Crazy Rich Richard Cory

     People have always been fascinated by how the "rich" live their lives. From "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" to "Crazy Rich Asians" to "Sullivan's Travels" and more (look them up in IMDb or RottenTomatoes if you are not familiar with them), there is a huge appeal to the illusion of being able to peek into the lives of those who just don't seem to have a single financial care in their lives. Of course, there are many different levels of "rich" (and "poor", as discussed in others of my blogs).
     There is one stage of "rich" that has to choose between various excesses -- not enough for all things without consideration. Another yacht or that huge diamond? A private jet or another 6,000 square feet in the mansion? At this stage, the operative word is "or". They have a lot more money than they need, and even have to work at spending it all, but they still know how much things cost to make choices. Although they may not know what a gallon of milk costs, it is very likely that they know how much they are spending on groceries per month (but the total percentage may be insignificant).
     The penultimate stage is only a matter of "and" -- "or" is unnecessary. They don't know how much things cost because it doesn't matter. In a lot of cases, they don't even know how to pay for things because others do it for them; their activities, including purchases, just happen without their awareness of what happens in the background. This is particularly true for those from inherited wealth. These politicians, and other wealthy individuals, couples, and families are truly ignorant of the realities of life for the 98% of the population.
     So, they should be happy, shouldn't they? As Paul Simon said in his song, Richard Cory, written in 1965 and recorded in the album, Sounds of Silence, by Simon and Garfunkel, it isn't quite so straight-forward:

They say that Richard Cory owns one half of this whole town,
With political connections to spread his wealth around.
Born into society, a banker's only child,
He had everything a man could want: power, grace, and style.

.

.

.

He freely gave to charity, he had the common touch,
And they were grateful for his patronage and thanked him very much,
So my mind was filled with wonder when the evening headlines read:
"Richard Cory went home last night and put a bullet through his head."

     When an individual, or group, no longer has any survival needs to satisfy, they have to find, or create, anchors to reality. This can be seen by the situation of many famous artists who are catapulted into riches and fame and end up killing themselves via unregulated excesses. I cannot speak to the mind of Paul Simon about how he envisaged the person behind Richard Cory but it is apparent that Richard Cory did not have sufficient reasons to keep going.
      When the great imbalance in income inequality occurred prior to, and precipitated, the Great Depression, many suicides occurred because they did not know how to function as merely "rich" (losing 90% of $100 million still leaves $10 million).
     Some people create anchors that are not particularly healthy -- and which have the danger of being accomplished and no longer sufficient. This includes greater and greater accumulation (of wealth, property, power, ...) which never satisfies and is, at heart, an addiction -- treating the economic system as a game in which they want to come out as "winners" (and create the most "losers"). Sometimes it is internal political intrigue such as happened with the Medicis of Florence (now part of Italy). Many times an income overflow includes visible excesses.
     Healthier options attempt awareness of the lives, and needs, of the rest of the population. This may be anchored via religious, or spiritual, beliefs. It may be from an intellectual recognition of needs and realities. Or it may arise from a conscience which realizes that their fortunes are based solely on the efforts, and labors, of others.
     No matter the basis of the anchor, it is needed to redistribute the excess in order to stay healthy. Foundations, charities, donations, university chairs, inheritance taxes, properly progressive tax structures, and increasing employee wages and benefits to living wages are all part of the pool of methods to relieve the pressures that build up with income inequality and concentration.

The Puritan effect: Why are U.S. jails so full?

     In the United States, our incarceration rate is number one among the larger countries (The Seychelles have a slightly higher rate but with many fewer people). So, why does the U.S. have so many people in prison? Are U.S citizens just natural crooks?

     And should we care? Well, the greater the number of people there are in jail, the fewer there are paying taxes and participating in constructive contributions to society. In addition, a person in jail costs the community/state/federal government from $70,000/year to $200,000/year. Personally, I would much prefer to use that kind of money on improving education, infrastructure, child care, and other public benefits. Remember that, even though there is no such thing as a "free lunch", we SHOULD be able to determine how our tax money is used.

