Slashdot Mirror


Wealth Therapy Tackles Woes of the Rich

HughPickens.com writes: Jana Kasperkevic writes in The Guardian that it can be very stressful to be rich. "It's really isolating to have a lot of money. It can be scary – people's reaction to you," says Barbara Nusbaum, an expert in money psychology. "There is a fair amount of isolation if you are wealthy." According to Clay Cockrell, who provides therapy for rich, this means the rich tend to hang out with other rich Americans, not out of snobbery, but in order to be around those who understand them and their problems. One big problem is not knowing if your friends are friends with you or your money. "Someone else who is also a billionaire – they don't want anything from you! Never being able to trust your friendships with people of different means, I think that is difficult," says Cockrell. "As the gap has widened, they [the rich] have become more and more isolated." Sci-fi author John Scalzi has published an entertaining take-down of the cluelessness in this article.

62 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Why the fuss? by wooppp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the simplest solution is to donate all your wealth?

    1. Re:Why the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be easier for them to just buy a bunch of friends. Then they wouldn't need to wonder if their friends are friends with them or their money.

    2. Re:Why the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. Because he isn't wealthy and doesn't have that problem. So the questions remains: why not donate all their wealth? Problem solved. This Clay guy is just another guy making money off the rich, along with "executive coaches", etc.

    3. Re:Why the fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't it be easier for them to just buy a bunch of friends. Then they wouldn't need to wonder if their friends are friends with them or their money.

      Worked out well for Thomas Jefferson.

    4. Re:Why the fuss? by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the rich know nothing about the real stress, rich people's "stress" is just a fake situation. Not knowing if you have enough money to feed your family each day is real stress.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:Why the fuss? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      If my wealth is in non-liquid form then I'm not going to be too worried about not fitting in. I won't have the money for the big expensive house, flash car, expensive clothes, and fancy toys. People won't think I'm rich.

      As to your example, you are forgetting to account for the actions of my donations. They are going to have impacts on the economy too. Say I give most of my money to Habit for Humanity. They will take that and build a lot of houses. Some materials and work is donated but there is still a lot of purchases on items such as cement, plumbing, and electrical. These people are put to work plus supplies are bought which put other people to work. So there are positive ripples too.

    6. Re:Why the fuss? by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      True, a return to more progressive taxation would alleviate their problem --and disparity.

      "It's really isolating to have a lot of money. It can be scary – people's reaction to you ... There is a fair amount of isolation if you are wealthy"

      Less economic disparity, less fear and isolation.

  2. Awww diddums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me find the world's smallest violin for you guys.

    1. Re:Awww diddums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You couldn't afford it.

  3. Nonsense by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone else who is also a billionaire – they don't want anything from you!

    Anyone who claims that has no understanding of the psychology of the majority of billionaires. See Carly Fiorina and her 'good friend' Steve Jobs for an example. If you're a billionaire, then other billionaires are the ones that have the most of what you value and therefore the best targets. Stealing from the poor is far more effort - you need to steal from loads of them.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stealing from the poor is far more effort - you need to steal from loads of them.

      Hey, it worked for the Waltons!

    2. Re:Nonsense by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Education, public roads/highways, power system infrastructure, water systems, communications systems (yes, the government made that happen), communication standards, and so many other things that you use every day.
      I think you need to partake in a bit more of that 'education' thing, because you are sounding like a repligoon who built a business using government business loans that requires use of the government created infrastructure to function and yet claims you did everything yourself without any help from the government.

  4. Easy, make them less rich by badger.foo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most societies would be more than willing to help ease the terrible burden of an abundance of assets. Raising the taxes on high incomes and capital gains would help reverse the Reagan-era onwards trend of wealth redistribution towards the higher income and wealth segments of society. We now know that wealth did not start trickling downwards, and grownups need to step in to correct the mistakes.

    --
    -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Easy, make them less rich by Trachman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are right, wealth did not start trickling downwards, just as Obama predicted.

