
After a 30-Year Run, Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Wall - peter123
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/economy/21inequality.html
======
pg
"As a result, economists and other analysts say, a 30-year period in which the
super-rich became both wealthier and more numerous may now be ending."

I'm pretty sure it isn't. The increasing power of technology is probably the
biggest force driving variation in wealth, and I don't see any signs that
technological progress is slowing.

~~~
timr
The question is: in which country? The title of this article should really be
appended with _"in the USA"_ , because the data doesn't consider foreign
wealth.

Technology will continue to make people in Asia and India incredibly rich.
Meanwhile, our markets are drowning in debt, the US middle class is shrinking,
and the regulatory system is increasingly biased toward entrenched players in
areas like intellectual property and finance and international trade. I
wouldn't be surprised if it's getting harder to make money in the US, and
easier in other places.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The "middle class" now consists of virtually the entire population. Even the
people classified as "poor" by the government now have more material goods and
services than the middle class even a short time ago (e.g., 1970).

<http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm>

If the middle class has shrank, it's because we have redefined the meaning of
the term.

~~~
mistermann
Probably the most correct comment here...but also not quite right. The middle
class in America, or to be more precise, almost everyone who hasn't gone to
great lengths of destructive excess to ensure their life is screwed up (as
opposed to actually going out of their way doing something worthwhile) has
pretty much the highest standard in the history of the world. You can buy an
awesome, huge LCD TV for $1000, DVD player for $69 ($169 if you want BluRay),
a great shirt for $10, or pair of jeans for $40, shrimp for ~$8 / kg or less
in the grocery store (who knows whats in it though), etc

And all of this is unearned...people in China, Thailand, Malaysia, etc are
working 70+ hours a week in exchange for next to nothing, enough to live on
and a bit. And here in the west, we buy the fruits of their labor for pennies
on the dollar, and all of our energy is expended on building nicer homes for
ourself, or services (massage, nails) with no lasting value. All we have to do
is push a button on a computer to print money and sent it over there, and for
some reason they keep sending us manufactured goods. It's really quite
amazing.

------
bfung
<sarcasm>I bet they reprinted this article and substituted 1999 with
2007.</sarcasm> Comparing a 30 year trend vs. a 2 year trend is a bit short
sighted, especially when there were other dips in some previous years when the
rich were on the rise.

------
trader
This article is very naive and poorly researched. Obviously there are less
people with a net worth of over 30 million now!?!?!? Hmm I wonder why?

Obviously mcdonalds workers are not invested in large corporations, so when
equities fall rich people get hit, but this doesnt mean the end of rich
people.

I guess this is why the NYT might be going bankrupt soon itself.

------
bprater
$100mm to $4mm? Ouch.

~~~
sharpn
Fair comment, but just how tangible was that $100mm valuation? McAfee anti-
virus software appears to have grown primarily through paying for pre-
installed trial version placement on new pcs - not through being a 'better
product'.

~~~
dhouston
Article said a couple years after going public he sold his remaining stake,
bringing his total gains to $100mm (presumably cash.)

~~~
dkersten
The he probably invested in banks (AIG?) and property and got recessioned down
to $4M. Or something like that, anyway.

~~~
knightinblue
If you read the article, it says he invested heavily in Lehman Brothers.

------
mhb
How does this even begin to make sense:

 _Among them is whether harder times for the rich will ultimately benefit the
middle class and the poor, given that the huge recent increase in top incomes
coincided with slow income growth for almost every other group_

~~~
nazgulnarsil
because everyone in the _fucking world_ still believes in zero-sum
mercantilism. people are only a couple hundred years behind. maybe in another
50 years the marginal revolution will finally seep into the public conscious.

the concept of everyone getting richer or everyone getting poorer is
completely alien to most people.

------
wglb
And another spectacular venture rise and fall:
<http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=35025>

------
ars
This is bad for the health care proposal because Obama wants the rich to pay
for it.

Edit: Downmods for a factually correct statement, without any comments? Wow,
healthcare is a seriously political thing.

Edit2: And even more downmods. Here's a link showing what I wrote is correct:
[http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/07/22/Obama-
Middle-...](http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/07/22/Obama-Middle-class-
will-not/1248309662.html)

~~~
timr
They're voting you down, at least in part, because you're personalizing and
over-simplifying the debate. Had you said:

 _"This is bad for the current health care proposals that are working their
way though congress, because they tend to rely on taxes on upper-income
citizens"_

you would have communicated the same point, and sounded much less like a
troll.

~~~
ars
Is that true though?

I know that Obama said it.

But I have not heard that said about the proposals.

It could be, but I have not heard that, so I can't say it.

But, thanks for at least letting me know what was wrong with the tone of my
post.

