IseeLight said:
HappySqurriel said:
| richardhutnik said:
The economy we have today is one, where if you can own assets, these asset will appreciate in value, also earn additional income, compounding what has been there previously. And with lower tax rates, this compounding effect grows larger and larger. The owning of assets that generate income has little to do with anyone's own competency or skills. In addition to this though is a scale effect that happens in regards to the area of intellectual properties and being networked, and globalization. Jobs shift to all over the globe, keeping wages down, unless you are a top player, who is at the core of some intellectual property in demand, that has superior branding behind it. If you are there, then the end result is you see large scale returns. In short, be in the top 20% and you make a killing. If you are anywhere else (bottom 60%) and you end up falling further behind.
Even then, it isn't about the skills or going to college. It is about being in a place where you don't get buried via globalization and can have your job outsourced. A system where the "bottom 60%" ends up falling way behind means an end to the middle class, and is primed for there to be uprisings happening.
|
No, it is 100% based on skill differences ...
The person who enters into Engineering, Computer Science or some other in-demand field in University earns significantly more than th person who studies English Literature or Women's Studies; and all university graduates have a much lower unemployment rate and far greater earning potential than those who only have a high-school education or less. There are similar patterns in trade schools, which are far more accessable that University being that you can get into a co-op or internship program that helps pay your tuition, the tuition is far lower in price, and the education is much shorter.
We have known since the 1970s that a high-school education simply wasn't enough for the average person to have a decent career, and that being a high-school drop-out was almost ensuring you would be a "failure", and yet our education system has chugged along producing the same mediocre results (or worse) completely oblivious to the destruction they would cause.
|
The super rich are mostly just inheritants though, and didn't actually do anything.
|
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/
For the sake of brevity, I didn’t cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)
2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.