     The reality is that the incarceration rate varies for all countries depending on various factors -- some of which fluctuate because of political and economic events. In the U.S., we had a very low rate of imprisonment in the 1930s and 1940s -- possibly because the U.S. economy could not support that many people in the prisons so it was primarily the violent offenders that remained there. In the 1960s, the U.S. had a "world average" of imprisonment and it has continued to rise until, today, it is about the highest in the world with around 700 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens. In contrast, Cuba has about 500, Russia has about 450, Costa Rica has about 350, and the United Kingdom has about 150.

     People are basically the same all around the world. Some are jerks. Some are criminals. Some are saints. Some are lazy. Some are hard-working. Some are poor. Some are rich. Some are smart. Some are not smart. And so forth. External aspects don't make much difference -- skin color, gender, religion, nationality, et cetera. There are some cultural influences on how important studying may be or how much physical activity is praised and rewarded but, at heart, everyone is in the same human pool.

     So, why does the U.S. presently have such a high prison rate? A large part of it has been the slide of income inequality as (true in every country) there are a higher percentage of poor people in prisons than there are of rich people (once again, NOT because poor people are more likely to be criminals). Keep in mind that a "crime" means that a law has been determined to have been broken. Thus, something may be a "crime" in one country, or by certain people, or at a certain time -- and NOT a "crime" in a different country, or when done by different people, or at a different time.

     But, specifically, there are a number of factors (not firmly listed in order -- but perhaps in order of most easily changed):

• For-profit Prisons. This makes absolutely no sense within a capitalistic society. Capitalism operates (loosely) on Supply and Demand as well as profit margins. In order to increase profits per inmate, a prison will work to reduce expenditures which is likely to increase the chance of the criminal coming back. Also, it is to their interest to INCREASE the number of criminals and they do this by heavily lobbying for increased sentences for a greater number of newly created "crimes". A profitable prison means a greater and greater number of criminals every year.
  
  
• The Pilgrim Effect and Vice Crimes. The Pilgrims were a small group of settlers within the United States -- very small in number in proportion to all of the other immigrants (all in the U.S. are immigrants -- even First Nation). But their effect on the national psyche is enormous. Or, at least, that is the way I refer to it.
  
  The Pilgrims felt that they should control how every individual behaved and thought on a daily and minute-to-minute basis. Politicians in the U.S. make use of this desire to control others by creating laws (and, when laws are created, so are crimes and criminals) that are aimed at the thoughts and behaviors of citizens THAT DO NOT AFFECT OTHERS. These are also called "vice" laws. There are lots of them -- and a huge difference between the U.S. and other countries in longer governed countries. Laws about drugs (including alcohol), gambling, sexual behavior, and so forth.
  
  One problem with these laws is they do NOT work. The "vices" continue to happen. Secondly, they do succeed in increasing the profits of those who are involved with these activities -- causing additional corruption and organized, highly profitable, criminal businesses both within and without the U.S. The U.S. attempted "Prohibition" of alcohol with the 18th Amendment. After giving the Mafia, and other organized crime, a huge boost in the U.S with attendant increases in murder and other violent crimes, the 21st Amendment reversed it but much of the damage to the country remained.
  
  A side-effect of "vice" laws and increasing their profit margins is that people who feel the need or desire for these substances/behaviors have a greater need for money to participate. This causes a multiplying effect when robberies, assaults, and other property crimes are done to be able to afford the law-enhanced prices.
  
  
• Income Inequality. There are a higher percentage of poor people in prison than there are of rich people. Some of this is similar to the predicament of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman in the recent movie version) in Les Miserables -- turning to crime to feed their families when they are desperate. By definition, the rich are almost never desperate except in non-economic situations.
  
