
Blame Rich, Overeducated Elites as Our Society Frays - irishjohnnie
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html
======
tokenizer
While this was a decent article highlighting an interesting point about the
impending collapse of the US, this part was obviously classist:

> There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists.

Yes. Terrorism gave us the 40 hour workweek, and in my country of Canada,
single payer healthcare...

~~~
potatolicious
I don't see the "obvious classism". Author isn't talking about demonstrations
or protests, author is talking about extremists blowing things up:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings)

And more:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing)

I don't think calling bombings in public spaces "terrorism" is really
straining the definition of the word. In fact it seems pretty on-the-nose.

And far from driving any sort of positive change, these bombings derived
_zero_ concessions from the government. Their only long-term effect was the
further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became
associated with violence. This is a legacy that is _still here_ in the US
today, where words like "socialist" are still being used as obvious
pejoratives.

It's interesting that you bring up single payer health care in Canada. The
first real implementation of public health care in Canada was in Saskatchewan,
under premier Tommy Douglas, who was IIRC voted a few years ago as the
Greatest Canada Who Ever Lived. Public health care was achieved in
Saskatchewan not by hostage-taking, bombing, or shooting anyone, but by
persistent demonstration and political participation. Not a shot was fired to
win single payer health care in Canada.

Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it
has shown up it has actively worked _against_ the causes it purports to
advance (see: OWS and rioting). It is in spite of violent extremists that
these causes have succeeded, it should get zero credit.

~~~
tokenizer
> I don't see the "obvious classism". Author isn't talking about
> demonstrations or protests, author is talking about extremists blowing
> things...

Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists.
Without the movement, you don't have May Day in 1919:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919)

Also, without context, you're argument seems reasonable, however WITH context,
it does not. During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR
with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for
representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection. After years
of struggles with police and politicians, I find it insulting to claim that
any engagements are terrorism, and that all of it is under the pretense of
war. Just look at the locations of these events...

> Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political
> left in the USA, as they became associated with violence.

Actually the labour movements had gotten the most concessions out of
government between 1918 and 1940. If you disagree, again, feel free to explain
how labour laws inhibit society from being truly free/prosperous.

> Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place
> it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to
> advance (see: OWS and rioting).

OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note
of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed.
[http://www.iww.org/](http://www.iww.org/)

~~~
potatolicious
> _" Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few
> extremists."_

You're mistaking my argument for my political stance. I am quite far on the
left, thanks. The violent actors that are attracted to just about any cause do
not represent the cause, but they are an easy scapegoat to be used by the
opposition, and this scapegoating _works_.

Short of changing human nature, this is the limitation we have to work with.
Every violent act in the name of some cause directly works against said cause,
even if its perpetrators are themselves a minority. A single violent actor in
your midst cancels out the credibility of hundreds, if not thousands, of
peaceful participants.

We can whine all day about how unfair this is, but tough, this is the way
public perception works. This is why as supporters of whatever cause you
believe in, it's of critical importance to root out the violent elements
within your group.

> _" OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take
> note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed."_

Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already. Look at my posting history, you think
I get paid to write this shit? This is what I hate about talking to people
like you, I express one thing you find disagreeable, but no, I can't possibly
hold that opinion in good faith, I must be _paid_ , I must be a planted
agitator.

OWS aren't terrorists, but their protests around the country (outside of NYC
itself, which remained relatively peaceful) were mired with rioting, looting,
and violence. It made the movement _completely toxic_ to any support from
political moderates. Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and
extremists, and they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS
died _because_ of its violent internal elements.

You think people didn't identify with OWS? Nearly everyone I know identifies
with the core complaints of OWS, but very few ever participated in their
protests, because they were known to be violent, because nobody wanted to be
in the same crowd as black bloc assholes smashing windows. There is a reason
why MLK Jr. preached _heavily_ for non-violence, because every window smashed,
every store looted, erases the hard work of many, many more people.

> _" During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the
> rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation
> from the elite, nor do they have police protection."_

Really? _Really?_ That's the best you can come up with, after bringing up
single-payer health care in Canada? One of the greatest (if not _the_
greatest) achievements in Canadian history? The one that was won without a
single bullet or a single bomb? The one that was hard-fought by people in the
political process, by shrewd leaders?

 _You_ brought that up and now you're saying that there is no recourse other
than violence? No recourse for the everyman except to take up arms?

Jesus.

