<story><title>The &apos;Glass Floor&apos; Is Keeping America&apos;s Richest Idiots at the Top</title><url>https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/the-glass-floor-is-keeping-americas-richest-idiots-at-the-top_n_5d9fb1c9e4b06ddfc516e076?ri18</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>FussyZeus</author><text>&amp;gt; The point is, 1944 - 1991 is a HIGHLY unusual economic state&lt;p&gt;This part I agree with.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; and it&amp;#x27;s not reasonable to expect that the mobility that existed then should still exist today.&lt;p&gt;This part I absolutely do not. Perhaps the social mobility wouldn&amp;#x27;t be exactly the same, but surely we can do better than the current state of affairs? I wonder how many people could be elevated to comfortable middle class status with all the money hoarded so Jeff Bezos can have over 20 different extravagant homes?&lt;p&gt;And that&amp;#x27;s to say nothing for the cost of college going through the roof while conferring even less benefit to people&amp;#x27;s careers, stagnant wages, ever-rising taxes on the 99% since the IRS finds it difficult to audit the wealthy...</text></item><item><author>swalsh</author><text>&amp;gt; America has a social mobility problem. Children born in 1940 had a 90% chance of earning more than their parents. For children born in 1984, the odds were 50-50.&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s not unimportant to remember that Americas economic position in the world was dramatically different then.  With the end of WWII, we had the Brenton Woods system, and the Marshall Plan.  Those 2 systems drove economic growth, and placed America in the center of it.  It was an unprecentented period of economic development worldwide, but especially so for America.  The tech boom drove quite a bit of growth too, but it was narrower, and not in the same level of magnitude.&lt;p&gt;The point is, 1944 - 1991 is a HIGHLY unusual economic state, and it&amp;#x27;s not reasonable to expect that the mobility that existed then should still exist today.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tachyonbeam</author><text>&amp;gt; how many people could be elevated to comfortable middle class status with all the money hoarded so Jeff Bezos can have over 20 different extravagant homes?&lt;p&gt;More fundamentally: money is created through debt. Central banks print money to increase the money supply. This money is being used to buy assets to float up the stock and real estate markets. In other words, central banks are a form or corporate welfare for the rich. It doesn&amp;#x27;t have to be this way. We could print money and use it to build housing for those who can&amp;#x27;t afford it. That would also stimulate the economy. The problem is that we think of real estate as an investment, when housing is actually a fundamental need.</text></comment>
<story><title>The &apos;Glass Floor&apos; Is Keeping America&apos;s Richest Idiots at the Top</title><url>https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/the-glass-floor-is-keeping-americas-richest-idiots-at-the-top_n_5d9fb1c9e4b06ddfc516e076?ri18</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>FussyZeus</author><text>&amp;gt; The point is, 1944 - 1991 is a HIGHLY unusual economic state&lt;p&gt;This part I agree with.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; and it&amp;#x27;s not reasonable to expect that the mobility that existed then should still exist today.&lt;p&gt;This part I absolutely do not. Perhaps the social mobility wouldn&amp;#x27;t be exactly the same, but surely we can do better than the current state of affairs? I wonder how many people could be elevated to comfortable middle class status with all the money hoarded so Jeff Bezos can have over 20 different extravagant homes?&lt;p&gt;And that&amp;#x27;s to say nothing for the cost of college going through the roof while conferring even less benefit to people&amp;#x27;s careers, stagnant wages, ever-rising taxes on the 99% since the IRS finds it difficult to audit the wealthy...</text></item><item><author>swalsh</author><text>&amp;gt; America has a social mobility problem. Children born in 1940 had a 90% chance of earning more than their parents. For children born in 1984, the odds were 50-50.&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s not unimportant to remember that Americas economic position in the world was dramatically different then.  With the end of WWII, we had the Brenton Woods system, and the Marshall Plan.  Those 2 systems drove economic growth, and placed America in the center of it.  It was an unprecentented period of economic development worldwide, but especially so for America.  The tech boom drove quite a bit of growth too, but it was narrower, and not in the same level of magnitude.&lt;p&gt;The point is, 1944 - 1991 is a HIGHLY unusual economic state, and it&amp;#x27;s not reasonable to expect that the mobility that existed then should still exist today.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>swalsh</author><text>&amp;gt; I wonder how many people could be elevated to comfortable middle class status with all the money hoarded so Jeff Bezos can have over 20 different extravagant homes&lt;p&gt;I think this is ultimately the crux of the issue.  Without rapid economic growth, the only way to make society rapidly more &amp;quot;fair&amp;quot; is to focus on redistribution.  I&amp;#x27;m actually not completely against the idea either.  I can think of a number of institutions, like education, healthcare, and childcare (pre-k) that make a whole bunch of sense to make more &amp;quot;equitable&amp;quot;.  But I do believe we need to have a level sense about what is reasonable to expect.  It&amp;#x27;s not ever going to be close to the levels we had in the second half of the twentieth century.  If we go at it too aggressively, we&amp;#x27;re risking a lot.</text></comment>