I think there's something to that, although I also think that people seem to have pretty strong reactions to the visible rich as well. Yes, most of the income growth has gone to the richest of the rich, but there's still all of those people in the 80th through 94th percentiles who did fairly well for themselves these last few years and are not afraid to flaunt it. However, you generally only see them in close proximity to the underclass in very limited venues -- major sporting events, downtown entertainment districts, etc. And, unsurprisingly, you see a hell of a lot of cops in those venues too.
Most of the top 5% haven't been getting any richer either. It's really the top 0.1%.
Further to 2, even if folks in the top 5% have been getting wealthier, much of that wealth is paper/illiquid (and thus not really flauntable). If your house went up 200% in value, along with everyone else's house in your neighborhood, you neither look nor feel wealthier. It's only when you compare across regions, and your 900k house in Bethesda (which would sell for 350k in a similar socio-economic neighborhood in San Antonio) makes you look wealthy. And, this week notwithstanding, having a 401k for 10 years and an income in the top 5% over that period means you have some wealth, but if you're 40 it's not available to you.
100% in value better fits a 40 year old.
It hasn't been the same since Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous went off the air.
Paul Fussel's _Class_ adresses this. It's a bit dated; it was written before the whole tech boom thing.
One of his classes is one he calls The Out Of Sight Rich.
80% was, in 2009, around $55,000 per year.
7: If it doesn't have Robin Leach in it, its not worth watching.
The really super-rich tend to live in exclusive enclaves, right? Places like the Hamptons, the Vineyard, Malibu, villas in Italy or on the Riviera, gated fortresses on various Caribbean islands or in South America, et cetera. Presumably they live that way so as not to be exposed to the attention (or resentment) of the rest of the populace. The remaining moderately rich and the capite censi tend to be zoned away from each other by real estate practices in many places -- although (to cite the Canadian examples) this is noticeably less the case in places like, say, Toronto than it is on the urban prairie.
But the superrich have not become better at hiding themselves, just the reverse. They've become extremely careless about hiding themselves. They've gone into careers in reality television, flaunted their excesses proudly and outrageously in the media, vented their Marie Antoinette-esque attitudes toward the poor at almost every opportunity, and generally acted like they're daring everyone else to start hanging them from lamp-posts.
I see super rich people all the time, but am perhaps not representative of the populace as a whole.
11: Oh, me too. One time I was at the gas station? And I saw this guy reach for his wallet and he had, like, three twenties in it. All at the same time. I was like, "Whoa."
Some of my best friends are poor.
The link in 8 is a little strange in starting at age 15, where a big chunk of the population will have negligible income. I'm not sure how it works at all, as there's no definition of the sample included. But such charts are usually restricted to adults, which would presumably bump the median appreciably.
It hasn't been the same since Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous went off the air.
However, an electronic billboard-alike near the IKEA in East Palo Alto, visible from 101, has informed me, as it has no doubt informed many, that there exists a magazine named Gentry (apparently they can't afford DNS).
16. Proof, if it were needed, that money can't buy taste. But from a quick glance I think the thing might be better titled 'Wannabe'.
Oh, I guess there is the domain name gentrymagazine.com. But pointing one's browser at that domain causes the above-linked IP to appear in one's browser (in fact requesting gentrymagazine.com with Firefox's web console visible reveals that it does a GET http://199.238.131.10/ rather than a GET http://gentrymagazine.com/). However, a dns lookup for gentrymagazine.com points one at the IP 173.247.249.205, the web page for which is underwhelming.
15 -- Right, and maybe this puts the 80% mark just out of reach of police officers and school teachers.
19: Not here it doesn't. They need to have some years on the job, but they get that.
I see super rich people all the time, but am perhaps not representative of the populace as a whole.
This also applies to the massive groundswell of support for draconian copyright law enforcement you may have inferred from the people you see.
I wonder if it isn't too late to be a police officer. It isn't quite running away to the circus, but it's pretty close.
And, it comes with health insurance. I don't think the circus has that.
20 -- In 15, Chris Y was suggesting that a "true" 80% mark is somewhere north of 55k. In 19, I meant to suggest that this may be so, but we're still talking about more or less incomes of ordinary working adults with decent jobs, in middle age, not super rich flaunting types.
Hey, if you aren't healthy and fit enough to pound nails into your sinuses you're no use to the freak show. They'll take care of you.
MH, right, except for the part about people pointing guns at you. And firing from time to time.
And, it comes with health insurance. I don't think the circus has that.
What's the co-pay on lion mauling surgery?
But the superrich have not become better at hiding themselves, just the reverse. They've become extremely careless about hiding themselves. They've gone into careers in reality television, flaunted their excesses proudly and outrageously in the media,
I don't think seeing rich people on TV counts whatsoever towards sowing discontent. People on TV aren't real the way the parents you see at your kid's high school event are real.
People don't see the superrich at their kid's high school event. The superrich don't regard your kid's high school as a real school.
I don't think that undermines my point.
26: If you factor in excess mortality from eating carny food, police work is probably safer than than the circus.
I don't think I've overused "I don't think".
Charley's point seems right to me. Our dual income, which is now at its lifetime maximum, converts to $120k, i.e. $60k each. This is probably worth more in America if you skip on medical insurance etc., but here it gets us a three bedroom row house in a solidly middle class, multiracial neighbourhood with a tiny yard, eating out when we need to without worrying and a couple of holidays away per year. We have a Ford Focus.
We are globally plutocrats, but locally nobody's idea of superrich.
Thinking about it, I'm not sure what the point is in the OP about San Antonio. SA has some incredibly rich oil money folks, fancy estate homes, shopping areas, etc. I really don't think the disparity there is substantially less than in, say, LA, which is one of the places you seem to be thinking about.
Thoughts on topic
I can't link, but I read last week the 50% of all discretionary consumption is by the top 5% of the population.
Dollar stores are finally sales are finally crashing, an effect of long term unemployment. Wal-Mart is almost dependent on gov't checks to its customers.
So, just as a premise, I might say you can measure in a given society how rich the rich are by looking at how poor the poor are, or at the bottom quintiles. In case you can't find those hidden rich folk.
One current book I'm reading is about the pre-WWII Japanese nobility, based mostly on interviews. Because of the shogunate, the kuge, or court nobility, remained relatively poor for centuries. But they had servants. The point was made very strongly that even if they had a title, even if they had great wealth, they themselves felt they had no real status unless there was someone to call them "Mistress" The more servants, vassals, lesser nobles, even heirarchical family structures, the more status they internally enjoyed. They sacrificed luxury and comfort to get servants.
Our future.
The petite bourgeois wants overstuffed chairs and starving artists. The rich know there is no greater joy than owning someone grateful to you for letting them wipe your ass.
They'll take a smaller pie to make us slaves.
I think we're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not saying that $55K a year (which is income of course, not wealth) is a king's ransom. I am saying that if you walk down Hennepin Avenue on a Saturday night, you see a bunch of people in the bottom 2 quintiles, who've seen really crummy income growth, and people in the top quintile, who've seen relatively decent income growth. Plus, Engels' law and all that: $55K a year means a lot more disposable income, all other things being equal, than $22K a year. So there is the potential for flaunting there.
So, the people who really do have Scrooge McDuck-style money, yeah, you're rarely going to see them doing normal people things in a major metro, with the exception of some world cities like NY, LA, London, Paris, etc. But you are going to see a lot of the common or garden bourgeoisie, and I think that is driving some rage. But people who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and are angry about it rarely descend on wealthy people's homes with molotovs and Class War! signs (if only). Rather, they're more likely to hurt each other, or someone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This goes to my maxim that criminals should start thinking more like anarchists and vice versa.
Okay, off to anarchist meetings.
I know this comes in part from too much time on the internet, where you can't swing a dead virtual cat without hitting a libertarian, but I'm deeply depressed by the shear numbers of enthusiastic bootlickers our country seems to produce these days.
