Lovely people within the 1%

I am definitely a member of "the 1%." I think the 1% are terribly destructive force. I don't think I'm a destructive force. And I don't think any of those statements are contradictory.

I think the idea of power constructs (the 1% represent the power of capital) can be divorced from the individuals within those power constructs. I can benefit from the power of capital while also abhorring the idea of capital having power. Oddly enough, the most powerful tool I have in this fight is capital itself. So at least personally, I'll continue to campaign against the power of capital (the 1%) while also living a life benefiting from it.

"It's not what you have, but what you do with what you have" works both ways :)  Rock on.

I am an anomaly...as I am told a lot on many levels...in that Katie and I are millionaires, and yet by definition we are not 1%'ers.

Someone mentioned 'smaller units', i.e., village size, etc.  And an anthropologist determined the historically most 'successful' population for human groups... approximately 150, i.e., 'Dunbar's number'.  And an engineer put a lot of thought into how such a group could function... the book is "150-Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future"
by Rob O'Grady and Dmitry Orlov ... just fwiw.  (we have to start somewhere :)... we are social human creatures, and as appealing as rugged individualism is to introvert types (like me), we need each other.

That's interesting.  I sometimes use Dunbar's Number as well, although based on an explanation that 150 is the peak number of individuals in a group who can maintain a balanced community.  Supposedly at 151, all begins to break down.  Though I've used that example, it was only ever intended as a loosely formed concept in my mind, because it seems a peak optimal number might vary between cultures and within certain environments.

I just found this, which adds yet another spin.

https://qz.com/work/1351400/dunbars-number-doesnt-represent-the-average-number-of-social-connections/

Now I'm wondering if both theories are more akin to credential swinging competition ^.^  Maybe permie pioneer communities will evolve organically?  I am thinking, for the moment anyway, that theory experts driven by grants and special interest funding are more likely involved in social engineering than allowing natural growth.  I need to ponder this more.

An example might be when I used to book gigs for a former husband/musician.  Without any experience or knowledge of music, no graphics expertise, and no established connections to the music business, I put together a promo package with a few different set lists, a good song demo with 15-second sound clips of half a dozens songs, and photos.  I made 160 packages.  Called prior for basic info.  Hand delivered each promo with an attempt to speak to, or obtain a name of, whomever handled booking.  16 solid contacts developed into gigs.  Out of those 16, 11 long term arrangements continued for several years.

Part of the point here is also that  I did it on what I perceived to be a challenge by the husband's closest friend who said I should stay out of their business because I didn't know what I was talking about when it came to getting gigs.  But I had watched and listened for about a year.  And most of my background is administrative / secretarial / clerical / with a bit of office management I'd been pushed into at times.  Organizing was a piece of cake, though all credit for the demo goes to the husband (excellent voice and production skills).  This was all in the Clearwater / Tampa / New Port Richey areas of Florida, then again in Williamsburg / Virginia Beach / Hampton Roads / Richmond areas in Virginia.

Ok.  All that considered, when we moved to Chicago, none of that worked.  At all.  I worked it the same way and hand delivered 200+ (215 I think) promos with a better song demo than the first.  3 solid contacts developed.  After a time, I talked with those three club owners that did work out, and told them about my major numbers fail.  All they could say generally speaking, was Chicago is a hard gig *lol*  No chit!  One did suggest that Chicago musicians were mostly hired through unions so that was most likely the big wrench in the works.  Ahhhh...

Back to different cultures and environments.  After re-reading more about Dunbar's Number and the article above with yet another theory, now I am left thinking that using theoretical numbers is just as shaky as a non-expert winging it.  

Maybe permie pioneering communities don't need no stinkin community-related theoretical numbers? ^.^  At least not outside the realm of permaculture.

based on my own observations I firmly believe the general concept of Dunbars # is correct.  

As for the actual #, well, I think there may well be some give and take there.  There is your core group, and your next out group, etc.  Age groups matter.  Children,etc are in your group, but kind of peripheral if you know what I mean.   For a teenager the cranky old fart at the end of the block may be peripheral also.  Because of these things, I think the optimal working size of a village could be well over 150, varying with the culture, various age groups, the degree of commonality, and the "chill out" factor.  Most traditional societies put a high value on 'good manners'.  There is a reason for that,  good manners let us live in close contact with fewer conflicts, so the better mannered and 'chiller' people are, you can go a little bigger on Dunbar #.  Kind of like driving a busy road with lots of others merging and exiting.  If everyone knows and obeys the rules, things move more smoothly.  When someone doesn't, it snarls things up.  

