Who are the top 1% income earners in the US

[opebo]

Wealth comes mostly from two sources in Western countries - either being very good at something people are willing to pay for or by working hard at becoming wealthy.

What utter nonsense.  They don't work hard, Gustaf - they are privileged.

Virtually all wealthy people inherited, if not the precise wealth that they currently have, at least the position which enabled them to exact this wealth from the workers.

[opebo]

Bill Gates and Paul Allen are smart, no doubt. But one shouldn't neglect the fact that they went to a wealthy, exclusive private school that had a computer. How many schools that weren't universities had a computer at the time? Not very many. They had a pretty big advantage that shouldn't be ignored.

To call position within a power heirarchy a mere 'advantage' is really to understate its importance.  It suggests other possible outcomes than continuity of privilege.

[opebo]

So, let me get it straight: there is no social mobility in this capitalist world of ours, everyone born rich and privileged is going to stay rich, everyone born poor is going to stay poor  (professional athletes exempted - they are, clearly, strange). Every rich guy of today is a grandson of a rich guy of yesteryear. Do I get your point right?

No, you don't, ag.  Your attempt at argumentation is ridiculous - rather like saying that if anyone ever escapes, kidnapping should not be a crime.  (or rape, perhaps more apropos)

[opebo]

I haven't even attempted to argue I am simply trying to figure out what is it that you argue. You know, that's not really easy to get )

It is absolutely standard left-wing stuff, ag.  No innovation here.

[opebo]

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "standard left-wing stuff". You might have something in mind, but, to the best of my knowledge you are asking me to guess, whether flying crocodiles are red or blue in color )

I'm not going to attempt to rectify your ignorance - try google.

[opebo]

You're very testy all of a sudden?

Oh, come on, its ag.

But as Al and Lewis point out, these are 'bad' people, and 'robbers'.  I don't care for any objective definition of morality, but it is accurate for the 99% to understand the 1% as their enemies who are robbing them.

[opebo]

But as Al and Lewis point out, these are 'bad' people, and 'robbers'.  I don't care for any objective definition of morality, but it is accurate for the 99% to understand the 1% as their enemies who are robbing them.

I think it wouldn't be hard for me to define the notion of morality, under which it would be very clear to the 99% of the world's population that you are exactly in that 1% of the enemy population that is robbing them.  I am sure it would be particularly easy to do in Thailand )

Your post is extraordinarly poorly written and also irrelevant (Argumentum Ad-hominem).  Who I am makes no difference to my point.

[opebo]

Well, Al, you seem to have a different definition of rich than I. True, the top 1% may be more likely to have done morally questionable things to get their wealth (though I disagree that a majority do so). On the other hand, would you honestly argue that most of the top 10% gained their wealth through immoral behavior?

Of course, by definition.  Now, I don't believe in objective moralty, but the only way to gain wealth is through having power over other people (exploiting them), so your wealth is their harm.  I wouldn't call that objectly bad, just a reason everyone below you in the social heirarchy should hate you.

[opebo]

But then I'm a puritanical lefty with a stronger belief in sin than I care to admit, so I would think that, wouldn't I?

There's really no need to bring 'sin' into it, given opposing interests.

[opebo]

Oh, and when it comes to doing things differently...the topic I originally came in to discuss was what makes people rich. As in what makes them different. It was contended that the only difference between average income-earners and rich people was that the latter really loved money. Were greedy to use a less euphemistic word. You and Lewis then seemed to elaborate on this definition to define them as bad people. So, the difference between rich people and non-rich people is that that former are bad while the rest of us are regular humans.

This, as I said, strikes me as prejudiced class-hatred, to be completely frank.

No, it isn't prejudice, Gustaf, it is recognition of what makes the rich different - they are rich because others are poor.  In other words they are using the rest through their power.  It doesn't matter if they are 'greedy' or have any other personal character flaws, or are by contrast personally very sweet.  The fact remains that they are the beneficiaries of a social organization which holds the non-rich in a state of servitude.  Thus, the top 1% is the enemy of the bottom 99%.