It's understandable the someone might settle for a career of fawning flattery if it gets them a decent living, but plenty of people seem to get such a thrill out of toadying for the rich that they'll happily do it for free.
||
This seems to be the only live thread or I'd look for a more appropriate one, but the idea of Alec Baldwin running for Mayor of New York seems like the sort of superrich disconnect from reality that allows the rest of us wiggle room. Like, which party, if any?
NYC!=l'Hameau de la Reine.
|>
39: I believe, although I'd have to do some googling to be sure, that he's fairly reliably and sensibly leftish Democrat. Offhand, as celebrities go, I don't think he'd be the worst possibility for politics.
A more usual definition of income distribution (rather than what's in 9) is per household. There 80% starts at 88K, and the top 5% starts at 157K. The top 1% isn't even on that list, but poking around on the internet suggests it's 350-380K. I can't find the top .1% because stupid google won't allow decimal points in searches.
It's understandable the someone might settle for a career of fawning flattery if it gets them a decent living, but plenty of people seem to get such a thrill out of toadying for the rich that they'll happily do it for free.
This! Early modern courtiers were often hideously poor by some criteria. They ate well, because the king fed them. They had extensive rents which brought them incomes beyond dreams of avarice. But they spent far more than they had on ostentation to impress people who tolerated their presence only for the impression it gave of having a large following.
Real power? Monopolised by a small group of intelligent careerists who despised the crowd of richly dressed clowns jamming up the palace corridors, and who told them nothing of what was going down.
Are we going to have to learn these lessons all over again?
I found a nytimes article with some data about the top tenth and hundreth of a percent. But it's presented in stupid innumerate ways, so I can't figure out what it's saying. (Is that average a mean or a median?)
40, 42. Pleased to hear it. I'd be even more pleased if he threw his weight and chequebook behind some lefty with a bit of political experience instead of going to college to learn how to do politics and then running himself.
Even setting aside mean vs. median "The average salary of the the top tenth of a percentile of households" is such a stupid stupid number. If it's a median then it's just the .05 percentile (since by definition half of the top .1 percent are making less than that), and if it's a mean then it's utterly useless information unless you have some knowledge about the distribution. That could just mean there's one person making a truly obscene amount of money.
but the idea of Alec Baldwin running for Mayor of New York seems like the sort of superrich disconnect from reality that allows the rest of us wiggle room
His notion of the Upper West Side as a "middle class" enclave is certainly quite disconnected from reality.
My impression of NYC: in recent years, the new money has become increasingly visible (and even downright aggressive in its conspicuous consumption and lavish display), but the old money still knows how to hide itself.
43:Are we going to have to learn these lessons all over again?
Not sure learning has much to do with it.
Here's an out-of-the-box question, one of the things I'm trying to learn from Japan. We all know how to create an equitable society, Keynes etc.
Meiji Japan rich would hire a girl at the birth of a child, and she would sleep on the floor next to the kid's bed for twenty fucking years. Parents never worried a second about slashing the precious throat. She was trustworthy.
So. How does one create a dependable servant class? One that accepts their place?
May take several generations of economic despair, but that may not be enough. Of course, the idea of revolution and violence will have to be thoroughly eradicated.
Eureka! In 2006 the top .1% started at 1.6 million.
||
Anybody having to deal with Islamophobia in their lives can have this for free. I want to cry.
|>
How does one create a dependable servant class? One that accepts their place?
You don't. You can't. There never was one. If you discount P.G.Wodehouse pretty much every writer in English who has written about servants since the language emerged has treated them either as subversive, unreliable or, if writing from the servants' PoV has simply regarded it as a job to be scammed like any other.
The dependable servant class waited on King Arthur and the Round Table.
50: 2002, actually, following the Wikipedia cite.
There's an easy reason you don't see that many signs of the top 0.1%: there aren't that many of them. Per wikipedia, there is only one town in the whole country with an average income that's even particularly close to the top 1% household income cutoff of $250k. Every single member of the top 0.1% could have a gold-plated rolls royce that they drove around every day and you could still easily go a year without seeing one. And, of course, most extremely rich people don't live that way. They have several really nice houses (or condos) in nice (expensive) places, they might have a hobby like collecting crazy supercars (but of course, they can only drive one at a time), they always fly first class or private, and they take elaborate vacations in ridiculous places all the time. None of those things is particularly evident as a sign of super-wealth to the naive observer.
I went to high school with the son of a hedge fund guy who I'm pretty sure was a paper billionaire at the time, if he's not now, and I had no idea. Sure, his son felt very free to take ski vacations, and they lived in the nice part of town, but you know, the son went to public school. Unless people are trying really hard to be explicitly ostentatious, the existence of incredibly high-income people among us is mostly going to be evident in statistics and aggregate impressions.
The dependable servant class waited on King Arthur and the Round Table.
You're getting closer.
1) Grinding poverty for generations check
2) Reduced educational opportunities check
3) Ineffectual political possibilities, aestheticized politics check
4) drastically reduced mobility in all classes check
5) fiercely enforced and finely tuned hierarchy (look above at people trying to define "rich")
6) Militarized society, police state check
there is more
But we need a goddam religion, to make the above "just" How does post-modernism and identity politics fit into the coming neo-feudalism?
29: I don't think seeing rich people on TV counts whatsoever towards sowing discontent.
I think you're wrong. The rich people on TV count for a great many people as more real than the people they see at their kid's high school event. There is an entire subset of the media built around this fact and a whole class of vermin media specialists called "paparazzi" who live off it.
This apparatus didn't count toward sowing discontent as long as the illusion was preserved that the existence of the superrich was not going to impoverish everyone else, and in fact that you too could be superrich one day. So long as that illusion was in place, the superrich lifestyle could be advertised with socially stabilizing effect. Once that illusion fades -- and it's fast fading now -- the dynamics are quite different.
There's an easy reason you don't see that many signs of the top 0.1%: there aren't that many of them.
Concur. I have encountered a decent number of rich and/or well-known people on the leveling streets of Gotham, but only one billionaire, and that in a city with a billionaire mayor.
Statistically, I think you'd have better odds if you were wandering the streets of Omaha.
I've only seen one billionaire and that was in a mall, not in Omaha.
I have no idea if I've ever seen a free-range billionaire on the hoof. Maybe we should make them wear scarlet Bs. Or maybe they should have to tattoo their net worth on their forearms.
It wasn't even one of the cool billionaires, just Ron Perelman. He had six or seven massive, alert bodyguards, which seemed excessive, considering that I was the only other human being on that block of Madison Avenue at the time.
I've been to a party with at least one billionaire (there might have been a second one there, but I didn't see him). I know more multi-millionaires than I can count off the top of my head, though.
I saw the billionaire who invented cleavage.
57: as long as the illusion was preserved that the existence of the superrich was not going to impoverish everyone else, and in fact that you too could be superrich one day. So long as that illusion was in place, the superrich lifestyle could be advertised with socially stabilizing effect. Once that illusion fades -- and it's fast fading now -- the dynamics are quite different.
I can't say that I agree that that illusion is fading fast. Look at how many people actually in, or just observing, say, Wisconsin liked to join what we've called the race to the bottom, according to which, hey, "I don't have a pension or a decent health insurance plan, so why should they?"
37.2 gets it right.
But people who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and are angry about it rarely descend on wealthy people's homes with molotovs and Class War! signs (if only). Rather, they're more likely to hurt each other, or someone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The idea that there might be structural barriers in place to keep people in their socioeconomic places continues to elude the greater part of the public, it seems to me. It's considered virtually heretical to believe that, much less act on it, and has been for quite a while. I don't think we've made a hell of a lot of headway there.
Sorry for all the italics; and I'm not exactly managing to say anything new. I'm really tired.
Billionaires don't waste time apologizing over typeface choices.
65: I can't say that I agree that that illusion is fading fast. Look at how many people actually in, or just observing, say, Wisconsin liked to join what we've called the race to the bottom
On the other hand, look how many traditionally non-protesting and anti-progressive people went the other way, in numbers unthinkable since the salad days of Jimmy Hoffa. (They're inchoate and disorganized compared to well-funded fake populist movements like the Tea Party, of course, but they're out there. And in growing numbers.)