(I personally think the reason that stereotypical europeans get 'more demonstrative' as you go south is an example of social evolution.  If you get several 'fiery' personalities living in a small, snow bound hut for several months, many of them may not survive 'till spring.  With warmer weather, you can get away from each other more, if you need to.    (My wife's family would probably have a larger Dunbars # than mine.  They are quieter and, to be honest, probably have better manners.  My family is loud and boisterous with teasing and conflicts and quite a bit of noise just part of the daily routine.  There is always something going on, but I doubt 150 people like that would make an optimal village.

And I ditto Kyle - I think the phrase is not to incite a hatred of individuals (good guyes -  Tom Steyer, Nick Hanauer and others - many listed in 'Only the Super Rich Can Save Us' by Ralph Nader), it's just a very effective meme/soundbite that quickly communicates the idea that the current economic system facilitates the creation of billionaires, to the detriment of the vast majority of the population.  

BTW...the 'soundbite' (byte?) is 'killer' tool used by marketers... we might come up with a few to communicate 'permaculture' effectively, and work to get them into common parlance.

Ann Torrence wrote:Or maybe both sides really represent the top .01% and we are being snookered.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Chadwick Holmes wrote:I agree that going after the 1% is the wrong attack, but I misunderstood, I assumed these people were mad at the system that creates 99/1 not the actual 1%?!?

Maybe I am just naive!

Just to note, that unless we go full on theoretical communism with everyone making the exact same income (so, not even the elites at the top of the political power chain are making any more money - I'll wait for the laughing to die down ...), there will ALWAYS be a 1%.  Any amount of variability in incomes will produce a group that is the "1%" by simple dint of the math of that variability.  

Where folks seem lately to be getting upset is at the size of the gap between the "1%" and the "99%" of the rest of us.  However, unless the high income earners are doing so by illegal, unethical, or immoral means (and yes, those are debatable terms, but if we restrict "unethical" and "immoral" to what most of society broadly agrees those terms mean we can have the conversation) why should I be mad that someone is making more than I am, even if it's 3+ orders of magnitude more?  Shouldn't I be inspired by the ability to make that kind of money to learn the skills, and apply the discipline necessary to earn that kind of income myself?  It's not a "Greed is Good" mentality, but a mentality of earning the income through focused study and hard work.  

I'm doing well, not "1%er" well, but certainly not poor.  I'd like to make more money, and am actively working on getting to that point.  I've gone back to school.  I've learned new skills on the job.  I've taken on additional responsibilities.  That has garnered me maybe an extra 5% on income than I'd be making otherwise, so I'm looking at making a change to unlock more of that potential income I know I can earn.  That I'm struggling to get there is not the fault of those already there.  

Andrew Mayflower wrote:

Where folks seem lately to be getting upset is at the size of the gap between the "1%" and the "99%" of the rest of us.

Maybe it's my socialist upbringing, but I have difficulty believing that someone earning $2,400,000 compared to say $33,000 per year, truly has that much more going for them. That higher wage works out to $1,153/hour based on a 40 hour workweek. Even if they're just an incredible person and that they work more like an 80 hour work week, that would still be over $500/hour. I can't imagine myself genuinely working so effectively and consistently, that I could keep up that sort of value for 11 months of the year. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, it's actually not so much the 1% as the 0.01% who have enough money that they can influence government policy in their favour, not to mention, buy out competitors to maintain their position even if that position is unsustainable. A classic example was the the car company that bought up the Lithium battery technology when it was the only thing that made electric cars possible at the time. These are the same car companies that pushed trucks, vans and SUV's as "status symbols" rather than practical small cars. From the "business" perspective, this made total sense - more money for their stock-holders, but of course, more money for the top 0.01 percent of management, at a time when the minimum wage in some states was so low that employees had to apply for Medicare to take their kids to a doctor.