~~~
tokenizer
Well you've changed my mind. I definitely don't think you're a shill.

> OWS aren't terrorists, but ... were mired with rioting, looting, and
> violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support ... Over time
> it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists ... they never
> gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its
> violent internal elements.

You're a sheep. You preach non violence and think that any protest with
elements of violence as illegitimate. The main message of OWS was of
solidarity, hence the whole complexity of the group. You missed that point
entirely, even though you say most people you know identifies with their
grievances.

So in summary, you don't believe in protests, as you don't believe in outliers
or subverters as being separate from the core grievances of the whole
movement. Because of this, you dismiss any movements or protests you or others
may find hopeful, because others who share different philosophical
underpinnings, are also involved in the narrative.

> Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already.

Absolutely. Here's something to mull over while you beg the government to
reform itself:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

It's extremely easy to shout terrorist and praise pacifism and trust your
government. The hard thing to do is become outcasted by sheeple like you who
think this massively powerful set of institutions has your interests at heart.
I'd much rather go to /r/conspiracy then be told me someone like you that
terrorism is the biggest problem towards social change and not government
central planning of socio-economic development....

Excerpt: "Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings
followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban
government.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including
real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets.
The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman
Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense."

TLRD: You need to seriously rethink your sheepest trust in institutions based
from Monarchy, and governed mostly be the elite. You need to stop dismissing
theories and actions against oppression as negative and opposed to progress,
as that pretty much enforces the belief that the government (US specifically)
isn't the one creating/causing/permitting an enormous amount of negative
events globally for special interest group gains. The War on Drugs, The War on
Minorities (Prison System), The War on the Internet, and The War on Terror,
are all legitimized by your sheepest trust in their creators continued
success....

Oh Look... :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306)

Trust them. Be peaceful. People like me are the problem. Definitely not the
ones with the money supply and army...

------
pwnna
Interesting article. I have not seen a lot of quantitative studies on society
in general (that is probably personal bias, however).

Is it wrong to say that a lot of the root cause of this is from capitalism? Is
socialism a better solution for more complicated societies like the ones we
have today?

~~~
ams6110
No system is perfect, because humans are not perfect, but capitalism has
produced more and created a higher standard of living for more people than any
other system we've tried. Socialism/communism has produced most of the worst
humanitarian and economic situations that people have lived under.

Edit: spelling

~~~
minikites
So why Scandanavia is doing so well, both economically and socially? Happier
population, more innovation, more equality (race and gender).

~~~
patrickk
Social democracy isn't the same as socialism[1].

It's an interesting problem to grapple with: can you have a dynamic economy
with a vibrant entrepreneurial sector, that encourages innovation and growth,
and yet have a social floor below which no citizen will fall, therefore
avoiding extreme inequality with people living in poverty?

" _...when you damp oscillations, you lose the high points as well as the low_
" [2]

[1]
[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_democracy)

[2] PG in his essay Hackers and Painters, referring to big companies being
conservative in designing products
[http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html)

~~~
logfromblammo
For the most part, successful entrepreneurs are those who had the luxury of
experiencing the failure of a business and then still had enough left over to
try again. If the worst that can happen is that you hit the socialist rock
bottom of only being able to house and feed your family and provide them with
last year's models of smartphone, you are more apt to take risks, like
starting businesses, or even quitting exploitative labor arrangements.

------
leoc
From /Nationalism/ by Elie Kedourie [http://www.amazon.com/Nationalism-Elie-
Kedourie/dp/063118885...](http://www.amazon.com/Nationalism-Elie-
Kedourie/dp/0631188851/)
[http://www.worldcat.org/title/nationalism/oclc/27812918](http://www.worldcat.org/title/nationalism/oclc/27812918)
:

"The writers who invented and elaborated the post-Kantian theory of the state
belonged to a caste which was relatively low on the social scale. They were,
most of them, the sons of pastors, artisans, or small farmers. They somehow
managed to become university students, most often in the faculty of theology,
and last out the duration of their course on minute grants, private lessons,
and similar makeshifts. When they graduated they found that their knowledge
opened no doors, that they were still in the same social class, looked down
upon by a nobility which was stupid, unlettered, and which engrossed the
public employments they felt themselves so capable of filling. These students
and ex-students felt in them the power to do great things, they had culture,
knowledge, ability, they yearned for the life of action, its excitements and
rewards, and yet there they were, doomed to spend heartbreaking years as
indigent curates waiting to be appointed pastors, or as tutors in some noble
household, where they were little better than superior domestics, or as
famished writers dependent on the goodwill of an editor or a publisher."