67: True.
68: Here's hoping. Are you getting the idea that they're out there in growing numbers from anywhere in particular? Or just from Wisconsin?
I've begun to take the kinds of media I tend to consume with a big grain of salt, actually. And! Aren't you the one who thinks that Rick Perry will be viewed as the bee's knees? That is, as the most awesomest thing evar? I grasp that a Rick Perry-style campaign isn't exactly the same thing as the American public agreeing that progressive political stances are like unto communism, but, um, actually, it kind of is. So I don't get it.
If you're just feeling a glimmer of hope after all, that's cool.
69.2: Nope, just from Wisconsin. Nowhere else. It's a little known fact that Michael Moore's entire audience comes from Wisconsin, for instance.
69.3: Yes, I'm the one who thinks Rick Perry is a serious candidate who shouldn't be underestimated -- the only serious Republican contender, in fact, and far more serious than people desperately trying to dismiss him seem to want to acknowledge -- and no, that's not incompatible with thinking that there are other currents happening in American society as well. The US is after all a very large country of three hundred million people.
How much is Giuliani worth? I've seen him twice: once at John's Pizzeria, and once at a movie theatre.
It was in the City Center Mall, which I understand its no longer a going place.
71: I didn't intend to make you mad. I'm really freaking tired. But sweetheart, Michael Moore has been around for a while now. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of USians have never heard of him.
Re: Rick Perry, I just don't know. I wouldn't be fussing about him if I didn't take him as a threat. It's just that he himself doesn't constitute the threat: it's the fact that he has potentially so many supporters that concerns me. This isn't news! You've been pointing it out for a while, and you're not alone.
Yes, though. I'm encouraged by the nascent fighting-back we're seeing here and there.
My general view is that there's a limited amount of fighting-back that people can do when they've been systematically impoverished and turned against one another. I can barely stave off hatred toward our overlords for this systematic disempowerment myself.
76: I was just about to apologize for being snotty. I'm not mad, just being a bit of a snarkypants is all.
I doubt 90% of USians have never heard of Michael Moore, even if many of them will only have heard his name spoken in tones of ringing hatred as a bugbear of the right. Not that he's a sole metric of progressiveness or anything. But with the Republicans pushing a 60% disapproval rating at this point, there are certain signs of the worm turning.
What disheartens me is the Democrats, to be honest. In a country where the voters had an actual alternative, a party that was actually willing to be genuinely populist, I have a feeling the Republicans would have self-immolated long ago. But the Dems aren't that party and may never be able to become it. Sure, the Republicans are pushing 60% disapproval, but the Dems are right behind them at close to 50%.
It's not all hopeless but it looks like things are going to have to get worse yet before they improve. One nice move toward sanity, though; out of that whole ridiculous farce of the debt ceiling, it was little-noted that about $600b of the resulting cuts were to defense. There's at least a glimmer of recognition dawning that the bloated and wasteful military complex needs paring back if anything's going to change for the better. It's a little late in the day for baby steps, but...
Okay. Baby steps is about what we've got. And I'd love to blame the Democrats for all their failures, but we do have serious problem with campaign finance, as well as the fact that global capital rules. Both Democratic and Republican parties are corporate parties, and we all know that.
But yeah, no, I'm slightly encouraged by popular discontent, at least as I hear it reported mostly in venues visited by those who are already somewhat informed. I don't just mean left-wing blogs, but CSPAN radio, which is hearing from an increasing number of callers who are really pissed off about, say, their state's Republican governor.
For this: Sure, the Republicans are pushing 60% disapproval, but the Dems are right behind them at close to 50%.
I've tended to think that's because people just want government to do things (for them), to make it all better, because we're an infantilized citizenzry. They cast about for a source of blame, and can't sort one thing from another very well.
I've tended to think that's because people just want government to do things (for them), to make it all better, because we're an infantilized citizenzry.
Probably true, but maybe not the best line for Democrats to be taking just now? I mean, if you want Joe and Jane Sixpack to stop over-identifying (or, in other words, identifying) with the super-rich, and to start demanding sane tax policy and more equitable distribution of resources and a better safety net and etc., "infantilized citizenry" that "wants the government to do things for them" doesn't sound very promising. Sounds a bit tea-partyish, really (though I know that's not what you mean).
60% disapproval ratings and a buck fifty get you a bottle of water.
What're the disapproval rates among likely voters in races in play? It doesn't matter how pissed off people in Texas or California are: results of congressional and presidential races will be the same. In the near term, anyway. Longer term, if someone's going to build a movement, obviously it's a completely different story.
I see one actual noted billionaire on a fairly regular basis (like, see him in my office building), but am pretty sure I've never seen another. But I deal on a daily basis with plenty of people who make annually between 20x and 60x what I make.
I wonder if it isn't too late to be a police officer. It isn't quite running away to the circus, but it's pretty close.
Not too late! I was 32 when I got hired and I wasn't the oldest in the class.
55
... Every single member of the top 0.1% could have a gold-plated rolls royce that they drove around every day and you could still easily go a year without seeing one. And, of course, most extremely rich people don't live that way. ...
Huh? If .1% of the cars on the road were gold-plated rolls you would be seeing them all the time.
When I took classes in French through some horribly sub-university level French language school in France, there were some people there who were taking it as a pseudo-study holiday before going to college. They were, pretty clearly, rich, though I have no idea of the magnitude as I never really got to know them well.* All of them were European, though not all of the Europeans were super rich; the students from other parts of the world tended to be well off by most standards but not super rich.
Anyway, one of the guys had "Baron" in his name and people thought it was just part of his name. Turned out, he was in some baronial line of descent, possibly already a baron. Could have been just another rumor, but he was clearly not one of those impoverished aristocrats.
*I'd just finished college, was at about my least social, and didn't have many interests in common with pretty much anyone there. It was kind of miserable.
Also, my flatmate, from Belgium, said at some point that when he turned 18 his dad put a bunch of property into his name. Like apartment buildings and stuff. You would not have known, in casual conversation, or by looking at how he dressed or acted, that he had that kind of wealth.
The whole thing made me too conscious of wealth and class for a while afterwards, even though there was no real reason for that.
I had a similar experience when I did my study abroad; there were plenty of astronomically wealthy Brits there, of course, but the Americans at that university were also uniformly much richer than I'd ever encountered before. I had a hard time coping in some ways when I found out that the perfectly lovely and rather ordinary, generically well-off friend of a friend we'd been out with many times was an actual Rocke/feller (that was her last name, but I had just assumed she wasn't part of that family). I a) wanted to question her extensively about her great-grandfather and b) was worried I'd do something unspeakably gauche once I knew, like a.
If .1% of the cars on the road were gold-plated rolls you would be seeing them all the time.
Eh? The US of America is a big country, vast and beautiful and sometimes even sublime. You could live out your entire life in a pocket, or a state, or maybe even a region, without ever seeing .1% of something or other that is mere commonplace somewhere else in the land.
(For example, while I've certainly heard of chicken-fried steak, I have never actually witnessed that dish brought to table, even though I'd like to).
Chicken-fried steak is one of those things that sounds good, but I've ordered it a bunch of times, and the results have been consistently disappointing. Its certainly not something that should be done to an otherwise decent piece of beef.
89: Fifteen years I didn't eat red meat and all I really missed was chicken-fried steak.
I shot a man in Reno, just to watch chicken fry.
... Every single member of the top 0.1% could have a gold-plated rolls royce that they drove around every day and you could still easily go a year without seeing one. And, of course, most extremely rich people don't live that way. ...
Huh? If .1% of the cars on the road were gold-plated rolls you would be seeing them all the time.
Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 08-10-11 8:30 PM
Life isn't an lsat question.
I can barely stave off hatred toward our overlords for this systematic disempowerment myself.
Your mistake, right there, is to try to stave it off, rather than cultivate it and try to recruit three new people to hating our overlords every week.
89: So do it to a not otherwise decent piece of beef.
Although personally if I've got a piece of tough meat I'd much rather make it into a hamburger than chicken fry it.
