That’s because the protesters and media people who cover them tend to live in or near the big cities, where the top 1 percent is so evident. That’s because the liberal arts majors like to express their disdain for the shallow business and finance majors who make all the money. That’s because it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. That’s because many people are wedded to the notion that our problems are caused by an oppressive privileged class that perpetually keeps its boot stomped on the neck of the common man.
But the fact is that (social) Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.
- David Brooks in The Wrong Equality
for the NY Times Opinion Pages
i feel that the two are connected. when we're in debt we do two things: raise taxes, cut spending. it's how you get out of debt. the idea is that the 99% are upset because A: the things that are getting cut are the things that affect them the most: public school funding, social programs, etc. and B: the 1% are not being taxed in a manner equal to the rest, while they have the means to help and thusly stop the cutting of funding for those social programs. so yeah, i think the two are deeply connected.
ReplyDeleteRead the article I linked at the end. You two are talking about different people percents.
ReplyDelete