  Secondly, most of the laws are written BY the rich and FOR the rich. In the federal government, most members are millionaires and it is unlikely to be coincidental that the longest sentences and greatest number of "crimes" are created for actions more likely to be done by the poor and the lightest sentences and fewest "crimes" are created for actions more likely to be done by the rich. The income discrepancy lessens as one moves down to state and local levels but still exists and makes a huge difference.
  
  
• Recidivism and Employment. When "Antman" gets out of prison for a non-violent, capital property crime he gets (with his high-tech degree) a service job from which he is fired once they find out he was convicted of a "felony". While this may be a bit out-of-place (high-tech people are less likely to be discriminated against) the general attitude, and situation, is NOT. It is as if a "felon" is given a lifetime sentence as they are forever actively prevented from being a positive economic or societal force. They may literally have "no choice" but to get sent back to being taken care of in jail.
  
  In addition to permanent economic retribution, ex-prisoners (especially from the for-profit prisons) may not have improved their ability to get a job (assuming anyone will let them have one) and be sent back to the same economic and societal environment that left them feeling that "crime" was their best option.
  
  
• Racism. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI from 1935 to 1972, was a fervent racist and implemented dual-prong attacks to help keep blacks, in particular, from achieving greater opportunities. He instigated additional drug sales into poorer neighborhoods while, at the same time, blackmailing and pressuring Congress into passing laws making use of those same drugs to be a crime. What didn't use to be a crime -- now was. And what didn't use to be a problem in those neighborhoods -- now was.
  
  Prior to the various Civil Rights laws and, once again, since the Supreme Court decided (on June 25, 2013) to remove the ability to enforce many of those Civil Rights laws, many laws were put into place where they applied ONLY to people of certain definitions -- usually of certain skin colors or of more recent non-Anglo heritage.
  
  
• Unequal Enforcement. Related to income inequality in that there are different laws defined to be more likely oriented towards the rich as to the poor. However, even within the same category of laws, certain groups are favored over other groups. These groups include "whites", the rich, males, and other majority (or formerly majority)-oriented groups.
  
  A poor person may get 10 years of prison for a $10,000 theft. Meanwhile, a rich person may get 6 months probation for stealing $10 million from a group of people. The punishments are actually reverse proportionate. Discrepancies get even greater when corporate crime is committed, with no one actually getting punished at all (and only a mild discomfort when any fines are passed along to the employees and stockholders). This is a broken Justice System.
  
  Note that, in the United States, there is the notion of a "jury of our peers". This should mean that poor people should be judged by poor people and rich people judged by rich people -- but doesn't always quite mean that. However, poor people are more likely to be harsh with other poor people. I believe it is an attitude of "I had to struggle so hard to survive without having to commit crimes, how dare you take an easier route".
  
  
• Alternate Punishments. Of course, one method of reducing the number of people in prison is to have alternate punishments. It is possible to have periods of public work labor. It is possible to have a separate "withholding" of parts of a paycheck(s) to pay back damages or theft losses.
  
  The idea of alternate punishments is to address the damage(s) caused by the "crime" while retaining the ability for people to continue to contribute to society. This is normally only possible for non-violent crime. In some countries, prison is avoided by increasing the frequency of the death penalty -- which I don't recommend because it is so difficult (impossible) to correct mistakes (which do happen on a regular basis).
  

     In summation, the U.S. could quickly reduce the number of people in prison. Eliminate for-profit prisons. Eliminate laws that are about "crimes" that only affect the individual -- the "vice" crimes. AND make it retroactive such that all who have been convicted under such laws are released and their records eliminated. Make it a requirement to have a reason-produced court order to obtain criminal records of job applicants.
     Other aspects of imprisonment imply a direct change to culture and society that may end up taking many years -- but still are worthy of effort for change.

Income: the class structure of democracy

     There are a number of topics that tend to make people uncomfortable to discuss. Among these is the reality that there is a class structure within democracies. Some of the original voluntary immigrants to the U.S. were seeking the mobility of opportunity without requiring to be born within the right hereditary class of their society. Democracy is one of the "great equalizers" with one person -- one vote. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that straight-forward -- I'll tackle that within a future blog. But, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, income forms distinct classes within democratic society.