The wikipedia article on chicken fried steak introduces me to the endearing concept of the official Oklahoma state meal. Do all states have official meals, and when are they consumed?
I believe Shearer's reasoning is that it's easy for Americans to see several hundred to several thousand cars a day, hence one-in-a-thousand cars should be seen every few days at most. But this ignores correlations: pick-up trucks have to be at least 10% of the US vehicle fleet, but are definitely not 10% of what I see in my parts of Pittsburgh.
I don't think I've particularly encountered people of great wealth while studying abroad, though I suppose Berlin isn't exactly known for being full of money. I did at some point find out that a member of my extended social circle was Rudi Dutschke's son.
96: It looks like most states don't have an official state meal, but Oklahoma has several.
96: States have official shit of all types. Maryland has jousting as an official state sport. Iowa has regret as the official state emotion.
52: Oh man, Chris, that's so sad. Those poor young men. What a waste.
97
I believe Shearer's reasoning is that it's easy for Americans to see several hundred to several thousand cars a day, hence one-in-a-thousand cars should be seen every few days at most. But this ignores correlations: pick-up trucks have to be at least 10% of the US vehicle fleet, but are definitely not 10% of what I see in my parts of Pittsburgh.
The claim in 55 was
There's an easy reason you don't see that many signs of the top 0.1%: there aren't that many of them. ...
that the rich are unnoticed because they are rare (as opposed to segregated). But .1% is not that rare.
Iowa has regret as the official state emotion.
This is too beautiful not to be true.
Yes, I'm the one who thinks Rick Perry is a serious candidate who shouldn't be underestimated -- the only serious Republican contender, in fact, and far more serious than people desperately trying to dismiss him seem to want to acknowledge
Rick Perry is definitely the only serious Republican contender.
Rich people only drive if they have short commutes. The gold Rolls heats up in the sun.
In any case: 0.1% isn't all that rare, it's true. But Hindus (for instance) make up a greater proportion of the population than people earning more than 1.6 million dollars a year, and how often do you see a hindu temple? (Leaving aside the approximately 50% of you who will now say "I pass by one every day!", because internet.)
The more important/better point in 55 was/is that even when you do encounter outrageously rich people -- even those outrageously rich people who do obviously outrageous outrageously rich people things some of them -- the chance that 1. they would be doing that thing right then, that you would also 2. be able to tell that's what it was, and subsuquently 3. correctly estimate the scale of their income is very small.
And there is, in fact clustering. But there are also really rich people (or at least places really rich people live, which is an important distinction, since they are between two and many times less likely than us proles to be in any given house at any given time) pretty widely distributed across the country.
There is a giant Hindu temple near my house and I am not going to keep quite about it on your say so.
Thinking about it, I'm not sure what the point is in the OP about San Antonio. SA has some incredibly rich oil money folks, fancy estate homes, shopping areas, etc. I really don't think the disparity there is substantially less than in, say, LA, which is one of the places you seem to be thinking about.
Halford, are you high? Exactly how much high end shopping do you think San Antonio has?
I guess it could be a small temple. I don't have much basis for comparison.
Seems about like the fancy malls in La Jolla.
La Cantera is nice, although the stores aren't as high end feeling as the stuff you can find in Austin. Surely you're not making the case that since they have one ritzy mall, they have similar wealth disparity to LA?
Your Louis Vuitton needs are taken care of in San Antonio.
There is a giant Hindu temple near my house
Just shows you. I've never even seen a giant Hindu. Five foot eleven at most.
The New York Times is doing its bit to publicize absurdly wealthy twits. I defy you to read this* and not immediately go out an burn some shit down.
Rick Perry is definitely the only serious Republican contender.
People are way too quick to write off Mitt Romney, who is still polling better than Perry in head-to-head matchups with Obama.
*Really, don't read it. It's Thomas Friedman.
Oh, I didn't realize Louis Vuitton was unavailable in homogenous wastelands like LA.
110: are the rich people in San Antonio as much richer than the poor people in San Antonio as the rich people in LA are richer than the poor people in LA? Yeah, probably. Are there more rich people in LA? Yeah, almost certainly. LA is far more expensive and like seven times larger.
People are way too quick to write off Mitt Romney, who is still polling better than Perry in head-to-head matchups with Obama.
This is a primary vs general election clash, though. No way can Mitt win the primary.
Also Obama hasn't begun campaigning.
Yeah, probably. Are there more rich people in LA? Yeah, almost certainly. LA is far more expensive and like seven times larger.
What? LA is bigger? Hang on while I recrunch some numbers on my abacus, because that fancy numbers dance sure is making my head spin.
Maybe it wasn't Hindu? Is Beth Shalom one of those many names of Vishnu?
From the link in 120:
Leading the pack from San Antonio is Charles Butt, whose grandmother Florence Butt founded H.E. Butt Grocery Co. in 1905. At 65, the CEO of H-E-B is worth $2.3 billion. He ranks 231st on the Forbes list of richest people in 2004
Probably LA isn't well represented on ranks 1-230.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing.
No way can Mitt win the primary.
Possibly, but there was no way McCain could win it last time. It's a big, divided field and Romney has deep pockets and a solid organization. Plus, Republicans have traditionally gone for the one they thought could win. Perry's base is going to get eaten into by Bachmann and the various other TP-friendly candidates. Romney really only has Huntsman and Pawlenty eating into his and they're both going backwards. I expect the nomination race to be very, very close.
125: well, I'm arguing that San Antonio has loads of rich people, as well as the places that cater to them. Less than LA, sure, but not vastly less such that you'd see major differences in the politics or built environment or whatever.
No way can Mitt win the primary.
I'd bet Romney as the most likely to win the primary. It is, in a sense, "his turn" and I think there are a good number of Republicans who do not want another Texas governor for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying I'd put even money on Romney winning, but over any other individual candidate.
(On preview, this isn't really pwned, but I'm going with it.)
Yes, arbitrarily rich people exist in San Antonio, as well as a single Louis Vitton store that caters to them. But they are few and far enough between to render them much more invisible than superrich in LA.
I'm arguing that the wealth in San Antonio is much more homogenous than the wealth in LA. I don't know where to find the standard deviation of wealth by city.
130
I'm arguing that the wealth in San Antonio is much more homogenous than the wealth in LA. ...
This seems unlikely.
But they are few and far enough between to render them much more invisible than superrich in LA.
I really don't get what would make you say this. Where in LA are the super-rich visible? Rodeo Drive? That's mostly for (often rich) tourists and idiot movie stars.
Maybe the difference is that in LA rich people are more likely than elsewhere to also be famous, and thus the places the famous rich people go are likely to be tourist attractions and thus known?
75: Yes, City Center Mall was torn down, and all that is left of it is the parking garage. This still blows my mind, because it opened shortly after I first moved to Columbus, and they made such a fuss about it.
This seems unlikely.
Really, you expect the standard deviation to be constant across the country? Why on earth would that be?
A little googling gives this top ten list of cities ranked by gini coefficient. Guess who's 10.
I really don't get what would make you say this. Where in LA are the super-rich visible?
I have no idea. I've never been to LA. Halford picked it. I've been to New York many times, which is why I said "dense urban areas" in the original post.
Rich people move where other rich people are. I'm arguing that this country has uneven levels of wealth disparity.
133: It opened shortly before I moved there. I used to work on the other side of the capitol and it was a very convenient mall back before I started buying all my clothes on the internet.
114: If I had any money, I'd lay odds on it. For all the reasons ably summed up here. In particular, Romney's "Taxachusetts" baggage and his status as (from religious right perspectives) a non-Christian cultist are infinitely worse liabilities than anything McCain -- who, be it remembered, lost a Presidential race to a previously unheard-of black(-not-that-that's-got-anything-to-do-with-it) guy named "Hussein." His apparent shot at the nomination is nothing but a mirage.
137: I used to work across the street from the capitol! The Huntington Center, to be specific. I used to eat lunch in the open area at City Center when the weather was too bad to eat outside.
A lot of the other cities on that list make me think that this wasn't exactly what you were talking about to begin with. I wouldn't call Shreveport a "dense urban area."
