Quote:
|
There's another aspect to this: wealth is not like a big pie, where if the people at the top eat a bigger piece, that means people like you and me are left with a smaller piece.
|
Sometimes true, sometimes not. There's the rub.
Some rich folks did get rich by making the pie bigger, and getting a nice big slice for themselves, which is fine so long as those with small slices don't actually go backwards, and it is good if those with small slices find their slices growing, however slightly. (In philosophy-speak: an inequality is acceptable if those who are worst off under the inequality would be even worse of if the inequality were to be removed.)
However, quite a few rich folks get rich not by enlarging the pie, but by getting a bigger % of the pie for themselves. In fact, some even make the pie smaller in doing so (remember the plot of Wall Street, even though it is fiction?) This is what pisses people off.
I've seen the difference first hand. I used to work for a multinational pizza chain.
They introduced a new super-big pizza, spent money on new equipment and advertising. Sales went up, the company made a little more money, and the staff got maybe a few more hours per week. The pie had got bigger. Good capitalism.
Later, they pushed all the drivers from hourly rates to contract per delivery. We did the same work for less money. The pie was no bigger, but the slices were cut differently. We, the workers, got screwed. Bad capitalism.
It happens both ways, and to pretend it doesn't is simply incorrect, whichever side you support.