     It is generally recognized that there are three broad categories of income. These are Upper income, Middle income, and Lower income. Sometimes the word "class" enters into descriptions of "upper class" and "middle class" -- it is rarely used with lower income. I would propose that these three categories can be summarized as Survival, Stability, and Search for Purpose. Each of the three primary categories can be broken into three sections: bottom, central, and top. These are categorized by emotions of fear, complacency, and hope; there is fear of dropping from one category to the next lower, a complacency of "deserving" to be in a category, and hope of rising to the next category.

     People have the greatest knowledge of the income sections that they have directly experienced. They can also "glimpse" into sections that are adjacent to those within which they have lived. It is indeed very difficult for people to "walk in another person's shoes" without having lived that life and, thus, there is great difficulty for people to truly understand the lives of those two sections away from what they have experienced (which is an excellent thing to recognize when voting).

     For example, someone who has lived their life within the central upper income section doesn't know, and cannot directly understand, the lives of those in the middle or lower income categories. In a different fashion, someone who has lived at a bottom lower income level can only fantasize about being in the middle or upper income categories. Very occasionally (and less and less frequently), those fantasies become dreams and those dreams become reality. But they always remember (sometimes with fear and sometimes with compassion) where "they came from".

     There is also a comfort level that is felt within the economic section in which one grows up. Consider the "Beverly Hillbillies" U.S. TV show where they become rich but still want to live the way they did. This is a story that is often told about many people who have become rich (performing stars, sports celebrities, etc.). Of course, it goes the other way also -- where people who have lost their wealth can never be content or comfortable at a lower income level. This has an inadvertent side-effect on those who win at lotteries -- they are neither comfortable with, nor are able to properly use or invest, their additional moneys and often end up losing it all.

     During the Great Depression, there were photos taken, and articles written, about wealthy people who committed suicide after having "lost all they had". The reality was that they had usually lost 70 to 90% of what they had -- plummeting them down three or four income sections. The amount they had left would have been considered adequate, or even attractive, to someone in the middle income category but, to them, it was a fate that could not be contemplated.

     My mother was born in 1930 and my father in 1933. They were fortunate that they were born into farming families -- away from the center of the effects of the Dust Bowl. They had food and didn't lose their housing. However, my father was three years old when he lost his own father due to pneumonia and so his early life was also a matter of surviving through the Great Depression. This experience provided a foundation to their life and, indirectly, provided a foundation to mine.

     My father completed ninth grade in high school when he left home. My mother finished tenth grade. Both were hard workers and did well in school but the needs of the family meant that continuing school was not the most immediate priority. As I was growing up, we vacillated between "top lower income" and "bottom middle income" income classes. As I did complete high school and college, I would probably be considered to now be in the "top middle income" region. So, I have either lived, or been able to "glimpse", six income sections. It is a core part of my self-image and relation to my economic life. Each week I am grateful for having a job, somewhat fearful of potential loss (to which I react by saving), and continuing to recognize the daily situation of those in the income sections below my current one.

     My children have only known central middle income and top middle income -- about which I am occasionally sad because they have no direct knowledge, or understanding, of people who have lived within the lower income sections. They do have plans to help join a summer work program to help within a bottom lower income community this year -- perhaps they will gain some insight at that time. The Peace Corps, and similar programs, require people to live at an income level close to that of the communities within which they serve -- perhaps that should be a requirement for all people who wish to run for public office.

     Each of these sections can be categorized by particular behaviors and challenges. However, this particular blog is becoming a bit on the long side. If you are interested in more detail, please tell me so.

A Living Wage : it's not that difficult to figure out

    It used to be that discussion was about the "minimum" wage. That was always a difficult discussion because it is totally subjective. If a person is starving and you agree to give them a sandwich and a glass of water if they work for you for eight hours then it is a minimum wage (anything less and they would die and be unable to do the work). Then there is the official "minimum" wage -- which is completely fictitious. People are paid less than the minimum wage all the time -- sometimes legally and sometimes not but it definitely is not the least amount of money people are paid.