So I don't resent the top wage earners - I wouldn't want their jobs if they were offered to me. But I do resent that they push government policy in directions that support their own damage to the environment, while doing everything in their power to prevent anyone else challenging that power. I can remember the huge kerfuffle when California decided to unilaterally impose tougher car emission standards. Having visited LA briefly during one of their positively horrible air quality periods, I could see that this would help many local citizens. The car companies whined, complained and exerted as much pressure as the could to try to get California to back down, not because it wasn't a reasonable goal, but because they perceived it would hurt their bottom line, because *they* don't have to pay the medical expenses that result from poor air quality.  

Nancy Sutton wrote:

BTW...the 'soundbite' (byte?) is 'killer' tool used by marketers... we might come up with a few to communicate 'permaculture' effectively, and work to get them into common parlance.

Considering my comments above, this thought has a scary side. If permaculture were to "threaten" the current food conglomerates, like Cargill, Nestle or PepsiCo, would they decide to fight back? There are already rules in places against saving seeds and planting certain crops. Would those companies be able to convince the public through their huge advertising budgets that Pemaculture was a threat to the American way of life? Maybe the slow, but sure, underground approach to change is the route I'll take.  

I agree that there will always be a difference.  In the US, the difference is so much more than it used to be here or is in healthier societies.  The point is not that someone has more money, but that the 1% has so much more power to change the culture to help themselves and their like.  They have changed facebook and social media, where most people get their news, to make sure that natural health goes to the bottom of the algorithm, to make sure people find out about corporate health solutions way before natural health solutions.  Great for the 1% who profit off it, terrible for the health of the rest of us.  And that is just one example.
John S
PDX OR

"The economy is rigged; Wall Street is criminal; DC is corrupt."  All this is true, as Bernie Sanders said, out loud, over and over again...hence the DNC made sure he didn't get the nomination.  And TPTB who have created this 'system' for their continuing enrichment (read Piketty for the proof), use every lever at their disposal (including most politicians, who cannot get elected w/o 1% donors, with the exception of those who eschew PAC donations, i.e., Sanders et al*)... including the media.  Here we are online, where we're getting the truth about alternatives to corporate food raising... but you may have noticed how vigorously 'they' are trying to kill this access, i.e., the 'net neutrality' issue.  Apparently, too many folks are getting non-MSM (aka 'the mighty wurlitzer') truth - making them nervous :)

* btw - this ability of some politicians to raise small donations from millions of citizens is a major threat to the 1%.

Another example is the estate tax.  I call it the Paris Hilton tax.  Billionaires have wiped it out.  Studies have been done on this where for many generations, their forebears won't have to work. Warren Buffett, clearly one of the 1%, has spoken out against this.   The rest of us are sweating away, eating top ramen, and going to Thrift stores to find clothes so we can pay their share of taxes.  This is so they can drink expensive champagne, crash Italian sports cars, and buy unlimited cocaine as they fly off to their private island.  I'm sure glad I'm waking up early to teach poor, abused children when they are still up partying in their gated ivory, gold and granite compounds.

John S
PDX OR

Hi John and Jay,

This takes me back to an economics class I had.  The instructor held that Rockefeller had no more than the members of the class for the most part.  What he had was nicer.  That is we all had clothes, car, house, tv, and food.  The 1% had better clothes, car, house, tv, and food.  

At this point, I don't buy fully into that. I am pretty sure I have better food.  I watch so little TV, I really don't care about tv quality.  I have owned 3 BMWs in my life, but the 2012 Chevy pickup I have is more reliable than they were ( ok, at times I do miss blasting through the backroads of the Smokies).  On the balance,  I am not sure what the gain is as ones income increases.

John F Dean,
To a certain degree, I agree with you. I don't want to live in a mansion on a golf course, wreck expensive sports cars, snort cocaine all night, etc.

However,  what you do gain is power over other people's lives and instant ability to show off your abundance. This appeals greatly to narcissistic sociopaths, who sociologists have found are way overrepresented among CEO's and top government officials.  While none of us in this discussion may want that lifestyle, they control the media to get most people to want that.  Even the newest iphone is among the top desires for most Americans.  While all of the energy in our culture is focused on desperately grasping for more money and power, very little energy is invested in caring for the poor, for the environment, or for the culture in general.  Things like parks, education,  health care, arts and music festivals that can help everyone feel included in our culture are neglected.  No ladders are built to help people develop skills and connections for making their way out of poverty. And in the US we have huge poverty and problems associated with it.  

