Why are the rich hated

One irony of human nature (define that term as you will) is that the less ambitious a person is, the more likely that person is to overextend. People that float from low-requirement, low-paying jobs spend everything they get (as they often have to), then complain about their situation, how they make somebody rich while they scrounge along. I've known a number of such persons. Some do worse than I described and commit crimes. They are like heros to left-wingers and villains to right-wingers.

But I have long believed in a consistency theory; this is the first time I remember calling it that, but it's part of all those pieces of influence that make a person what he or she is, and the earlier in life the farther reaching. If you're conditioned to a sense of entitlement, you will likely be one of those described in the previous paragraph. But that not only means scrounging out a living, but if you were conditioned that way in a wealthier family, you will simply shift the lifelong problem to a higher bracket; enrolling in several schools, changing majors, not content with a position, or if going into a family business always looking for ways to make more money while taking less active responsibility. When I was a kid, a man lived across the street who had built his own refrigeration/AC business, and he had 3, maybe 4, sons who started doing their own jobs at an early age. But they would finish a big job, then take their boat to the lake to stay a few days or buy a newer car-- they loved those old Mustand Mach 1's. They did, and have, successfully continued the business, but it was the old man who spent so many years and decades getting it to where it was, and he was very simple in his tastes and wishes. He would finish a big job and want to move right on to the next, not go away for a few days. My point is, it was the old man who was conditioned to work hard, and he didn't lavish in the reward; his sons lavished in the rewards while not having the drive to work hard, just enough.

And that's what so many think of when the word "rich" is brought up-- those born into money and privilege, never having to work at what they didn't want to, or at least not without fixed advantages. And I think we are all subject to that. I don't feel envious of the refrig./AC family I mentioned, but the Kennedys... if you were a child or grandchild of old Joe, you had your Ivy League education all prepared for you (and could be readmitted even if expelled), your name put you more than half-way to elected office, and you could get away with anything (the very words by which Bobby boasted). And then, to automatically get the votes of so many working class people by claiming to be a "friend" to them.... well, that's an an irony, and an example of the kind of rich that I have such a negative opinion of, and my reasons.

 

>One irony of human nature (define that term as you will) is that the less ambitious a person is, the more likely that person is to overextend.

What you describe is a post WW2 phenomenon. The people who grew up through the Great Depression and then fought WW2 tended to spoil their children by giving them stuff the parents never had as kids.

 

Unfortunately, the rich have a poor track record. The Mr. Potter analogy seems to fit. Just call me Mr. Progressive. :saint:

 

Kind of reminds me of the Bush family.

 

Quite a number of families, I'm sure. Rockefeller, Stevenson, Daley,...But no family rivals the Kennedys in that way. 2 very high profile bump-offs and other tragedies makes them appear a victimized family rather than one in which grandpa climbed up by any means, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, and that's the source of their privileged position. But it's true that their situation makes their activities cast both long lights and long shadows.

 

According to the first article you posted:

Let's see $54,016 breaks down to about 1/2 of 1 percent of their net worth. Wow, I'm so very impressed! Like I said, the rich have a poor track record.

Poor are the most charitable.

BTW, it wasn't the poor living in a trailer park that caused the financial collapse in the US.

 

I agree. Some of the movers and shakers have gotten their money by illegal and unethical ways. I had a good friend now deceased that made his money the old fashion way. He dropped out of college and sold drugs. Using this money he set up legitimate businesses. Upon his death, his kids inherited several millions of dollars in property.

 

To be fair, most people give based on a percentage of their income that year, not on percentages of their net worth. From the same article:

 

Just because your good friend made money illegally, was unethical, and that is how his children inherited their money, this is not typical. Read my earlier post #21 for actual statistics about Americans inheriting wealth.

 

The new rich like Bill Gates own paper profits generated by the expansion of the money supply. They might as well give some away before the next market crash comes.

The old rich are a different breed. They own the land, the natural resources, and the infrastructure . . . and the banks. They must hate the new money rich.

 

Hi Steven2006,

I don't think the poor have much net worth. Most live paycheck to paycheck. My point was to answer the question posed. "My question is why are the rich hated so much." I offered two answers: 1.)Most poor consider the rich to be stingy (the more they make in income the less percentage they give, link was provided to show this.) 2.) The rich are often the cause of great financial problems, the poor are stuck with cleaning up after them. Most of the poor and working class are really sick of this repeating cycle of abuse. :tonofbricks:

True. That is the reason I said, some.