influence regulators against new competition.
This is easier to see in some even-more-regulated societies in South America. Mario Vargas Llosa has done much good work on the topics of just how hard it is to start a business or own land down there. It's quite sad to see such oppression for the sake of maintaining a TINY political-corruption income for a few people. The true irony, of course, is that all those people -- even the corrupt ones who live off bribes -- would be better-off without all the nasty rules.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ordinarily I would agree on
October 1, 2007 - 11:51 ET by dscottOrdinarily I would agree on that premise, however, many rules/regulations are made because someone pushed the envelop to get a leg up on the competition or because the results of their activities proved to be harmful to society in some manner like pollution or safety. There is no such thing as a regulation free business economy, such a free for all is called Merchantilism which liberals and Socialists rightly point out is harmful to society. Like all issues libs continue to harp upon, they are relics of the past that have been addressed, but the libs being vacuous for ideas continue raise them in order to prove their self-righteousness and their relevance. This is like Al Sharpton with his race baiting, he lost relevance and is clinging to an outdated issue because he doesn't have the brains to find some other relevant issue to solve in some other manner other than the victim model of government coming to the rescue.
When you feel you have to walk on eggshells to avoid problems with the MSM you are being codependent, the cure is to stomp on the eggshells
There are always going to
October 1, 2007 - 11:29 ET by pbanks7There are always going to be poor people. Some will do just the bare minimum to get by.
Since when does one person being rich hurt any other person? The assumption of socialists is that he had to "exploit" other people. At least in capitalism, most of the people at the top got there by merit, not party affiliation.
If the income gap gets bigger, and the bottom is higher, where is that bad for a person whose standard of living is higher? You're focusing on class envy, when you should be focusing on where the standard of living is.
The "it can be better" crowd wants to impose socialism, and my first question is: "who gets to choose?"
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Stealing
October 1, 2007 - 15:45 ET by UnsaneThe you should be HAPPY. The rich does ALL of the heavy lifting - to the point where the top 60% of wage earners pay 99.94% of the federal tax burden.
Legal or not, stealing is stealing.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Tool
October 1, 2007 - 00:50 ET by River CityYou can take care of this one Sarc. This one is too thick to get it. Or just wants to fight. I'm done. It is to the point of ridiculous.
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
The Link
October 1, 2007 - 00:54 ET by Tom BlumerYou really should visit the Sept. 2005 BizzyBlog item linked above.
Good Links
October 1, 2007 - 01:04 ET by River CityTom,
I looked at the BizzyBlog link and the RCP link. I don't think our friend is interested in what is really happening. Just like John Edwards, capitalism is good for me but not for thee. The elites can handle the responsibilites of money, investments and personal decisions but the unwashed masses in flyover country are too stupid to be left in control of their own lives. They need socialism.
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
"Just like John Edwards,
October 1, 2007 - 04:22 ET by ckc1227"Just like John Edwards, capitalism is good for me but not for thee.
The elites can handle the responsibilites of money, investments and
personal decisions but the unwashed masses in flyover country are too
stupid to be left in control of their own lives. "
That's the democrat way. Maybe they're right. If they weren't, more people would catch on to the democrat message of "you are too stupid to take care of yourselves", and Republicans would almost never lose an election.
Maybe the old money. As the
October 1, 2007 - 11:03 ET by danboMaybe the old money. As the Kennedys. Are just trying to keep new members out of their country club.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Hmm, I need to apologize
October 1, 2007 - 02:11 ET by cleverpigI don't usually join threads this early. I try to let the chorus of agreement build up some steam before jumping in to argue, that way people can discuss the finer points of the piece without immediately being sidetracked by whatever I have a problem with! My apologies, I didn't intend to hijack the thread.
While I disagree with pretty much everything on this site, I do try not to be a troll in the traditional sense! I'm going to stop arguing here, maybe we can take it up again later. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves :)
Sorry!
If you think there's any "chorus of agreement" with me...
October 1, 2007 - 02:40 ET by sarcasmoThen you've clearly NOT been paying very close attention...And I don't mind takin' them on any more than I mind takin' you on -- that's my role around here.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Clever, I don't know how
October 1, 2007 - 15:33 ET by mulerider24Clever, I don't know how long you've been "monitoring" this site but monetary policy is one thing NB members are very passionate and knowledgeable about. It is obvious from your initial remarks that you are far from troll status so do not hesitate to continue your dialogue. I consider myself a pretty hardcore fiscal conservative but I don't always see eye to eye with every member's viewpoint. As long as you bring a respectable position backed by some form of reasoning then most will reciprocate.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. - Abraham Lincoln
More opportunity than ever...
October 2, 2007 - 02:37 ET by Parker1227Middle-class income is down because industrialization is now a world-wide reality. Our post-WWII monopoly in manufacturing has melted away. Job competition brings wages down and makes some jobs disappear (yet we get much cheaper goods and services in return).
Record setting immigration into the U.S. has also put downward pressure on construction wages, etc.
But the opportunities we have given to the people of the world through massive out-sourcing, and with lax border policies - have done more for reducing poverty and suffering around the world (exponentially) than all of the give-away schemes ever put together.
And still, we keep creating more opportunity than can be measured. How many millions of Mexicans, Canadians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, etc., etc., have come here with almost nothing and worked their way up through community colleges and joined our thriving economy?
It is to the never ending shame of the race-baiting Democratic leadership across this country that they have made a living out of keeping some groups crippled with anger and fear - especially in the light of what great success other 'have-nots' have created for themselves in recent decades.
Its really a crime.