      Rather than salivating about raising taxes on rich, there is much easier solution. Much much easier to understand and execute. Stop collecting taxes from the poor and middle class. I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.

      Reduction of the tax burden for the little man and middle class would be felt and would appreciated much more than increase of taxes for super-rich.

    2. Re:Easy, make them less rich by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then the claim that the government should only look after the interests of the rich will become louder, there's already an element of society that claims that, because the superrich pay the bulk of taxation (because they earn the most, with taxes being related to income) that, despite the government's affects being felt by everyone, the government should only be answerable to the superrich and their interests.

      I prefer some taxation for everyone than taxation only for a tiny minority who happen to be the people hoarding all the new wealth.

      Higher taxes on the superrich also discourage absurdly high salaries, from past experience. People who own businesses are less likely to skim an extra million from their revenues if they only get $400,000 of that back after tax (assuming a 60% top tier tax rate.) Better to re-invest it in their own businesses, than increase what's ultimately a status symbol (how many plasma TVs does a man need anyway? A huge amount of the reason why wages are so high amongst the superrich is the belief that a higher salary shows greater worth.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Easy, make them less rich by khallow · · Score: 2
      Or we could just not do stupid stuff. One thing I find is that a large portion of the poor are just as greedy and short-sighted as the rich, they just aren't as competent or lucky. Creating a huge underclass for which society is just something to take stuff from, legally or otherwise, is one of the worst ideas explored in modern democracies.

      Higher taxes on the superrich also discourage absurdly high salaries

      Why would we want to do that? Pulling money out of businesses is one way wealth gets redistributed naturally.

      hoarding all the new wealth.

      Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business makes this worse. Think about what you're saying.

      This is typical of the counterproductive, envy-driven measures that people do just because someone else has more. Let's outline what's wrong with your proposals. First, you discourage the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Second, you encourage all sorts of fraud, embezzlement, bribery, and other shenanigans. Once again, rather than encouraging people to do things for society, we're encouraging them to keep and hide it where society can't get at their wealth.

    4. Re:Easy, make them less rich by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Earning more than 200k a year puts you in the 90th percentile. More then 400k is the top 1%.

      The problem is the people who earn more than a million a year pay less in total tax dollars than someone earning 400k a year.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Easy, make them less rich by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Most societies would be more than willing to help ease the terrible burden of an abundance of assets. Raising the taxes on high incomes and capital gains would help reverse the Reagan-era onwards trend of wealth redistribution towards the higher income and wealth segments of society. We now know that wealth did not start trickling downwards, and grownups need to step in to correct the mistakes.

      Raising taxes on high incomes and capital gains does nothing but take money from the rich and the middle class and give it to the government. Why would we want to do that? Isn't letting people keep the money they earned, regardless of their income level ALWAYS going to be better than taking it away and giving it to the government?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re: Easy, make them less rich by kenaaker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Let them go.

      When they leave, their economic niche will be open for someone else to occupy. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you have the economic niches filled by people who understand that they're part of a society, not parasites.

    7. Re:Easy, make them less rich by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.

      The government disagrees with you. They think anybody that actually has a job is rich. Anybody that has never had a job is poor (but not somebody that had a job and then lost it, they are still rich and not entitled to long term benefits). And with the governments current policies, it won't be long before there IS only poor and rich, and there will probably be a lot more poor when people figure out they can live a more fulfilling lifestyle by being poor than working their but off being "rich".

      Wow, you make being poor sound like a great deal. So why are you still working? Is it just personal pride? Or are things maybe not quite as extreme as you make them seem?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    8. Re:Easy, make them less rich by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      ,p>Isn't letting people keep the money they earned, regardless of their income level ALWAYS going to be better than taking it away and giving it to the government?

      No, why would you think such a thing?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    9. Re:Easy, make them less rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think "earn" means the same thing to you and the previous AC. Of course, 1M of "earned income" on a W2 form gets taxed more than 400K on a W2. But, those 1M and more incomes are often structured in other tax-advantaged ways that end up taxed as long-term capital gains.

