I think using "that's how the system works as a justification is a cop-out answer that is used for justifying some pretty terrible views. None of our ancestors, from those who served under feudal lords, to the people who fought for civil rights for women and minorities, ever fully accepted "the way things are" - if they had, none of us would be as well off today as we are.
I did not mean to imply "that's the way things are,"I meant to imply that's the natural progression of things. Like there is a natural progression for people whi's rights are restricted for no reason to get more and more equal rights, there is a progression for business to becompe less and less regulated, or the government trying to regulate the business more and more corrupt by those they are trying to regulate.
Hm, maybe? I wouldn't know. I don't go to Harvard. Just lucky to have gotten into this school (though busted my butt like crazy to get in there). My parents aren't rich, and I'm paying for the $30k a year or so that it costs pretty much entirely out of my own pocket and through loans.
While hard work + out-of-pocket/"bootstraps" stories are inspirational, but they are the exception, not the rule.
I don't see why what I did wasn't that particularly hard. I didn't even have all that good of grades in high school. Just took some part time community college classes while working, then took out a loan to go to one university to finish my bachelors, then after graduating found a job (which i might add pays WAY below my skill level), and while working there took out a loan to get my masters degree, taking classes in the evenings part time.This isn't particularly hard. The only major difference between my friends and me is that I don't have every video game console out, don't buy games and movies all the time, don't buy junk and trinkets every time i want something, don't go to a restaurant every week, have only the most basic cable, don't buy clothes unless i need them, eat the cheapest stuff I can find, drive a crappy old car with 200k+ miles on it, and don't have a lot of free time what with the work, classes, homework, and some extracurriculars I do. So, you want to be the "bootstraps" rich guy? Just don't waste your money on shit and get better priorities. That's about it.
I would rather there be no winners and no losers than a few winners and a ton of losers, but I genuinely care for my fellow human beings. I also don't believe in this "lazy welfare recipient" meme; welfare is not some glorious thing. People want to be productive, nobody likes feeling useless. The best solution you can have for this is to offer a bunch of "public works" programs to allow them to take on jobs that make them feel productive while they are in-between full-time public service jobs or private industry careers, Of course there will be freeloaders - that happens, but it is far more better to deal with a few freeloaders than demean ourselves as a species as cast those who cannot get work, are too disabled, or are too depressed to be motivated to the side like trash instead of taking care of them and leaving open opportunities for them to improve themselves.
I'm not against the idea of infrastructure or welfare for those who genuinely need it. But if everyone was equal with no winners or losers, everyone would be a loser, since why bother working if you know you'll be taken care of anyway? What's the drive/incentive to be better if you know you won't be a winner even if you try to be?
My anger at the "rich" comes from the fact that I know that the ratio of 'labor/work' they do compared to the laborers at the bottom is much different than the ratio of pay they both receive.
Well, the reason for that is because not many can do the stuff the "rich" can, but plenty can do the stuff the laborers can. It's really just simple supply and demand. If laborers demand to get higher pay, someone else wil come around and offer to take the limited number of jobs for a lower pay (like Chinese and Indians did). The whole union and minimum wage thing may have worked when we were more or less isolated, but in a globalized world we entered just 15 years ago, free market is king. There's no more single all-encompasing rules to keep workers from competing for jobs. So, the only option we have, really, is to create a one-world government that passes minimum wage laws globally (impossible), or have workers become more and more skilled with more unique and specialized skills. Lucky for them, we now have plenty of evidence that the sweatshops people were complaining about ten years ago do, in fact, progress to more competition for employees, which means higher wages and better working conditions. Though if you have a better, WORKABLE idea of how to solve that problem, i'm all ears.
Also, finance very much does suck money off labor: it may not be directly; but it still does. It's similar to what I said above. Debtors/investors are actually laborers often, too.
Finance is a tool and a service that at the very core simply tries to match up risk with the estimated cost of that risk, nothing more. People with too low an income are too much of a risk, and shouldn't attempt to buy things like videogames, junk, and even houses, with borrowed money.