141: I was in the ugly state office tower.
I wouldn't call Shreveport a "dense urban area."
What if we each promised to give you a quarter if you did?
Yeah, the list doesn't mean much to me aside from proving I'm right about LA.
But maybe that list would provide evidence for or against the original idea.
Charleston, WV is number two? There's a rich person there? I guess Don Massey hasn't set up permanent residence in Dubai yet.
I knew some really rich people growing up in Montana, and some really rich people in LA, but the quality denoted by "really rich" was not the same. Really rich in Montana* was a nice house and fancy cars and expensive ski outfits. Really rich in LA was multiple mansions, servants, and more-than-annual** trips to foreign vacation destinations. I'm on Team Heebie.
*limited to the people who actually lived in Montana, so this doesn't include all the movie stars who buy ranches there and show up for a month every now and then. Which I am taking to reinforce the separation between them and the rest of us, because I never ever saw any of those people or their houses or stuff.
**is there a word that means this?
Also Obama hasn't begun campaigning.
I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but I think it's actually more accurate to say that he never stopped campaigning. In fact, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that nearly everything he does is a part of a permanent campaign to be reelected.
Also, though I'm one of the people who thinks that Perry is a serious contender in both the GOP primaries and the general election, I don't understand the argument that Romney can't be nominated or win. Sure, he's got a lot of liabilities. But so does Perry. And Romney's the front-runner, has gazillions of dollars in the bank, has more name recognition than any of the other current contenders, and, importantly, is viewed by the Republican power elite as serious and trustworthy.* Again, if I had to put money on who the eventual nominee is going to be, I'd probably choose Perry. But: a) I think that's at least in part because he scares me more, and I always assume that the Republican Party will do the scariest, most awful thing imaginable; and b) I'd nevertheless be very reluctant to make any bet at all, as it's just too soon to tell.
* It's also worth remembering that while Democrats see him as completely full of shit and a joke of a candidate, many voters, and independents especially, think that's true of every politician, and thus I suspect that they'll be more willing to forgive his craven flip-flopping on major issues as the cost of doing business. I say this based on anecdata, I'm afraid, but I'm pretty sure that my businessy friends (mostly in commercial real estate) are more representative of swing voters than anyone here at unfogged. And all of these people look at Romney and say, "Well, sure, he's full of shit, but he did a fine job as governor, a fine job running a major company, and Obama, who I voted for last time (because McCain chose Palin), is a terrible president, so maybe it's Romney's turn." That doesn't speak to the GOP primaries, I know, but like I said, I agree with apo: that race is going to be very volatile.
State-wide Texas beats California handily.
*limited to the people who actually lived in Montana, so this doesn't include all the movie stars who buy ranches there and show up for a month every now and then
I think this is a hard distinction to make, though, especially with this:
Really rich in LA was multiple mansions, servants, and more-than-annual** trips to foreign vacation destinations,
(Ignoring the "foreign" in "vacation destinations" for a sec)
What with the way truly extraordinary levels of income work, the people buying the ranches in Montana and the people with multiple mansions in LA and the people with fifth Avenue co-ops in New York are often the same people. Unless they have kids in school "primary residence" isn't necessarily terribly meaningful.
But in LA, I saw them, and in Montana I didn't.
So they were more visible, and the amount of money they had made a much greater impression on me, in LA.
I keep thinking about the '88 and '08 campaigns; remember when Bush I claimed he was from Texas because he had a permanent suite at some luxury hotel in Dallas? Or remember McCain's eight houses, including a (relatively modest; I went to look at the building) condo in La Jolla, or Romney's (what was it) six?
You know what's no help at all in answering this question? Wolfram Alpha.
I'm assuming Perry will get it, as their base is not in the mood to accept a "Rino".
I mean, I'm not really talking about "Montana" as a whole- I'm talking about Billings and Missoula, where I grew up/spent time. So it's possible that Bozeman and Kalispell are different as far as this goes.
Also, the fancy expensive ranches aren't really in actual cities anyway, they're mainly huge tracts in the middle of nothing, so they're not very visible and nobody is confronted with the inequality.
||
YAY! I'VE RETIRED!
(now what?)
|>
152: you know, for all this, the guy I know who is essentially a butler for some grossly wealthy people with multiple houses and a penchant for taking private airplane trips lives in... LA. But I'm pushing back, because I think ostentatious attention-seeking is a big reason why lots of people -- rich, poor, in-between -- move to LA.
156.2: The cattle see every injustice and it affects them so profoundly that they spit their food back into their mouths and have to chew it back down again.
157: Congratulations! Start spending time on the internet?
I can't figure out if 158 supports or discredits the original point, so there's that. I think it's mostly orthogonal, except that it reiterates that, like anybody else, super-rich people aren't ostentatiously visible unless they put specific effort into it.
157: Golf, high-waisted pants, keeping kids off your lawn.
Also, congratulations.
nobody is confronted with the inequality
Huh, in CO everyone knew where, say, Ralph Lauren's ranch was (is?). And that was true of all of the all-hat, no-cattle ranching rich folk. So the inequality was both remarked upon (mocked, really) and quite visible. That said, I'm really not getting into this argument, as I have no idea what anyone is actually saying. And, insofar as I have a guess, I don't think the hypotheses are testable in any meaningful way.
That said, I'm really not getting into this argument, as I have no idea what anyone is actually saying.
This is wrong.
148: Sure, he's got a lot of liabilities. But so does Perry.
Well, no. Perry doesn't. At least not within the conservative fold. Every time I see someone try to list his supposed liabilities -- he's inconsistent, he sounds unsophisticated, he's too religious, he cares more about moneyed interests than good government -- what they are listing are either things totally irrelevant to conservative politics, or worse, traditional strengths for candidates in the conservative movement.
The same can't be said of Romney, whose head start in fundraising will, I suspect, swiftly become irrelevant when the Texas Big Oil money really makes itself felt. He is only leading the race because Perry isn't officially in it yet. (Note also the fact that Perry has had the smarts to hang back and let the other candidates tires themselves out and endure the most punishing scrutiny first; an old Nixonian campaigning trick. It's that kind of sense of strategy that signals him as someone clearly playing in a different league than everyone else in that field.)
Apparently it's still there. A Jew with a ranch: I bet Ralph's grandparents never would have guessed.
I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but I think it's actually more accurate to say that he never stopped campaigning. In fact, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that nearly everything he does is a part of a permanent campaign to be reelected.
Well, he stopped campaigning well and started campaigning terribly. I'm guessing that at some point he'll start campaigning better, at least.
Also I read somewhere recently Obama's fundraising is dwarfing the Republican fundraising, and they still have to pay for a primary.
super-rich people aren't ostentatiously visible unless they put specific effort into it.
I agree with this. My point was just that they seem to be less visible (for whatever reasons, maybe because they aren't behaving differently or maybe because they aren't there) in some places than in others.
I'm not actually sure that I think the visibility engenders social unrest. Maybe everyone just sort of gets used to it if it's all pushed in their faces every day?
and they still have to pay for a primary.
You assume that the Democrats won't.
171: A correct assumption. Who're they going primary Obama in favour of, Matt Damon?
171: It's a safe assumption.
168: I just don't see how Obama can campaign well. What does he have to say?
The rest of the Republican field has obvious flaws that make them unelectable in the primary. As far as I know, Perry doesn't*.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. It's elementary, my dear Unfogged.
*Of course, candidates who haven't entered the race always look better than the ones who are in. We'll see if some dealbreaker emerges for Perry once he enters the race in earnest.
their base is not in the mood to accept a "Rino"
I understand this, but I'm also sensing (granted, not based on any hard polling, but just in watching the conversations among conservatives I know) that a serious chunk of the GOP thinks the Tea Party is driving the party over a cliff and they are very serious about wresting control back from the jihadis. Don't get me wrong: Perry could very well end up winning the nomination. I just don't think Romney's negatives are nearly as lethal as they're being portrayed. Above all other considerations, Republicans want to win and he polls the best. Also, the math is very different this time around, as all the early primaries are distributing delegates proportionally, but I'm not at all certain which campaigns that benefits/hurts.
that a serious chunk of the GOP thinks the Tea Party is driving the party over a cliff and they are very serious about wresting control back from the jihadis.