      Even more, the rich often can defer taxes indefinitely with unrealized gains on the assets they hold. These assets are essentially the same form as what they would use to store value anyway (you don't park millions in a regular FDIC deposit account), so they have no reason to convert back and forth between cash, savings, and investments like the plebes getting W2 income. They can have this huge divergence where the assets grow and they only pay capital gains tax on the subset of realized gains they "withdraw" for living expenses in a given year.

      The increasing use of trusts and other asset-holding constructs makes this even worse, as the rich can accumulate this huge economic power, share it across generations, and defer taxes indefinitely. Through further shell games like loans using these assets as collateral, or adjustments to beneficiaries and trustees, they can transfer control or exploit the economic power of the assets even further.

    10. Re:Easy, make them less rich by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't letting people keep the money they earned, regardless of their income level ALWAYS going to be better than taking it away and giving it to the government?

      No, because this way I don't have to spend time shopping for a private army to protect me, and know I won't starve to death even if I were to lose my job.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  5. All they need to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... is hire someone to manage their wealth and disguise themselves and go live among normal people to "cure" themselves of their own self imposed exile. AKA go live like a normal person instead. Wealth is something you can leave behind at any moment, there's no law of nature saying you need to be around your own wealth. AKA think of it like going on vacation.

    People on this planet are so stupid.

    1. Re:All they need to do... by houghi · · Score: 2

      Is it not becuase they only have one moon and one sun? No wonder they are unable to share if they think there is only one of each.

      Because, they will think you can steal the one sun and even remove that one moon, but there is one thing you can't take:
      You can't take the sky from me.
      Take my love
      Take my land
      Take me where I cannot stand
      I don't care
      I'm still free
      You can't take the sky from me

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. Try being poor by Vasheron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the rich feel that being wealthy is too stressful, maybe they should try being poor instead.

    1. Re:Try being poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This attitude is precisely why rich people don't want to be around poor. The human mind is pretty strange, because even when everything seems good by pretty much any conceivable metric, you still typically have stuff you worry and need to talk about. It won't help if someone just dismisses all of it as non-issues.

    2. Re:Try being poor by Vasheron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the rich don't want to be around the poor because of their preconceived notions about the poor. I am poor because I have a disability that destroyed my career and makes it nearly impossible to hold a job. While I sometimes stress about money, I am largely happy because I don't measure my self-worth by how many possessions I have or by the amount of money I have in my bank account. Positive relationships are more important. Doing something you love is more important. If the rich have trouble forming positive relationships or doing what they love because of how much money they have, then my suggestion would be to give it away.

    3. Re:Try being poor by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      It is a non-issue. Thousands of people die every day due to not having enough money for food, medical care, etc. To go around pity trolling because you're wealthy is the worst sort of first-world problem imaginable. All the aforementioned people would have loved to hve the "stress" of being financially secure for life.

    4. Re:Try being poor by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the rich don't want to be around the poor because of their preconceived notions about the poor.

      I think that's total bullshit.

      I'm not rich (to that level) and I'm aware that my relative wealth makes my unemployed friends uncomfortable. They don't resent it, they don't think I flaunt it, they're just painfully aware that I can (and am happy to) take them to a sodding good restaurant and pay for everyone's meal.

      They don't want or like charity. They can't reciprocate. So do they refuse to dine out with me, take on an expense they can't afford, feel shit about themselves by letting me treat them or force me to compromise my own lifestyle to fit in their budget?

      These are friends so we find ways to compromise in which everybody stays happy, but even the gap between 'well paid' and 'unemployed' causes social frictions.

      Is it so hard to imagine that someone with 'never work again' levels of wealth has the same challenges even with their own friends?

      Now add in the people that have no integrity, no self-esteem, high levels of greed and no compunction about pretending to be a friend purely to enjoy a lifestyle they can't personally afford. Sure, you know your existing friends aren't like that, but what about new people you meet.

      It's easy (ish) to build positive relationships with your socio-economic peers, but there's a ton of material - fictional and otherwise - out there that explores the challenges around bridging those tiers.