    However, when we come to the concept of the "living" wage, it is really easy. One thing to recognize up front is that there is not a single living wage. A living wage will depend upon the expectations within a society. It will depend upon the general cost of living in the area. It will depend on individual circumstances -- do you have children or others dependent upon you, do you have additional needs that others do not have (blind, deaf, mobility impaired, ...), and so forth.

    So, there is not a single living wage for all people. But it is easy to determine. Add up the costs of everything it is needed to live over a year and divide that by the number of hours that are considered reasonable in your society. Let's put together a case example for an "average" city in the U.S.

    There are a number of categories that MOST people would agree on. There are also a number of other categories that people would not agree on (is a phone required? is recreation required? is television required? is air conditioning really needed? is a personal car required? is it necessary to be fashionable? ...) Minimum requirements will include such as:

• Shelter
• Utilities (water, heat, sewage, power)
• Food
• Clothing
• Health-related Costs (incl. toothbrushes, toilet paper, clothes washing, etc.)

    There's a certain range within each category that is required. Sometimes you might find a great deal on an apartment (or live with your parents). Sometimes you can find used clothing that is acceptable. Specific numbers can definitely be argued about and I won't say that you're incorrect. However, here are some (not the only) realistic numbers.

• Shelter -- a studio apartment; $900/month -- $10,800/year
• Utilities -- basics for a small apartment; $100/month -- $1200/year
• Food -- for one person, no fast food, no eating out; $8/day, $250/month -- $3000/year
• Clothing -- 3 pairs of pants, 2 underwear, 4 shirts, 5 pairs of socks, 1 pair of shoes, 1 coat -- $200/year
• Health-related Costs -- [# taken for an Affordable Cost policy for an unemployed single person] -- $340/month plus $40/month for medications/co-pays;  approx. $4500/year.

   This totals $19,760 for a year. For simplicity, round it up to $20,000. If we assume that working a 40-hour week for 50 weeks/year is reasonable then that is 2,000 hours. So, a "living wage" for a person with no special needs is $10/hour NET. I emphasize NET because this is what they have to have in order to pay for it all. If they have to pay country/local taxes or union dues or anything then that is added to the NET requirements.

    So, we have determined a "living" wage. Even assuming that you agree with the above estimates the numbers can be moved around. If you qualify for food stamps, you might reduce your needs for food. If you can get subsidized housing, you might pay $500/month. But the foundation needs stay the same. Note also that there are no costs for childcare listed -- this is for a single person with no additional needs.

    But society cannot afford to pay such!!! This is the statement that is echoed by businesses and wealthy politicians. It the next blog (hopefully -- I get distracted ) I will discuss the realities of paying living wages.

    Meanwhile, what things do you consider needed to live? Do you currently live on less? How do make it happen?

Money as Energy: Increasing the pool of money

    In the previous post, I talked about how money is basically an abstraction of the combination of resources, labor, and energy. We are fortunate that we do, presently, have more than adequate amounts of each. Distribution of such, however, is very uneven and, thus, causes areas of poverty, famine, and other physical and social lacks.

    I ended the previous post with the idea that -- although our current problems are more concerned with distribution rather than actual shortages -- the New Age idea of an unlimited pool of money is not currently a reality. Is there anything to be done about that? Is there actually a way that everyone can have more (even with distribution problems)?

    To address that question, it comes back to the three components of money -- resources, labor, and energy. It also requires a fourth "catalyst" which is technology. By using technology, energy can be converted into additional resources and increased labor availability. This argues that energy is the prime limiting factor within economics.