This seems like a negligible population, volume-wise.
166: Perry's liabilities are: he's hated by many, many people and loved by very, very few; that he's the governor of Texas, and many Americans, including even Republicans, have negative associations of Texas governors at the moment (I'll grant you that I'm not sure this will hurt him all that much in the primary, but if you claim that you're sure it won't, I'll politely point out that you're making things up); that it's not clear that he's a good fundraiser so much as a very good leader of the Republican Party in Texas (these are not the same thing); that he has a reputation for pettiness, cruelty, and thuggish behavior (again, this may not hurt him in the primaries, but Romney will certainly try to play the nice guy at Perry's expense); that many leading Republicans believe that it's not his turn, and that Democrats are much more likely to allow a candidate to jump the queue than are Republicans; that the national money men are backing Romney (though, as you say, they'll jump ship in heartbeat if Perry has real momentum in the race).
I'm sure that if I spent more than thirty seconds thinking about it, I'd come up with other points. And while I know that many of these liabilities will, if he becomes the nominee, be transfigured into strengths, my broader point remains that right now it's too soon to know who's going to get the GOP nomination. And so all the certitude -- "It will definitely be Perry." "Romney is a paper tiger." "Romney can't win." -- is misplaced. Like I said, I think Perry's got a good shot, and he's the guy I fear the most, but claiming that he's a shoo-in or that Romney has already lost is a bit silly, I think.
but I'm not at all certain which campaigns that benefits/hurts.
It certainly would have helped Romney last time around. He had a lot of second-place finishes.
134
Really, you expect the standard deviation to be constant across the country? Why on earth would that be?
I don't expect it to be constant anymore than I expect the standard deviation of IQ to be constant. But I don't expect significant variation particularly between San Antonio and LA. Texas does not exactly have the reputation of being an equalitiarian paradise.
175: I'm also assuming the Tea Party will be the most likely to vote in numbers for the primary.
I just don't see how Obama can campaign well. What does he have to say?
He makes great speeches. I don't know, but campaigning is the one thing that he did brilliantly. But I agree, he has his dismal record to answer for and I'm not sure how he constructs a narrative for that.
I agree with 175 and would like to point out that assuming Republicans want some kind of ideological purity at all costs seems more like wishful thinking than analysis.
179: well, a priori, it'll hurt candidates with a very strong support base in a few states, and help those with moderate amounts of support everywhere. Are there any candidates whose appeal is very geographically restricted? Perry maybe?
Also I read somewhere recently Obama's fundraising is dwarfing the Republican fundraising,
To a rough approximation, all the money in our country is in financial services. Those contributions swung to the Republicans in 2010 because bankers were pissed about Dodd-Frank and some mean things Obama had said about them, but that money isn't stupid. It's swung back to the Democrats, as the Republicans have revealed themselves to be insane (and not just pretending to be insane on tv). Wall Street knows which party will most reliably serve its interests, and right now that's the Democrats.
If Romney is nominated, that funding disparity may even out. If anyone else is nominated, Obama will drown in cash.
I use Texans as a proxy for Republicans, so it seems clear and obvious that Perry will waltz into the nomination. Maybe there's an out-of-state difference that I'm failing to see.
I'm guessing that at some point he'll start campaigning better, at least.
All of the recent polling suggests that he's now back ahead of even a generic Republicans. Which is to say that: a) I think he's got a better handle on campaigning than it seems; and b) the extent to which we're all completely out of step with the voters who matter in the general election -- swing voters and independents [spits] -- should never, ever be underestimated. Honestly, it's important to remember that, because he doesn't have to win a primary, when Obama campaigns this time, we're not going to be even close to his target demographic. In fact, he'll very likely campaign by intentionally making people like us angry.
If Romney is nominated, that funding disparity may even out. If anyone else is nominated, Obama will drown in cash.
This is dead right. And I'm not just saying that because I offended urple the other day and want to make things right between us.
189: Outside of Texas, Republicans are sane? Who?
I use Texans as a proxy for Republicans
TPM:
Indeed, the poll shows Perry trailing President Obama in heavily Republican Texas, which last voted Democratic for president in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was the South's favorite son. Obama leads 47%-45%, even though Obama's net approval rating is underwater at 42%-55%. Of course, this could potentially change if Perry actually became the nominee in a real election, but it's not a good starting point.
The poll found Perry's approval rating at only 43%, with 52% disapproval. In addition, the poll asked simply: "Do you think Rick Perry should run for president next year, or not?" The result was only 33% saying he should run, to 59% saying he should not.
Obama was tested against other Republicans, with varying results: Michele Bachmann leads by 47%-44%, Herman Cain is tied at 43%-43%, Sarah Palin trails by 46%-44%, Tim Pawlenty edges ahead by 44%-43%; and Mitt Romney has an solid, healthy lead of 50%-42%.
That's from the end of June, fwiw.
187: This whole debt-ceiling debacle made Obama look bad, but it made the Republicans look even worse. That seems to be the Obama strategy for 2012 -- with the economy in the toilet, there is no way for Obama to be popular, so his only hope is to make the Republicans even less popular.
But, I think he could have pursued this strategy a lot more successfully, if he hadn't made a big deal of how eager he was to compromise away Medicare and Social Security.
191: In MA, they voted Romney into the governorship.
Is Texas still on fire? I haven't heard about that in a while...
177: Well, I'm afraid this is sort of what I meant by attempts to list Perry's supposed negatives. "Hated by many, many people" is too vague to do much of anything with (which "many, many people," and what candidate couldn't you say this of?). "It's not clear that he's a good fundraiser" is basically just wishing in advance for a weakness he hasn't displayed yet. But then we have:
he has a reputation for pettiness, cruelty, and thuggish behavior
And really, this is the kind of thing that makes me throw my hands up and ask "How is it that people still don't know what the conservative movement runs on?" These are features. This man comes from a movement that routinely expects its young hopefuls to ratfuck each other in elections for school president. Why is this turning up on a list of his supposd "liabilities"?
that he's the governor of Texas, and many Americans, including even Republicans, have negative associations of Texas governors at the moment
Well, if there's been some mighty tsunami of anti-Texas sentiment recently that would outpace those Taxachusetts negatives, I haven't heard of it. (And no, "anti-Bush sentiment" is not interchangeable. One might wish the odor of the prior governor to cling to Perry, but I see no evidence that it's likely to.)
that many leading Republicans believe that it's not his turn
Which "leading Republicans"? If they're not leading the core of the Republican billionaire base -- the oil industry and real estate money in particular -- they probably don't count. And Perry has solid appeal to exactly the kind of faux populism that base has energetically promoted, in a way that Romney doesn't.
Where all the certitude comes from is that this is about the best people can come up with in listing Perry's "weaknesses" as a primary candidate. It's not a 100% lock in that he might still fall down a flight of stairs and break his neck or get caught diddling rent boys on his vacation or something. But that's pretty much what it would take against the field he's facing in the GOP primary.
"How is it that people still don't know what the conservative movement runs on?"
How do people still not know who votes in primaries? Nervous old people, the pathologically lonely, democracy geeks, and assholes. At least two of those groups are going to head to Romney.
But, I think he could have pursued this strategy a lot more successfully, if he hadn't made a big deal of how eager he was to compromise away Medicare and Social Security.
As I've said over and over again, I agree. But I also think there are two possibilities worth considering: first, that he wasn't actually willing to compromise away Medicare or Social Security, but instead was willing to offer up small changes in those programs, changes that most swing voters and some Democrats, when polled, don't seem to care about all that much, in exchange for tax increases, increases that well might have blown apart the Republican Party, as that's where Obama clearly sees the point of weakness in his opposition*. Second, that Obama is truly the worst Democratic president of my lifetime and should be put to the flame. I tend to think that the first possibility is more likely, though I haven't entirely ruled out the second possibility.