  7. Even rich friends are often not your friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another problem is that if you ever lose your wealth, you tend to lose your rich friends too. Other rich people might not be your friends because of the money, but because they're essentially just networking in order to get business opportunities. When you lose your wealth you become useless to them. I've personally noticed that the only real friends you have tend to be the ones you found in college. You might find a few from high school too.

  8. Problems are problems by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, other people have their own problems. I bet you still complain when you stub your toe even though there are people with no feet.

    Giving away money isn't the solution, any more than chopping your foot off solves the foot issue. You can't buy yourself out of the feeling people are judging you.

    1. Re:Problems are problems by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up!

      This is completely true. Everyone had problems. Thing is there's always someone else in the world with worse problems. If that invalidates problems then the only person with valid problems is some North Korean with no arms and legs currently on fire and living in a barrel of radioactive waste in a prison camp.

      It is of course very hard to feel sympathy for a billionaire who's problem is that he's a billionaire. Thing is your brain one's brain doesn't care and provided one generally had enough to eat, happiness and stress are all caused by things relative to the current situation. The happiness, stress, sadness and so on are all equally real.

      Some people you hear of got a massive inheritance young and ended up wrecked by 25 living I a drug fueled haze. Honestly I do have sympathy. Many people struggle for direction in life, and not having one can be really hard. Can you be sure if you grew up a billionaire that you'd be as motivated, driven and stable as you are now? For people who don't naturally have a strong direction, the day to day need to make rent and food provides that. If those people have it stripped from them by virtue of birth, they literally never stood a chance in life.

      Anyway I know that all in abstract but it's often hard to force myself to feel sympathy for the ultra rich.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  9. Hanauer by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they're not this guy: http://www.politico.com/magazi...

    If they're not that guy, fuck 'em. If the system is making them hyper-privileged and it's wrecking their relationships and making it impossible to live as a human being, it's on THEM to change the system because the system is there to serve them.

    They're guilty for a reason. They don't need therapy, they need reform and rehab, and they are the ones in a position to change things.

    It's morally wrong to give 'em therapy and soothe their little feelings without addressing the larger problem. They're unhappy because they are BAD PEOPLE.

  10. Out of the box idea by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't drive around in Bentleys, Lambos, or those ugly as sin Mercedes SUVs. You don't need a 10,000 sq ft, 6 bedroom house when you have no kids. Live comfortably but not showy and don't advertise the fact that you are loaded and you won't have the problem of wondering whether people are only interested in your for your money because no one will realize you have money. But therein lies the problem: most of these people WANT others to know they have money.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Out of the box idea by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Don't drive around in Bentleys, Lambos, or those ugly as sin Mercedes SUVs. You don't need a 10,000 sq ft, 6 bedroom house when you have no kids. Live comfortably but not showy and don't advertise the fact that you are loaded and you won't have the problem of wondering whether people are only interested in your for your money because no one will realize you have money. But therein lies the problem: most of these people WANT others to know they have money.

      Most of the people buying those things are NOT rich. They are TEMPORARILY rich due to lottery, rap album, sports career, pop album, inheritance, but within decades if not years, they will be broke again. Living beyond your means is the new American pastime.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  11. Not too surprising by Mycroft-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is true all over. How often do posters on this site kick back and have a beer after their friends come home from their job on the lawn service crew, or as an auto mechanic? Are most of your friends in technical positions? Do most of your friends have interests that align with your own? Same sort of thing.

    People responding to this article act like they are fonts of egalitarianism when if you look at it they are probably just as judgmental (up and down, the responses being a case in point) as the purported billionaires in TFA.

    1. Re:Not too surprising by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      In all too many cases, I totally agree. Here in Portland, the whole brogrammer/hipster thing is in full-force... most of the tech types I have worked with in the past (and now) only hang out with other, similarly-successful professionals with similar tastes.