This group produced colourful people like Karl Sand
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ludwig_Sand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ludwig_Sand)
, and of course an ideology which was eventually to burn Europe down at least
a couple of times. Substitute engineering for theology and you have a pretty
accurate description of many of the angry young men of the present-day Middle
East too.

------
devindotcom
"Overeducated" =/= lawyers. Society isn't "fraying," either — it is a time of
accelerated change brought on by a number of factors such as globalism, the
Internet, and so on.

Distribution of wealth and the purchase of politics are serious problems, but
this article doesn't seem very on the mark.

~~~
craigyk
Why? High education and underutilization might be big multipliers for social
unrest. I can't think of a group that might be more pissed as they realize
just how large a role luck and birth can play in "success".

------
mrcactu5

      The roots of the current American predicament go back 
      to the 1970s, when wages of workers stopped keeping 
      pace with their productivity. 
    

* head explode *

So this has been going on for the past 40 years and we have stopped
questioning it?

What if you were Black or a woman in the 70's? Did wages ever keep up with
productivity in the first place?

~~~
calinet6
YES! This.

This graph tells all:
[http://i.imgur.com/ZxBWh.png](http://i.imgur.com/ZxBWh.png)

And yes, we've simply learned to ignore it.

The gap of productivity and wealth that is no longer being earned by the
working/middle class is being systematically extracted from the market by the
powerful corporate class.

The craziest part of this I've heard is that one of the main methods of this
market extraction is via the broad use of credit by the working/middle class,
who, now that they aren't making enough money to afford basic life, need to
borrow to afford it. They borrow from the upper class/bankers and pay
interest, thereby funneling even more money into the top echelon of society,
even though we're _already_ being systematically squeezed out. All just
_because they can._ Because it is possible to take the money, so they do, each
individual entity at each point of decision chooses this lopsided power-
extreme optimum, and it causes this extreme imbalance in turn.

And _we act like this is all a normal part of society._ Because we've been
told so.

Why there is not extreme uproar about this is beyond me, but I think it has to
do with the fact that the media is also owned by the powerful corporate class,
as is the government.

It is _sickening_ if you think about it hard enough. But we don't, because
we're told we're powerless to change the society we're in. Which makes it even
worse.

~~~
logfromblammo
Thanks to media consolidation, the uproar is swept under the rug in such a way
that it does not spread. Occupy Wall Street was covered as front-page headline
news for a very short time in relation to its actual duration. It went
practically unacknowledged for the size of the event.

And people saw New Orleans after Katrina, and Boston after the marathon
bombing. They didn't yell. They just went out and bought their first gun. Or
they bought a camera or smartphone live-streaming app and started randomly
recording police encounters.

So now "prepping" by such means as stockpiling food and ammunition is a normal
part of society. This, despite blog and television portrayals of such people
as wingnuts. People are quietly preparing for surviving a civil war, under the
guise of disaster preparedness.

Once the watershed event occurs, whatever it may be, it will not be pretty. If
even 0.1% of the population are just waiting for the camel's back to break
before firing one shot, that's still a lot of bullets in the air.

~~~
calinet6
Yes. Our current social spaghetti has nothing to do with an overeducated
populace or anything like it; it's simply a wealth divide that is self-
propagating. It has to end sometime and it ain't gonna be pretty.

------
zaguios
Look at the graph the article presents for US political violence. It's
actually at or near an all time low, they just added a new "category" of
terrorism to inflate recent numbers. The cycle may or may not actually exist,
but if it does we're almost as far away from a spike as you can get.

~~~
bananacurve
Yeah they should have left out that graphic because it completely undermines
his thesis.

------
alexeisadeski3
I hope that this article is a witty attempt at self satire!