* This, by the way, isn't the eleven-dimensional chess argument, as it's pretty clear that the Republican Party really might explode in flames over the issue of taxes, while the Democratic Party will wail and gnash its teeth over tweaks to SS and Medicare (by the way, I'll be wailing and gnashing along with my fellow Democrats), but it won't actually blow up, meaning most Democrats don't see small changes in these programs as enough to make them jump ship, whereas apparently many Republicans see new taxes as just the sort of thing that will cause them to lose their minds.
157: Amateur scholarship, along the lines of Emerson? Political organizing? Comment here more?
I'm not sure exactly what the disagreement around Heebie's argument is, but I'll agree with her that the extremely rich, if not quite billionaires, are very visible in NY. I get into these "high income doesn't mean wealthy" discussions fairly often, and it's not just that the cost of living in NY is high, so high income here isn't the same as high income elsewhere. It's that even though I've got household income probably in the top 5% or so in the country, I wouldn't have a hard time at all finding a roomful of people around here where I was in the poorest 10%.
That doesn't make me badly off, but I do interact with a lot of people who are much richer than I am.
Comment here more?
How is this possible?
198: I agree that's how the conservative movement works. In fact, you and I have agreed on this point before. But I don't agree that's how the Republican primaries work. It's not only movement conservatives who vote. George W. Bush, remember, ran as a moderate famed for his ability to compromise. He also offered plenty of red meat to the far right. But that was just one part of his appeal. The same was true for Reagan, by the way.
As for Perry, he's hated in his own state. You can look at the polls, if you'd like. The fundraising, like I said, is not something I want to hang my hat on. But for the moment, Romney has the real money men -- financiers -- in his camp (except for those who are in Obama's camp). Oil money is meaningful, sure, but American electoral politics is driven by Wall Street.
I don't mean to be rude, but if your argument is, as it seems to be, "I'm certain Perry will win", and my argument is, as I know it to be, "I think that's very possible, but we should wait, because the race, like the future, is shrouded in uncertainty", and you're hoping I'm going to give in and say, "well, gosh, you're right after all", we'd probably better just agree to disagree.
My understanding is that as a retiree, chris needs to start pulling the ladder up behind him.
The Wall Street Republicans don't like the Jesus-jumping style that Parry affects, and in the last month they've seen where catering to the tea-party gets them. Their money will be on Romney.
205: He could acquire a lawn, for purposes of getting kids off it?
That's great, Chris, but does Unfogged allow people to comment from somewhere other than their workplace?
An unfogged in real life moment: Last night an old man told me to get off of his lawn (disappointingly, he didn't call me kid). I wasn't even on his lawn, although my leashed dog was.
Was it one of you guys?
Also, Romney's hair screams "I'm the most responsible person in the room." Perry's hair says, "Have you given thought to how your loved ones will make ends meet if you should be in a horrible accident?"
200: But I don't agree that's how the Republican primaries work.
Perhaps you should refresh your memory about how Dubya's team went about beating McCain when they faced him in a primary.
As for Perry, he's hated in his own state.
If Perry was sufficiently "hated in his own state" to cripple him, he would have lost his bid at re-election. As it is, he enters the primary race in a dead heat with Romney among primary voters, and he hasn't even done any campaigning yet. That's why:
I don't mean to be rude, but if your argument is, as it seems to be, "I'm certain Perry will win"
My argument, as I've stated pretty clearly, is that absent an accident or major unforseen event, Perry quite clearly outclasses the rest of the Republican primary field, including Romney. Something extraordinary would have to happen for him to lose the nomination. I don't buy the argument that it's a close contest between him and Romney, and a big part of the reason I don't buy it is the persistent weakness and tendentiousness of various attempts -- not just by you -- to find the supposed liabilities in Perry's candidacy that would make that close contest possible.
|| From AJE: During the Tajik Civil War of the late 1990s, soldiers loyal to the central government found an ingeniously simple way to conserve bullets while massacring members of the Taliban-trained opposition movement. They tied their victims together with rope and chucked them into the Pyanj, the river that marks the border with Afghanistan. "As long as one of them couldn't swim," explained a survivor of that forgotten hangover of the Soviet collapse as he walked me to one of the promontories used for this act of genocide, "they all died".
Such is the state of today's integrated global economy.
Interdependence, liberal economists believe, furthers peace - a sort of economic mutual assured destruction. If China or the United States were to attack the other, the attacker would suffer grave consequences. But as the US economy deteriorates from the Lost Decade of the 2000s through the post-2008 meltdown into what is increasingly looking like Marx's classic crisis of late-stage capitalism, internationalisation looks more like a suicide pact.
Like those Tajiks whose fates were linked by tightly-tied lengths of cheap rope, Europe, China and most of the rest of the world are bound to the United States, a nation that seems both unable to swim and unwilling to learn. |>
Just scrolling through this, but it's really crazy to think that Texas, of all fucking places, doesn't have visible rich people. Houston and Dallas more than San Antonio, of course,absolutely, but I've spent plenty of time in all three cities and I'd say that scaled for total number of population insanely rich people are at least as visible in TX. Part of this is that there is way, way, way, way more money in the oil industry than there is in the entertainment industry* or any of our local industries. If you're a working professional (lawyer, business consultant, etc.) in the big Texas cities you will have contact with lots of very rich people because oil people are very rich indeed. It's an industry where a $100 million deal is basically nothing. And individual people own energy interests worth billions. And there is also a culture of visible excess -- gigantic homes, country clubs, luxury purchases, etc.**
Of course housing prices are also lower. But the idea that in major Texas cities, of all places, there aren't visible people withc enormous amounts ocf wealth is fucking crazy.
*Not actually a very big or important industry.
**It's true that there are fewer wealthy tourists from elsewhere in Texas than in LA or NY. But have you driven around, e.g., Terrell Hills or River Oaks? Come on.
214: Is there a link to that whole article?
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201187101741512108.html
I LOVE MITT ROMNEY! He sends a tingle up my leg. All the way up.
Tingle balls! Tingle balls! Tingle all the way!
Perhaps you should refresh your memory about how Dubya's team went about beating McCain when they faced him in a primary.
ZOMG! GWB's hatchet men were mean to John McCain in South Carolina?!!? Like, I totally forgot about that! I mean, you're so right: I really should bone up on my political history before getting into these kinds of discussions!
Kidding aside, you think I'm being tendentious? Fine. I think you're reading reading a crystal ball that's not very reliable. So, like I said, let's agree to disagree -- about not much at all -- and go in peace. Put another way, we both think Perry is ("probably" for me, "certainly" for you) the strongest candidate, we both think Romney has ("complicating" for me, "disqualifying" for you) problems that will hurt him in the primaries. And we both hope that Obama will clean the clock of whichever candidate the Republicans roll out in the general election.
Perhaps you should refresh your memory about how Dubya's team went about beating McCain when they faced him in a primary.
Dubya's team had more money than the other candidates and a candidate with close to 100% name recognition. He got support early and kept it. Perry doesn't have those advantages.
Also, I think you missed Von Wafer's valid point how Bush campaigned in the 2000 primaries. There was a very strong tendency to regard Bush as insufficiently conservative in addition to a general lightweight. By the time of the general election, there were frequent jokes and news stories about how Gore and Bush were hardly different on most matters.
219.1 came off as 37% more dickish than I intended. I was going for a tone of insouciance and instead seem to have nailed petulance. Sorry about that.
Oh what fun it is to ride
On my mom! HEY!
Tingle balls! Mini-malls! Old Cadbury eggs!
Oh what fun it is to say
That YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST! HEY!
SECOND VERSE! SAME AS THE FIRST!
Tingle balls! Tingle balls! Tingle all the way...
Well, no. Perry doesn't. At least not within the conservative fold. Every time I see someone try to list his supposed liabilities -- he's inconsistent, he sounds unsophisticated, he's too religious, he cares more about moneyed interests than good government -- what they are listing are either things totally irrelevant to conservative politics, or worse, traditional strengths for candidates in the conservative movement.