      However, this is not always the case. As evidence I present, well, my situation. I commute into the city from a small town in the foothills of the Coastal Range... I rent the place. My neighbor across the street is a single mother who works at the grocery store. Her neighbor works at the local excavation company maintaining heavy equipment. Another neighbor lives on disability and grows a frig-ton of weed in his yard (welcome to Oregon). One is retired but she babysits kids for a bit of extra dosh. Another is busy as hell trying to build up a small landscaping business so I rarely see him these days. Yet another is a postman, spending most of his income on alimony and child support. We all spend quite a bit of time hanging out on each others' porches, BS'ing around an open car hood, sharing local gossip, speculating on each others' hunting/fishing skills, etc.

      I think the only neighbor I have who is even close to my income bracket is someone I rarely see and hardly ever talk to... dude's hipster to the core, but not really an asshole. Lives too far off to hang out with easily, so I rarely see the guy.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  12. Less Money, Mo' Problems by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 2

    I remember hearing some question that was, I suppose, meant to test your character, or something. "Would you rather be poor and happy, or rich and unhappy?" I think the "correct" answer was supposed to be "poor and happy," but I beg to differ. I've been poor and happy before. I've also had more than my share of poor and unhappiness. I think I'd give "rich and unhappy" a try. And if I can't deal with that I'd give away the money until it made me happy.

  13. Slashdot, what have we become? by asylumx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow, could there be a MORE polarizing article than this? And really, it *needs* a takedown? Come on. This is like the class warfare version of race-baiting.

    Coming into money, especially quickly (e.g. winning the lottery) has been shown time and time again to leave people in a MUCH WORSE situation than they started from because they don't know the first thing about handling that much money responsibly. As far as the issue of finding people with similar problems, isn't that just part of life? My wife and I don't have kids, and that makes it really difficult to find other people/couples we can connect with. It's the same thing.

    So quit bitching about how clueless rich people are. You're just as clueless about them as they are about you.

    1. Re:Slashdot, what have we become? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > This is like the class warfare version of race-baiting.

      Class warfare *is* taking place, mind you.

      The rich are winning.

  14. Noblesse Oblige by darthsilun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sci-fi author John Scalzi has published an entertaining take-down of the cluelessness in this article.

    One thing Scalzi has missed in his screed is this:
    Noblesse oblige is a French phrase literally meaning "nobility obliges". It is the concept that nobility extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person with such status to fulfill social responsibilities, particularly in leadership roles.

    And it's one of the things that's missing from a lot of the 1%ers. This society made it possible for them to be 1%ers. They have a debt to society. And like the Lanisters – who always pay their debts – so should they.

    1. Re:Noblesse Oblige by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      And it's one of the things that's missing from a lot of the 1%ers. This society made it possible for them to be 1%ers. They have a debt to society. And like the Lanisters – who always pay their debts – so should they.

      Didn't society also give us that same opportunity, so don't we also owe that debt? Or do we pay that debt back by paying taxes, just like they do?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Noblesse Oblige by darthsilun · · Score: 2

      Taxes is one way. As 1%ers they got a lot more. Some would say they owe a lot more too.

    3. Re:Noblesse Oblige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A person born in a ghetto with one parent making 15k a year does not have the same opportunities as someone born in the Hamptons with a trust fund in the six-digits from birth. Similarly two middle-class people that just so happen to have skill sets with differing levels of economic demand do not get the same opportunities either.

      So the answer to this:

      Didn't society also give us that same opportunity

      is no.

  15. "Whatever", indeed. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "she directly makes a comparison by encouraging people to replace the word "rich" with "black" to see the problem with how she says people speak of the rich."

    Sorry, John, but if you don't "like" the implications of replacing group X with group Y in a sentence, the problem exists in your own wetware, not with the underlying premise. You don't get to discriminate against "the right" groups with impunity just because it happens to better fit your world-view. Nor does the whiteness of that cohort have any relevance to the analogy (and in fact, your mentioning it actually commits the offense you accuse Kasperkevic of) - If you describe someone as "hung like a bull", their lack of actual bull-ness simply doesn't matter in the least; not even if that person makes their living as a professional butcher.