~~~
spiek
What do you mean? You're saying that because it was published by Bloomberg?

~~~
samolang
I think he's saying it was written by a rich, overeducated elite.

~~~
jerf
Even as a libertarian, I agree that too much inequality in a society is a bad
thing. However, I find myself quite suspicious of the solutions that are
generally proposed, even here on HN, which are generally of the form "Give the
elite more power", usually as "give the government more centralized power".

I agree that our elites are a problem, but I find it a bit sad/amusing that so
many people are so ready to solve the problem in exactly the way the elite
want you to want it solved.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Why would you think that inequality is a bad thing?

~~~
jerf
"Too much" inequality. Admittedly, phrased that way it's tautological, but I'm
not willing to stuff a precise definition into an HN message. I'm certainly
willing to tolerate more than than your average liberal or communist, but no,
I don't think a society divided into plutocrats and plebians is a good idea
either, as it's actually bad for the market. Indeed, one of the major reasons
I'm a libertarian and not an anarchist is that I believe one of the
governments main duties is monopoly busting. _Anything_ that gets too big
should be sliced into pieces, government or corporation. (And yes, again, "too
big" is itself tautological, but again, HN comment.) I believe that people who
are only willing to accept one side of that statement don't realize that that
"too bigness" will flock to where ever it is tolerated and in the end there's
not that much practical difference between "too big" corporations and "too
big" government.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
When you talk about inequality, you're talking about the Gini coefficient (you
may prefer a different definition, but let's just use that because it's well
known and simple). There is _no_ reason to think that a Gini of, say, .7 leads
to plutocrats or monopolies any more/less so than a Gini of .4.

Plutocrats derive power from their wealth. The Pluto Problem (haha, couldn't
resist) is not due to society wide inequality levels, but rather to a
political system which enables them to derive said power. Finally, if you look
at the richest people in the US such as Gates, Buffet and the Waltons, I don't
think that you'll find they have political power even remotely similar to
plutocrats such as Berlusconi. Point being that, in my opinion, Plutocrats
don't exist in the US. Are there rich, politically powerful people in the US?
Yes. Are there people who derive immense political power solely through said
wealth? I would say no. It's more likely to work the other way around
(political power leads to wealth - as in the case of the Clintons and now
Obama).

People may discuss examples such as Romeny et al, but he's _only_ worth $250
million. If it only takes $250m to get political power (and does Romney even
have any political power today?), then I'd see your concern!

Regarding your concern over monopolies generally, I am reminded of a wonderful
Friedman response to the question 'When have you ever been wrong': "I used to
believe that some anti trust activity had merit."

~~~
jerf
'Regarding your concern over monopolies generally, I am reminded of a
wonderful Friedman response to the question 'When have you ever been wrong':
"I used to believe that some anti trust activity had merit."'

I consider it a good and proper task for the government to ensure nothing,
including itself, gets too large. That is not to say that our government today
can do it. I'm not sure what to do once you pass a certain event horizon of
concentrated power... well, actually, I'm pretty confident the only answer is
to wait for the concentration to inevitably collapse and take some percent of
society with it (historically, at times approaching 100%), but I don't know
how to reliably make that safe, let alone painless. I'm not sure there is a
way. I'm more interested in building robust societies that can survive
disruptions than in trying to prevent them; there's pretty good mathematical
reasons to believe that's simply impossible. To say this puts me out of the
political mainstream would be putting it lightly.

Anyhow, it's not news to me that my preferred politics doesn't produce
Utopia... I would be much happier if everybody _else_ realized that neither do
theirs.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
I enjoy our exchange :)

Unfortunately I do not share your confidence that concentrated power is
inherently unstable or self destructing. What evidence is there of such a
claim?

Even the most extreme concentrations of power, such as North Korea, in fact
contain complex webs of mutual support within them when viewed up close.

To get back to the original topic, though, I just don't see how any non-
extreme (below .9 Gini) distribution of income can be considered unstable or
problematic in any way. It's not as if someone is simply doling out wealth and
income; this stuff is created and earned!

------
spada
Overeducated? What is the optimal level of education?

~~~
plorkyeran
In the specific case of a law degree, for most people the sole purpose of the
degree is to get a job as a lawyer, so if they are not able to find such a job
then they receive no utility from their level of education and so are
overeducated.

In general I dislike the concept, as it's usually used to decry education that
the author sees as pointless, rather than the recipient of the education.