Just to point out that your list doesn't include the reason I gave a couple weeks back, that I think Perry will be too far right, in specific anti-tax, Tea Party ways that are finally scaring monied Republicans. We shouldn't re-argue that because I know it didn't persuade you, but I want my prediction to stand so we can come back to it in 15 months.
225: You could set a reminder on your cell phone or email.
My argument, as I've stated pretty clearly, is that absent an accident or major unforseen event, Perry quite clearly outclasses the rest of the Republican primary field, including Romney.
THE RACE IS NOT ALWAYS TO THE SWIFT, NOR THE BATTLE TO THE STRONG, BUT THAT IS THE WAY TO BET.
226: yeah, like those will still be working by November 2012.
Messily, have you seen the palace that that health insurance guy built up Grant Creek?
219,220: W spent years building ties to the evangelical movement.
You could set a reminder on your cell phone or email.
Oh, I'll remember. The sweet taste of the Coke from Ari will remind me. I just want to have a place to point back to for DS.
There was a very strong tendency to regard Bush as insufficiently conservative in addition to a general lightweight.
Bush was regarded as suspicious, sure, but he was running against that dirty hippie maverick, John McCain. Nobody had any doubt about who the conservative was in that race.
Remember, it was Bush who staked his claim to the nut vote by speaking at Bob Jones University.
229: No! is it terrible?
Everything might be completely different now. I haven't spent more than a couple of weeks there in over 10 years, and I generally spend the weeks sitting around drinking things rather than exploring for new mcmansions. Do people have nannies and gardeners now, too?
Regardless, I stand by my claim that the amount of visible wealth is far lower in Missoula than in LA (or around DC for that matter).
(it also seems like the attitude towards it is different. More mockery, like VW said about CO, than aspiration. but maybe that's just my set)
230: yes, of course. Like GWB offered plenty of red meat to conservatives of all stripes. But a big part of his appeal was that he had worked with Democrats in Texas, that he would be bi-partisan. Republicans have to do this dance in the primaries; they can't just capture the votes of movement conservatives.
the amount of visible wealth is far lower in Missoula than in LA
Well, that seems right. Though I've only been to Missoula for 24 hours.
235: It takes at least 36 hours to see the whole place.
38 if you want to go look at mansions up Grant Creek.
More mockery, like VW said about CO, than aspiration. but maybe that's just my set
Mine too.
We're friends with the domestics of a local zillionaire; I'll tell you stories that will curl your hair next time you're in town.
It's true, though, that the big wealth is out of town. I went to a number of fine properties back when I was a water bureaucrat in the 80s. And we had dinner at Paws Up last month: there was (a) a bunch of Hollywood types (pretty obvious for footwear and bearing) in connection with Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig and Olivia Wilde there for a movie promotion and (b) a brace of Germans (also obvious) there for the rollout of a new Mercedes SUV.
Maybe the disagreement involves what it means to be visible? I think the class of working professionals who might work with billionaires in any area is a small class. And those professionals aren't too likely to get excited about the social unrest mentioned in the OP. Perhaps the least likely of anyone.
If visibility means what you see on the street or from your car... I think the extremely rich can hide quite well in the suburbs. Their mansions are out of the way, and people who live in the same town are mostly going to see their neighbors whose houses were designed to have the same property values as their own.
In the city it probably depends on the city, but New York stands out as a place so dense and of such extremes that the ultra-rich live quite noticeably close to the regular and the poor. LA stands out (in my mind) as a place where an essential part of the culture is noticing the ultra-famous (and rich).
I love a thread vague enough that I feel I can vaguely contribute!!!
Actually, the distinctive mark of LA culture is ignoring and pretending not to notice the ultrafamous.
Maybe this is just a housing price thing -- in places with limited land and no room to build (Manhattan, West LA, San Francisco) rich people are literally taking up the land in a way that raise the cost of living for middle class people who want to live nearby. That dynamic isn't true in TX. Still, I don't think there's any more class based anger at the rich in LA than in TX.
Oh yeah, probably LA denizens would ignore the famous, haha. TBH I mainly know LA from my friends' facebook status updates when they go there and immediately notice a famous person.
I scanned through the Forbes list of billionaires to look for the last name of a girl from school. Didn't find it, found some other people I've been in the same room with though. There are a lot of Russian billionaires. And Brazilian, and Chinese. If I had to marry a billionaire, it would be Di/rk Zi/ff because he has the best name.
It's just as easy to fall in love with a billionaire as a man with $999 million.
I can't believe Massachusetts only has four billionaires. Dude-from-HS's dad isn't on there, either.
Dude-from-HS's dad isn't on there, either.
Things are tough all over.
I can't believe Massachusetts only has four billionaires.
?? I count six.
Whoops, sure enough. I was conflating "Forbes 500" and "billionaire", but there are more than 400 billionaires.
Three of the four American billionaires under 30 are from Facebook. That's weirdly impressive.
Actually, on further reflection I used to see another billionaire in the cafeteria on a regular basis; there was at least one more on campus, but I rarely ran into him.
I'm starting to suspect that you guys are only pretending to like me. What can I do to make you real friends?
C'mon guys, sing along! It will be fun!
TINGLE BALLS! BIGGIE SMALLS! TUPAC HAD TWO LEGS!
I am in a suite at Yankee Stadium, talking about the capital markets. I feel a little guilty, but not guilty enough to stop eating.
What's the pocket square situation among other participants?
None. It's like people don't even care, typed the man wearing red socks with his decade-old Jack Purcells.
You wore a suit to a baseball game?
You wore red socks to a Yankees game? Good man!
People who for some reason remember the financing of the 2008 Republican primary will remember that McCain barely had enough money at one point. He almost opted for public financing until his lead brought in the donations he needed to opt out; there was some question of whether what he did was even legal, but fortunately, the FEC doesn't do anything except employ empty suits doing nothing.
Things have changed, but it was possible to win the GOP primary as a moderate without heavy Wall St. backing or a big religious persona. On the other hand, no one in the field is the kind of celebrity McCain is. Romney might be the closest, based on having already lost once but gaining attention while doing so. Sure he's running from his own record, but McCain did that too, to an extent.
Three of the four American billionaires under 30 are from Facebook
I want to know how that German guy made so much money out of taxis.
Wasn't there some talk recently of Romney being low on cash already fairly early on in the primary season -- that he had spent relatively big (*relatively*) to date, and it looked slightly troublesome whether his campaign had wisely enough conserved resources? No doubt he'll raise more, but I could swear I recall hearing not very long ago that this was an issue.
As for Perry, it really is too soon to say! The country at large needs to see more, which is to say anything at all, of him. I'd like to see him handle a primary debate (realizing all the while that few people watch primaries, and just absorb sound bites in the aftermath). Recall also that the Republican media machine, e.g. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al., have been capable of effectively shutting down a candidate before: their coverage of primary candidates will be fairly important to conservative public opinion.
I will say that it's occurring to me that the Republican Party is going to have just as much of a get-out-the-vote problem as the Dems. A great deal is going to depend on whatever campaign talking points emerge in order to galvanize the middle.
Here's what I mean about needing to see him once he's formally announced, by the way, and certainly once he's participated in a primary:
There are a couple of issues that are, I think, fairly significant for many Republican voters: what's Perry's position on raising the debt ceiling? [You know he will be asked this.] Will he be a Bachmann crazy and declare that it should not be raised no matter what? What about eliminating tax loopholes/subsidies -- he'll probably take the Norquist line, that some might be eliminated while at the same time 'broadening the base' in order to lower overall tax rates, because that encourages growth. The public registers that as gobbledy-gook, so he can probably slide if he takes that line.
A couple of other hot-button issues he'll be forced to state a position on: which government agencies would he like to cut? Maybe he can slide on this as well, by going for the ever-so-vague Norquist line again (which gestures toward increasing efficiency and waste, fraud, and abuse). But if he declares that we need to radically rewrite entitlement programs -- if he endorses the Ryan budget, say -- I don't know.
Hopefully you see what I mean, though: as far as I know, we haven't heard any position statements from the guy about these things, and I do believe people will listen to his answers.