    Kasperkevic didn't intend to literally equate the struggles of the rich with those of blacks (something you, as a professional author, should have grasped); rather, she used it as a literary device to highlight the fact that calling for lynching any group, whether black or Jewish or rich, should offend us as a violation of basic human dignity.

    1. Re:"Whatever", indeed. by pla · · Score: 2

      I feel the same sense of disgust with black that play the race card at every opportunity as I do with the rich who use their wealth to the detriment of others.It's manipulative and abusive.

      Right - And just as not all black people place the race card at every opportunity - Not all rich people use their wealth to the detriment of others.

      I in no way mean to imply that we should feel sorry for the rich - But Scalzi's rebuttal reads like the worst kind of hypocritical "You may only hate who I hate" rant.

    2. Re:"Whatever", indeed. by thewolfkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "she directly makes a comparison by encouraging people to replace the word "rich" with "black" to see the problem with how she says people speak of the rich."

      Sorry, John, but if you don't "like" the implications of replacing group X with group Y in a sentence, the problem exists in your own wetware, not with the underlying premise. You don't get to discriminate against "the right" groups with impunity just because it happens to better fit your world-view. Nor does the whiteness of that cohort have any relevance to the analogy (and in fact, your mentioning it actually commits the offense you accuse Kasperkevic of)

      Kasperkevic didn't intend to literally equate the struggles of the rich with those of blacks (something you, as a professional author, should have grasped); rather, she used it as a literary device to highlight the fact that calling for lynching any group, whether black or Jewish or rich, should offend us as a violation of basic human dignity.

      What are you talking about? discriminating against black people is NOTHING like the discrimination against the rich. First of all the rich as a group can do a whole lot more against discrimination against them then black people as a community. The rich have gotten away with MUCH MUCH more grievous harm and the black community has been punished for much less reason than the rich.

      Which isn't to say that every rich person deserves to get their hands cut off or anything but their "struggle" is nothing like a racial struggle and bringing up the struggle of a racial minority like the black community only serves to make the black struggle seem disingenuous. The point of the comparison was not about literal lynching. No one thinks it's ok to literally lynch the rich. Which is the only way such a comparison might not be wildly offensive. The comparison was about how the rich are perceived and treated which is NOTHING like how a racial minority is treated or perceived.

      --
      Just another second banana
    3. Re:"Whatever", indeed. by werepants · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. Her point is a stupid example. By her reasoning, I shouldn't say "sex offenders should all be jailed" because if I replaced "sex offenders" with "black people" in that sentence it would sound really bad. Talking about groups of people isn't a bad thing, it is difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation about society without doing it.

      This is just a weak attempt to use political correctness to defend the rich from any kind of moral culpability. Being rich isn't an affliction. It is a state that is maintained solely at the discretion of the participant: give away all your money if you are so burdened. Some people do.

  16. Re:Just look at your own lives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I earn about 80k and I used to dedicate 20% of my income and most of my weekends to running a soup kitchen in a shanty-town along with a couple other volunteers. The local narco-lord eventually moved in with assistance from political point-men, our lives were threatened both on the "legally ruin your life" and "shoot your head off" sense, and now it's a front for drug dealing. This, in the words of one of the point-men, was backed from all the way up by a ridiculously powerful and wealthy Cabinet minister who's now running for province governor. If you live in Argentina, you know who I'm talking about.

    So yeah, I am the "1%" you talk about (even though I still don't even have my own home, I do okay, but lol at calling me rich), I interacted regularly with the bottom 30% and had no problem doing so, until the top 0.001% came in and ruined everything for everyone. We were in the process of getting people jobs, getting them off drugs even. Fuck this world.

  17. Being mega-rich is a sickness in itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I understand "you can't tell if people are friends with you or just with your money," at the same time I also feel that if you are extraordinarily wealthy and you're not gladly dumping excess money to your friends, you're not a very good friend. After buying a nice house in a nice part of a city I love and putting enough away that I could have ~$100k/year in spending money, there is literally nothing else I would rather spend money on than bringing the people I love up to the same level. I know a lot of people tend to become greedy, but if that happens you talk to them and if they are more attached to the money than you, just cut them loose. You've made an important discovery and it only cost you money you didn't need anyway.