    We can look around at the world and see how the availability of energy (applied via technology) has increased the "wealth" of the world. Farmers, via the use of equipment (using energy and technology to create and energy to keep active), can produce much greater amounts of food than what one person working the ground with manual labor can do. Harvesting of material resources -- trees, ores, fish -- are possible on a much larger scale than a single person could do making use only of manual labor (allowing a hand-built boat and fishing equipment).

    The above paragraph indicates how energy (with technology assistance) can increase the amount of labor. It does NOT increase the amount of resources. But the amount of food for people has been increased -- isn't that an increase in resources? No, it isn't -- because the ecological pyramid has not changed. The amount of base-level food has not increased. The plankton, plants, and other solar-using food plants have not increased. The labor has been used to change the varieties of food harvested and the distribution of the food (from other animals to people). In fact, due to pollution and other side-effects of application of energy to increase labor, the total amount of food resources may go down (decrease in sea life in general, decrease in fish population, decrease in non-human animal population).

    Can energy increase resources available to us? Yes, in two ways. The first is a continuation, and expansion, of what we presently do -- redistribution. We find other, more energy intensive, methods of accessing resources. However, this often has negative environmental effects and is also just speeding up the use of resources. So, although it increases resources available on a short-term basis, it does NOT increase the amount of resource. A second aspect of this (still redistribution) is to bring resources from other places -- the asteroid belt, for example, is a potential area from which to redistribute resources.

    The second method of increasing resources requires much higher levels of energy. Besides the potential of alchemy (changing one element into another -- possible with huge amounts of energy), there are many endothermic reactions possible with increased energy available. Endothermic means "requiring the absorption of heat". Thus, it is possible to convert raw elements into more complex molecules and, finally, into "organic" materials needed for human eating, or use for furniture, or such. This is actually a metamorphosis of resources and not an increase -- but it's "close enough" for our uses.

    So, with energy, the pool of "money" becomes bigger. Distribution remains a major problem. A larger problem is making sure that the energy is renewable -- we do not want to empty the bank as that would cause widespread catastrophe for the existing economy. The other problems aren't directly concerned with energy-as-money but are related to social, and environmental, responsibility for using it in a life-affirming way.

Economics and the Meaning of Money

    I usually look at the economy as a form of applied sociology. Money is only worth something if people believe that it is worth something. This applies equally to gold and jewels as much as it applies to pieces of paper with people's pictures printed on it. In a similar fashion, money is distributed according to the rules (explicit or implicit) that people decide upon.

    A barter system works when each person (or family) is capable of doing most things needed for survival on their own. They then trade things that they have in excess for things that others have in excess. I give you an extra chicken and you give me a bushel of potatoes. I give you a length of material that I have woven and you give me a chair. Barter is a mixture of labor, materials, difficulty, and time combined into value.

    When each person can NOT do most things they need for survival, the barter system becomes very inconvenient. It is necessary to keep records/charts of equivalences. One type A chair is equal to two meters of cloth. Two type B chairs are equal to one type A chair. Ten chickens are equal to one meter of cloth. This complexity arises out of the need for each family unit to trade for many different types of things. Once this happens, the next step is to equate the value to something in common. Ten seashells represent the value of one chicken. A meter of cloth is equivalent to 100 seashells. Every item of value can be represented by a certain number of seashells. This representation of value is called money.

    Once the value of work and things have been "abstracted" into money, it is very easy to lose sight of real value. The work done by an experienced, talented teacher is probably worth more to society than that of a software developer -- but the software developer probably makes a higher salary. In "capitalistic" societies, the control of money is considered to have value in itself. That is, if I possess one million seashells then I no longer have to produce anything of value myself -- the circumstances (earned and saved, gifted, or inherited) of having the seashells allows me to distribute some portion to other people who then produce the actual value (plus more for me to hold).

    Within "new age" philosophy, it is popular to think that the economy is no longer a "zero sum" game. That is, each and every person, can earn as much money as she/he wants -- that there is not a "fixed pot" of X seashells in the pot and each can have as much as they want without reducing the amount that others are able to have. That's a happy philosophy but is it true?

