> The extreme growth of the wealthiest 10% is simply outrageous by comparison
Is the bottom decile worse off because the top decile is better off? I don't think so, I think everyone is better off with Gates, Jobs, Page, Brin making tons of money. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Don't get me wrong, I want to see a world where everyone can support themselves and provide for their families. I just don't think having super rich people prevents that from happening, I think it is just the opposite. The Gates Foundation is a million times more effective than any gang of UN Bureaucrats.
Well, if you consider that the top decile is the reason why American factories close up shop and all of the bottom decile loses their jobs as a result of cost-cutting measures by the top decile to increase their own bonus package, then yes, the bottom is worse off because of the top.
There are super wealthy who actually use their wealth to make the world a better place; then there are super wealthy who use their wealth to stack the odds ever in their favor, at the expense of everyone else.
Unfortunately, it seems most of the super wealthy are part of the latter group.
Is the bottom decile worse off because the top decile is better off? I don't think so, I think everyone is better off with Gates, Jobs, Page, Brin making tons of money. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Don't get me wrong, I want to see a world where everyone can support themselves and provide for their families. I just don't think having super rich people prevents that from happening, I think it is just the opposite. The Gates Foundation is a million times more effective than any gang of UN Bureaucrats.