    1. Re:Being mega-rich is a sickness in itself by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      You can't do this dumping, your friends become your whores. Their basic survival becomes dependent on servicing you as soon as you 'bring them up to your level' which means they have the same budget, otherwise what are you even talking about?

      You can only throw money around like that among people who have roughly the same amount of money, otherwise the power dynamic changes radically and alarmingly. You've literally explained how you'd set people up to be completely dependent on you giving them money to be at 'your level', and then you're going to pass judgement on whether they like their new life or YOU better, and if they don't like you best, you 'cut them loose' and it's all good because it didn't cost you much that you couldn't easily spare.

      YIKES. Are you real or is this a form of troll? You're genuinely scary, and I'm awful glad I'm no friend of yours. You're soulless.

  18. Simple solution by jodido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A couple of others have referred to this idea, which I have myself suggested to individuals who were troubled by "privilege." Give away all your money, get a job at Walmart and join the fight for $15 and hour and a union. All your (previous) troubles will seem so far away, you will make new and interesting and sincere friends and you will be contributing to making a better world. What more could you ask for?

  19. Don't flaunt it, dumbasses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you go around driving a high end luxury car, Armani suits, gold Rolex watches, etc ... you're going to get attention.

    Now, if you live your life like old school humble Protestants/Jews - live in a small house, wear Timex watches, at best a Brooks Brother's suit only when you need to, drive a Toyota, etc ... you don't have to worry.

    And if you're really wealthy, biz causal and and a beat up anything. I actually met a very wealthy person and he was so low key I didn't know until I went to his place of business and one of his executives told me who he was - a guy who owned a $200 million concrete business.

    Geeze!

  20. Re:What a pile of absolute tosh by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My brother does this. He pays for meals but I find it awkward because he'll use his tip as a bludgeon. If service is bad, he'll not only refuse to tip but will sometimes refuse to ever set foot in the place again. If you're good, you might get a fifty dollar tip on a ten dollar pizza.

    I don't think he's trying to impress me, or not primarily. I think it's a Darwinian thing where he's trying to improve the breed by punishing and rewarding.

    Too bad this only underscores a sense that he is the puppetmaster managing and directing all his servants, passing judgement upon them because that's his duty. Put like that it sounds like the most extreme entitled assholery.

    I'm poor, and I'm capable of getting bad service and thinking 'oh well, guess I'd better do some kind of tip, not like I'm special and there to throw my weight around. Maybe they were just having a crap day'. I guess if I was rich I would be more likely to assume I was there to pass out punishments and rewards.

    "Rubbing it in your face" might be preferable because it implies someone posturing and doing a dominance behavior thing. This 'improving the breed' stuff, it's like dominance is already so completely assumed that the only remaining question is how you manage your slaves. And it seems to sneak into the behavior of relatively rational, non-evil people.

  21. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, its called the Republican party. Where the super rich are at the top and those at the bottom worship the rich.

  22. Re:$22,000 / year is the 1% by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Specifically, 99% of people live on less than $22,000 per year. So if your incom is higher than $22,000, you are the 1%. Whatever you say of "the 1%" you are saying of yourself.

    Maybe if you're talking about "in the entire world", but the reference of "the 1%" usually refers to just in the US. It can refer to just in another country as well, usually modified with the country name like "the 1% of Canada", but I've never heard of it referring to the entire world's population without specifically mentioning the world.

