
The Rich Don't Work Anymore–Working Is for Poor People - akbarnama
http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-rich-dont-work-anymore-working-poor-people
======
donquichotte
"The rise of these two groups — the working poor and non-working rich – is
relatively new." Is it? Sounds like classic feudalism to me.

~~~
Hytosys
Of course, you're right.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles." —Guess Who

~~~
bbcbasic
Groucho?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
No, Burton Cummings.

------
iofj
> Six of today’s 10 wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. The
> Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans
> combined.

That's Amazing. Here's a list of the 10 wealthiest of my country :
[http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2362216](http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2362216)
.

There's 3 large groups here : 6 out of 10 are heirs to fortunes that were
already fortunes in the 18th century. 2 were made between the 2 world wars,
and 2 after WW2. There does seem to be a constant here too. Wealth of the
older families is declining, whereas recent fortunes seem to be increasing.

Heirs:

1\. AB Inbev families (Spoelberch, de Mévius en Vandamme) - 49,391,305,000
euros.

2\. Albert Frère (left on photo) - 6,205,140,576 euros

3\. The Emsens Family (Etex) - 3,614,510,000 euros

5\. The Lhoist-Berghmans Family (Lhoist) - 2,789,342,500 euros

6\. The Janssen Family (UCB and Solvay) - 2,458,359,000 euros

7\. The De Nul Family (Jan De Nul) - 2,078,252,000 euros

8\. Ackermans & van Haaren - 1,700,863,000 euros

9\. The Collinet Family (Carmeuse) - 1,470,600,000 euros

10\. The Balcaen Family - 1,305,811,000 euros

Made wealth:

4\. Frans Colruyt (centre) and the Colruyt Family - 3,246,369,000 euros

------
barry-cotter
> If the owners of capital assets whose worth increases over their lifetime
> hold them until death, their heirs pay zero capital gains taxes on them.
> Such “unrealized” gains now account for more than half the value of assets
> held by estates worth more than $100 million.

Those people also derived no benefit from their wealth. They invested their
wealth rather than spending any of it.

> The new work requirements haven’t reduced the number or percentage of
> Americans in poverty. They’ve just moved poor people from being unemployed
> and impoverished to being employed and impoverished.

I don't know enough about the Clinton welfare reforms to have an informed
opinion but having a job makes it a great deal easier to get another job.

> Six of today’s 10 wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes.

So 40% of the 10 wealthiest Americans made their own money? That sounds like
the mark of a dynamic economy.

There is an interesting discussion to be had about wealth, poverty, work and
the relation between them. This article is not part of it.

~~~
coldtea
> _Those people also derived no benefit from their wealth. They invested their
> wealth rather than spending any of it._

I call BS on "any of it". They spent enough -- and not that much is really
needed compared to their total wealth -- to live like kings, with several
luxury houses all across the country/globe, yachts, private jets, parties and
all.

> _I don 't know enough about the Clinton welfare reforms to have an informed
> opinion but having a job makes it a great deal easier to get another job._

It can also make it harder, as you can't go looking for a job when you're
overwhelmed working two jobs or 10+ hour shifts (as many of the "lazy" poor
do). Besides this all presumes there are jobs for that particular job market
-- else, merely looking or at best going from one crappy job to another is not
much of an improvement.

The more better of (e.g. us programmers) can take months off of work, even
start a personal project, and use our savings to get by for a while before
starting to look for a new job. The poor play job seeking in a harder mode.
Double so when they're fired from the previous one.

> _So 40% of the 10 wealthiest Americans made their own money? That sounds
> like the mark of a dynamic economy._

Does it really? Seems like it should be comparative -- if 60% done the same in
the past, then it would be sounding like the mark of an economy becoming less
dynamic...

~~~
slantaclaus
"to live like kings, homes across the globe, yachts, private jets" <\-- this
idea of what it is like to be wealthy is one reason the poor stay poor

~~~
ac29
If this is your idea of the "1%", prepare to be disappointed. It's more like
the 0.001% - a few thousand people in the US.

In California, one of the top income states in the US, the top 1% of
households grossed $500k+ [1], which is about $250k after taxes (admittedly
this is at the low end). This is nice house, nice cars, good schools for kids,
and occasional first class trips abroad money, yes, but not yachts and private
jets money.

[1] [http://www.sacbee.com/site-
services/databases/article9349178...](http://www.sacbee.com/site-
services/databases/article9349178.html)

~~~
coldtea
Who said anything of 1%? We were talking, and I quote about "estates worth
more than $100 million".

------
tomohawk
Strawmen slain and cherries picked!

For example, that bit about inheritance and the wealthy.

[http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-
millionaire.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-
millionaire.html)

------
slantaclaus
Thought provoking stuff thanks akbar...nama? Akbarnama, thanks, good stuff
keep it coming

------
jensen123
This article basically says that having a wealthy non-working elite is bad.
However, I'm not so sure. This non-working elite won't simply sit staring into
a wall all day. Aren't many of them likely to get into cultural and artistic
stuff?

Take language, for example. I think it's interesting to look at French. Seems
like the guttural r became common after the French revolution. Why would
anybody use that sound for communication? It's basically the same sound that
you make when trying to get rid of slime from your throat. I can imagine that
French used to be a really beautiful language, back in the day when France had
an aristocratic elite. Seems like the French working class has basically
ruined it. Or is this just a coincidence?

The English language in the USA has not suffered as badly. But I find it
interesting that Americans put more weight on the r sound than the British.
I've come across people who like the guttural r because they say it makes them
sound more "authoritative". I guess people who have poor self-esteem often
compensate with brand-name clothing and other status symbols. Maybe they
compensate with language, too? Other than that, a non-working elite will have
much more time to develop a refined taste, which in the case of language, is
something that everyone will benefit from (assuming everybody else ape this
elite).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttural_R#French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttural_R#French)

