
If the Rich Really Want to ‘Do Good,’ They Should Become Class Traitors Like FDR - aaronbrethorst
https://longreads.com/2018/10/18/review-of-winners-take-all/
======
Bartweiss
This is an interesting read, and a good review of Giridharadas. But I'm
frustrated that it fails to grapple with the most obvious question of all: who
counts as rich?

Instead, we get _" Winners Take All aims at today’s upper-crust in a world
where wealth has continued to calcify into stock dividends and plush
inheritances of the global one-percent..."_. It's the sort of line that makes
me think either Giridharadas or Meyer haven't done their homework, because
entering the _global_ one percent takes an income of around $32,000, or a net
worth of around $770,000. The average member of the global one percent doesn't
have any stock at all, much less a plush inheritance! 46% of Americans break
the global 1% income threshold, and ~5% break the wealth threshold. The global
one percent are defined by international divides, not intranational ones.

Back home, the 1% continues to be a bizarre construct that conflates heart
surgeons with Waltons; the bottom half of the 1% have seen their incomes
roughly triple since 1950, while the top 0.01% have seen a 10x increase. Even
Darren Walker's million a year only puts him around the 0.3% of earners.

I don't mean to discount the article or the book: it's fascinating to see a
comparison of how the ultra-rich view social wellbeing compared to the rest of
us. But I do think there's a bit of a failure to grapple with exactly what
extreme wealth _is_ , and just how far up the scale goes.

~~~
antisthenes
It's not hard.

[https://www.capgemini.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/worldwe...](https://www.capgemini.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/worldwealthreport_2017_final.pdf)

Everyone with over $5 million USD of investable wealth counts as rich. The
report shows that there are at least 1.65 million of such individuals across
the planet, with roughly 157,200 of them having a net worth in excess of $30
million.

What about the 15 million in the $1-5 million band? I think you could argue
that many of them reside in really high COL areas, so most of their assets
could be in the form of primary residence real estate. I'm not going to argue
if that makes them 'rich' either way.

Looking at it this way completely avoids ridiculous metrics like "global 1% by
income" that completely ignore the effects of relative wealth and cost of
living areas.

~~~
Bartweiss
The "global 1%" stat doesn't seem entirely useless, as a guide to national
prosperity after PPP. But you're obviously right that national corrections are
totally inadequate to distinguish e.g. NYC incomes from Tulsa incomes. And
using it to measure who _in America_ is rich is simply stupid.

The more I think about it, the more I like $5M USD investable.

I was getting set to argue that the $3M-$5M range gets you an above-average
income via pure investment, maybe suggest "wealth outside of primary
residence", point out purchasing power discrepancies, but all that quibbling
just proves it's the wrong metric.

At $5M in wealth, it ought to be possible to go basically anywhere in the
world and live comfortably without working. I think that's indisputably
"rich".

~~~
antisthenes
> At $5M in wealth, it ought to be possible to go basically anywhere in the
> world and live comfortably without working.

Yes, I like that definition as well. If you look at the wealth report, $5M is
also the threshold for getting the highest return on investment and having
access to the best possible investment advice.

In other words, it would take pretty serious mismanagement to squander $5M if
you aim for a normal lifestyle and not exorbitant luxury.

But I'm not sure where that gets us. So we've defined a level of 'rich'.
That's still not good enough to base a policy on. What's our aim? Capping the
wealth? Taxing it? What's to be done with the wealth? Does the policy have a
chance of being politically viable?

I'm not sure anything can even be done on an individual country level. Once
you reach that level of wealth - your capital is mobile, and essentially
global. There are no boundaries for wealth management firms with wealthy
clients.

------
aaronbrethorst
Also, there's a really fantastic episode of Chris Hayes's podcast, _Why is
this Happening_ , with the author of the reviewed book.
[https://art19.com/shows/why-is-this-happening-with-chris-
hay...](https://art19.com/shows/why-is-this-happening-with-chris-
hayes/episodes/595bbf7a-14b2-49ff-8281-8e96ddcca818)

~~~
MaysonL
Also, a great episode of Ezra Klein's podcast with Anand Giridharadas, the
referenced author and speaker.

EDIT: the link: [https://art19.com/shows/the-ezra-klein-
show/episodes/ebd9109...](https://art19.com/shows/the-ezra-klein-
show/episodes/ebd9109c-d765-43ab-b931-0b95f5fcbc12)

------
kareemsabri
I listened to the author's recent appearance on Robert Wright's podcast. He
states, as what seems representative of his beliefs, that Cinnabon preys on
the poor and should be stopped via regulation (similar to alcohol). I couldn't
really get on board with his brand of paternalism.

------
jeffreyrogers
I don't see how saying these policies are typical of a "class traitor" does
any good. For one, the idea that different classes are in competition with
each other is a very Marxian worldview and whether you buy into that or not
depends largely on your pre-rational commitments. For another, even if we
accept the inter-class competition worldview, it seems that a different
approach is likely to be more fruitful than asking the already successful to
be "class traitors". One could, for example, try to show these elites that it
is in their self interest to improve the conditions of the lower classes. This
has already occurred to some extent in the US as the 2016 election
demonstrated, and this book is largely a consequence of the growing
realization of the elite that this is the case.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I sometimes wonder if the improvement in the US middle/lower class from 1940
to 1970 wasn't at least partly because the upper class saw the challenge of
Communist ideology, and decided that it was exactly in their self-interest to
improve the condition of the lower classes.

~~~
justtopost
Perhaps they should notice once again... this time hold the Mcarthyism.

------
hevi_jos
"class traitor"?? Raising taxes on middle class(while high classes pay almost
nothing) in order to pay low class benefits is not being a traitor on high
class.

It is being their best friend, specially when they were terrorized by the
Great Depression. They also removed competition on those small business that
could compete with the monsters. Two birds with one stone.

Theodore Roosevelt was someone who actually went against his benefits and
privileges fighting against big lobbies. He had a hard time doing it.

------
nostromo
Unpopular opinion alert! The more I learn about FDR the more he reminds me of
Trump. And I say that as a non-fan of Trump.

We hear a lot today about how Trump is breaking long-established norms. But
FDR was the king of breaking norms: from running for four terms, to trying to
pack the Supreme Court and setting off a constitutional crisis, to running the
only concentration camps in American History and banning immigration outright
from many countries.

FDR was a populist bully. He changed the presidency forever. And yet he’s
constantly referred to as one of the best presidents.

~~~
acconrad
Your use of "bully" is a red herring to your argument. Both people break
norms, yes. But when you "bully" the fat cats in government, that's called
"doing your job."

The president is essentially the highest-paid public servant. It is (supposed
to be) the president's _job_ to fight for what the people want.

Trump is fighting for himself. He's fighting for big business. He's fighting
for exactly his own self interest. That is anathema to what FDR did. Thus,
Trump is a bully and FDR is not, and that is why your opinion is being
downvoted.

~~~
wonder_er
FDR's internment camps was hardly a move "for the people".

Should we overlook the internment camps? Seems like FDR was a lot worse than a
bully, in light of the camps.

~~~
the_gastropod
No, you shouldn't overlook it. But don't kid yourself in thinking most
Americans in the 1940s weren't terribly racist. Check out this Gallup poll
from 1942: [https://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-
era-s...](https://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-era-support-
japanese-internment.aspx)