The narcissistic, sociopathic personality is mostly concerned with itself and its perceived glory.  That is the problem.

John S
PDX OR

Indeed, i find it impossible to identify with those, whose only goal in life is to become upper middle class.....or middle class for that matter.  I am speaking of sociological status rather than economic.  To clarify,  I don't really care about what social status a person is, but to have social status as a goal confounds me. To me, life goals should be somewhat more substantial.

I read the first 10 or 12 posts made so I don't have everyone's point of view, but here's mine.

The world I was born into had already been set up. I didn't have much of a choice. I wanted to hunt and fish, live off the land and live a free life. Yes, I could have done that, but I didn't choose wisely for a mate, so that didn't happen. I wasn't cut out to be a criminal. Too soft hearted. I drop a tear or two at those dumbassed movies when the girl gets the hero.
I had but one option...get a job, buy a house, pay taxes, die broke. I didn't have time then nor do I have time now to worry about the percentages. I just don't care. I worry about stuff that affects me and mine.
The people in that single percentile think differently than the rest of us. They are programmed to believe we serve them. That they are better than us. They expect handed to them what we make payments on.
Have you ever been in the company of rich people? Their entire mindset is different because they didn't have to work for it. There was little effort expended to reap huge rewards.
My dad knew a rich man. Said he was the nicest person. Just a regular guy. He had made his money in oil by working and saving. The rich man's father had not been rich, either. His children grew to be ruthless business people. Money does crap to your head. Zero effort to ensure your future does, too.
The worst place to be is in that 1% or .01% and then suddenly get thrown into the 99.9%. That usually doesn't turn out well unless you have financial backing. Donald Trump failed a few times but had his father's financial backing to start again. I wonder how his story would have turned out had he not had that backing.
We need the 1% to push the envelope, create opportunities and provide jobs. They need us to make their dream a reality. Everyone wins. I pushed my own envelope and I don't struggle day to day like some folks do. I have the ability to be as successful or as miserable as I choose. I have the ability to be in the 1% or right down there at the bottom of the 99.9%.
In my mind, I don't care how much they make. They're gonna take as much with them in the end as I am. They created a situation in which I could expend the resources I choose to put a roof over my head. I'm happy with the size of my roof and what's underneath.
They put resources, sweat and energy into their projects, I just work there. I have no skin in the project. I collect my pay and go home pleased I've done my part. I earned my pay and they earn theirs. When I go home they're still fixing problems,  worrying about financing and planning the next project.
My son and I have had this conversation a few times. He thinks we own the rich when we don't work for them. That we can bring the rich to their knees in some big fantasy workers revolt. If a venture doesn't work for them they cut it off and move on. If they can't get people to work for them they simply outsource to third world countries.

I don't agree in whole, but in parts.

I find it hard to feel kinship with anyone for whom the drive to charity and to take chances on business startups and whatnot is centred around tax write-offs and loss-leaders, means to pay less taxes, or to benefit off their contributions, in ways not available to non-1%ers.

Take a look at recent articles about how much the richest people in the states didn't pay in taxes. I think the most recent figures out are for 2018. But trickle-down totally works.

It's no wonder to me that governments run deficits. Those benefitting most from their existence don't pay their fair share.

And then, to make sure no organisation of the people, the workers' class, or whatever, can't rise up to oust them, they play political label games. They fund whatever hate with which they can identify that will cause division amongst those different groups all subjugated to the 1%.

And there's the bread and circuses angle. There's a reason the entertainment industry, from Hollywood and streaming platforms to professional sports of all stripes, are given so much attention. It gives the people something to take their minds off of their insurmountable financial issues, and to spend the money they don't have on. And then the banks come in with the bread, and you'll only have to pay 20% interest on that bread, and only if you can't pay it back by the end of your payment period.

I am not surprised that there would be people in the 1% who are an exception to this mentality, no more than I would be to find them on this site. I am also not surprised that none of them have swept in and offered to fund Paul's efforts.

I am sure someone will, just as soon as there's a tax credit/writeoff for that.

-CK