    If we limit our discussion to just the US, then the Census Bureau says that "The top 5 percent had incomes of $206,568 or more." Obviously, the top 1% would earn more than this. (For the record, 22K puts you in the 2nd lowest quintile - nowhere near the top 1%.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  23. fff by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stated problem: People don't like me because I'm rich
    Actual problem: I choose to be a complete asshole and fuck people over to become disgustingly rich.
    Rich people therapist: Will say absolutely anything to make disgustingly rich person feel better about themselves so long as they get paid

    Solutions:
      - take away the tax dodges that let the super-rich get or stay super-rich
      - raise taxes on those same super-rich and lower the tax burden on the middle class

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  24. the shoe's on the other foot now, bitches! by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    If they don't like people always asking them for money, why don't they just get rid of their money? That's what I did.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. stop the handouts to the rich by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many dogs, if given unlimited food, will eat themselves to death. Yes, really. These dogs have no restraint and will consume food until their stomachs cannot physically hold any more. The stomach may rupture, and if not treated quickly, that is fatal.

    I think of most of the super rich as suffering from the same sort of problem, only with money instead of food. They will earn, steal, and horde wealth beyond all sense. Even if it causes great harm to many others, damages society, they can't stop themselves. An example is wage theft. We have many people working in the restaurant business, for extremely low pay. But it seems the low pay isn't low enough to suit some owners, who bully their workers into working a few extra hours off the clock, delay paychecks, miscalculate the pay in their favor, and other tricks. It might be somewhat understandable if the franchises were struggling, but often they are doing very well indeed, don't really need more money. Nor is the owner hurting for money. Why then do they do it? They don't have good reason. Reasons of the "trickle down" variety are wrong. It simply is not possible for one person to use vast wealth efficiently. They can blow thousands on luxury conveniences that save a few minutes here and there, but it is not good value.

    Meanwhile, the cheated workers must spend even more time struggling to get by on extremely limited means. The old expression "time is money" is so true for the poor. A lot of expense can be eliminated by burning more time. Dishwasher broken? Wash dishes by hand! Water cut off? Lug your laundry to a laundromat, use paper plates and plastic spoons, and as for showers, well, can rent a cheap motel room or visit the Y, but not every day. Instead, keep the deodorants and perfumes handy, and wear a cap to hide your hair. Toilets can be flushed with buckets of rainwater. Car repossessed? Take public transport, or bike or walk. The poor are forced to work around all kinds of things that the middle class take for granted, and ingenious and actually better and healthier though some of the workarounds are, it all takes time. What might they be able to accomplish if they didn't have to spend so much time scrapping and scrounging for every penny?

    We should keep constant watch on the rich, and rein them in. Instead, we practically worship them. That's not good for anyone. People think the rich are really special, leaders and doers who've been rewarded with great wealth for their hard work, think it's all merited. Think they're John Galt. Some are, no doubt. However, when such status is given to someone who doesn't merit it, the result is almost always bad. That's where we as a society have fallen down. We let these undeserving rich get away with murder. In all the fraud and cheating that resulted in the Great Recession, only Madoff ended up in prison. This Angelo Mozilo should have gone to jail, instead he was only banned from ever running a company again, and allowed to keep much of the wealth he had stolen, and live on in freedom. Sure, he was fined a record amount, a fact they like to play up to try to show how tough they are on rich criminals, but it didn't reduce him to poverty, far from it. Since then, a few more perps have been put away, but it took years to do it. Meanwhile, little people are routinely dragged through the mud over petty debts. Some consequences would be okay if the big people faced the same consequences, but they don't.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  26. Wah not 1% of Orange County. No true scotsman by raymorris · · Score: 2

    I could give you the number for people in the United States and you'd exclude yourself because you're not the top 1% of Orange County. If you are richer than 99% of people, then yeah, you're rich. Deal with it. Somebody else is even richer? Cry me a river.

  27. Rich Implies Greed by JimSadler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you are rich. You got there either because you were a greedy little piglet or a parent left you a pile of money. And being a wealth addict you know you want more. So where is the best place to get a big pile of money to add to your stash. Mining the poor and wretched is too slow. You just have to manipulate way too many poor people to steal one penny at a time. But hanging out with rich people gets your leads as to where big money might be had. And if you need an investor only a rich guy is any good to you at all. One way to think about it is Donald trump. He is a living proof that a man can be a liar and an idiot and still have a pile of wealth. The wealthy are not smarter or more able they are simply greed bags with feet.