~~~
keithpeter
_"...for most people the sole purpose of the degree is to get a job as a
lawyer, so if they are not able to find such a job then they receive no
utility from their level of education..."_

Might the system as a whole benefit from some selection of those with law
degrees (minimum criterion) for best fit to available jobs?

------
kokey
"Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also
results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. The “1 percent” becomes “2
percent.” Or even more."

So, a larger percentage of wealthy people in society is a product of _more_
inequality? My brain has a bit of trouble with that statement.

~~~
scarmig
I had trouble parsing that statement as well. I think at heart it comes down
to how inequality is a very slippery if not vacuous concept, but here's the
most plausible explanatory mental model I could come up with:

Let's define the elite as people who have, say, 10 times the
income/wealth/power as the median person. As inequality increases, the cutoff
point for people who have 10x what the median person has decreases from 99th
percentile to 98th percentile (or whatever).

This is workable numerically if you think of income as falling along a Pareto
distribution. I'm not sure it's workable as a definition of the elite, though:
why would the 98th percentile have more access to power with more inequality?
Although they outstrip the median fine, they'd be even further away from the
99th or 99.9th percentile.

------
tootie
[http://www.reddit.com/r/panichistory](http://www.reddit.com/r/panichistory)

------
known
[http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/07/the-self-attribution-
falla...](http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/07/the-self-attribution-fallacy)

------
squozzer
Keep in mind the problem aren't the elites, their success in reproduction
which causes the imbalance between their numbers and the number of (suitable)
positions available to them.

After all, a core tenet of The American Dream™ states one must do better - in
terms of social status - than one's forebears.

And when was the last time you heard a college professor brag about having a
mechanic for a son? Not that there's anything wrong with either profession
when they act honestly.

I kind of dig the analysis, as it resembles Asimov's psychohistory, but it's
still a bit haphazard because the analyst assumes some kind of periodicity to
the phenomenon.

This kind of work lends itself to other questions, such as whether one can
increase its' predictive power by analyzing social artifacts such as music,
books or visual arts.

~~~
squozzer
I dug into the professor's work a little deeper and he does not assume
periodicity for his observations in general but goes on to say they have
periodic tendencies.

------
cafard
It is kind of a property owned by Michael Bloomberg to warn us off rich
elites.

------
jgalt212
Our society is fraying because folks like Mitt Romney think it's OK to not pay
taxes for 10 years, and then run for President.

~~~
brandoncor
Can you explain this a bit further? I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney, but I've
never understood the outrage at his tax returns. It was my understanding that
the low tax rate was due to 1) donations and 2) the fact that most of his
income comes from capital gains. Do you think people considering running for
president should go out of their way to pay more taxes?

~~~
ditonal
He kept several years of tax returns hidden, had shady offshore accounts in
the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, and while I don't expect him to pay more
taxes than legally required, it would be nice if he acknowledged or addressed
as a policy issue that he made orders of magnitudes more money than a middle
class person yet paid a quarter of their effective tax rate. Capital gains
taxes are bad, but so are income taxes, and I don't think it's coincidence we
keep the ones that is largely shouldered by the middle class high.

~~~
logfromblammo
There was also the issue of the balance in his retirement savings account. If
I recall correctly, it was far beyond what the maximum amount expected from an
"ordinary" person, contributing the maximum amounts allowable from even a
7-figure CEO salary for 50 continuous years--ten times as much, or more, in
one third the time. The whole business simultaneously screamed "tax avoidance
loophole" and "elite privilege".

------
amerika_blog
These rich, overeducated elites seem to all be Ivy League style Frankfurt
School liberals.

Just sayin'

------
SloughFeg
Of course, let's blame the elite's for all our societal woes. Humans are
rather good at blaming everyone for problems but themselves.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Did you read the article, or just the title?

------
alexeisadeski3
Inequality is actually down, but hey - believe whatever you want.

[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/11/world-inequality-is-
do...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/11/world-inequality-is-down.html)

~~~
joshklein
These data refer to worldwide inequality, while the article speaks to American
inequality. The former is significantly skewed by the rural-to-urban migration
of India and China as they rapidly modernize.