    Although money makes lots of games possible with the distribution and use -- the basis of money still goes back to production and use. If 100 people each want a fish but there are only 50 fish then the value of each fish will rise until the 50 people who most want a fish have them and the other 50 do not have them. If 100 people want a fish and there are 1000 fish, then the value should (the concept of money makes direct value difficult if not impossible) be equated to that combination of labor, materials, difficulty and time mentioned above. An abundance of resources (fish) causes value to go back to basics.

    Our global economy makes distribution of resources extremely unequal. Most people estimate, however, that there are enough resources (food, labor, energy) to support everyone currently on the planet. The fact that that does not happen is a problem with distribution and allocation. But, there is still a limit. Perhaps at twice the population there would NOT be enough for everyone (in an ideal world). This argues that it is a "fixed pot" -- there is a limit of resources to be distributed. In order to eliminate the fixed pot, it is necessary to get rid of the limitations of resources.

    Is there a way to eliminate the limitations of resources? I will look at that possibility in the next blog.

The 1% and the former "trickle down" pyramid

Once upon a time, when there was a lot less disparity between the rich and the poor in the US, an idea was proposed to justify giving more tax breaks to the rich. This idea was called the "trickle down" theory. Note that this blog concentrates on income inequality -- wealth inequality has parallel workings.

At heart, the trickle down theory was an economic pyramid and is the basis of the concept of regulated capitalism. However, the main word in that sentence is regulated. The idea is that the people with the most money generate more money which is distributed (in lesser amounts per person) to a larger set of people, who then generate more money which is distributed (in lesser amounts than the people of the second level) to an even larger set of people. At the bottom of the pyramid are the people who are unemployed or are working for whatever they can get paid and not die.

The original pyramid for the "trickle down" idea worked rather like this (note that these numbers are all just examples):

1 person earns $1,000,000/year
3 people each earn   $500,000/year
6 people each earn   $300,000/year
10 people each earn $200,000/year
25 people each earn $100,000/year
55 people each earn $40,000/year

This forms a pool of 100 people. In total, they earn $11,000,000/year. The top earner gets 25 times as much as the lowest paid earner. and the top 20 people (20%) make 57% of the total money (leaving 43% to the lower 80 people (80%). The top earner gets about 9% of the total.

However, in order for this distribution to hold, it is necessary to have laws and regulations that keep redistributing money to the rest of the people according to their wealth. In the 1980s, it became politically popular in the US to think that if the rich were allowed to accumulate more money then there would be more money to distribute -- or "trickle down" -- to the rest of the population. That started a process of steadily increasing tax loopholes and favored treatments, lower (if paid) tax rates, substantially lower wages (based on pre-inflation 1985 dollars), and concentration of wealth which led to a new structure such as the following (once again, these are made up numbers -- the real ones are different but not better):

1 person earns $5,000,000/year
3 people each earn $300,000/year
6 people each earn $200,000/year
10 people each earn $125,000/year
25 people each earn $60,000/year
55 people each earn $22,000/year

Once again, this is a pool of 100 people and, together, they earn $11,000,000/year.

However, this time the top accumulator (no longer calling them an earner) gets 227 times as much as the lowest paid earner. The top 20 people (20%) have increased their total to 76% of the $11,000,000 but look carefully (this type of statistical use is often in political advertisements) -- the 19% below the top 1% are actually earning LESS than they used to. The top accumulator now controls 45% of the total money pool.

This is a situation where the top accumulators redistribute the earnings of the lower rich, middle class, and working poor to give to themselves. I call this distribution the "splash over" economic theory -- or a vivid, real, example of unregulated capitalism. You fill up the top and some of the excess splashes over to the bottom.

This was the situation in the "Gilded Age" in the 1800s. It was shifted, for individuals, with reforms such as the creation of income tax toward the turn of the century -- and it was shifted, for businesses, with "New Deal" reforms that came out of recovery from the Great Depression.

And, at the root of it all, the voters carry the responsibility.