CDZ What is this nonsense about "elites?"

[320 Years of History]

We keep hearing Donald Trump attempt to frame this election and the state of affairs in America as that of "elites vs. non-elites."

Well, just who are the "elites" that are supposedly against everyone else?

• Are "elites" merely people who earn a decent living? The ~95M upper middle class or higher income/wealth American citizens? (30% of the ~318M American population)
  
  From the June 2016 Wall Street Journal article cited:
  
  "The upper middle class has expanded from about 12% of the population in 1979 to a new record of nearly 30% as of 2014."
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Are "elites" the 1.5M people who've devoted their lives to scholarly pursuits?
• Are "elites" the 536 American billionaires?
• Are "elites" the 535 members of Congress?

The fact is that the U.S. does not have a peerage, so we know the "elites" are not people who have inherited titles of nobility.

The fact is that there seem to be some 95M people who have done exactly what they were supposed to do and as a result live a comfortable life in the U.S. That's far too many people for one to legitimately say that it's too difficult to "make it" in America. That's far too many folks to say that the middle class isn't thriving in America.

When I read the data from source after source, what it looks like to me is that as the population has grown, the quantity of folks who screwed up someone and have not become part of the nearly 60% of the nation that is middle or upper middle class (by the measures shown above) has also grown and they've (1) become more willing to be vocal because the Internet makes it easy for them to be so, and (2) some politicians have keyed into the fact that those people can be exploited and pandered to easily because they largely don't read anything and are more than willing to get on the bandwagon of anyone who'll, unlike in the past, tell them "it's not their fault" that they, in contrast with the 95M people who are upper middle or middle class, have not captured a reasonable share of the "American Dream."

I have news for those so-called "non elites" who are the minority in this country: it is their fault to following extents.

• It is their fault they didn't acquire the skills needed to transform themselves to thrive in the changing economy.
• It is their fault they haven't moved to a place that values the skills they have to offer.
• It is their fault they did not pay attention to the "writing on the wall" when they were thriving under the prior national/global economic paradigm and prepare themselves for what was coming.
• It is their fault they took favor with political leaders who embraced the changing paradigm rather than with leaders who did not.
• It is their fault that they use the Internet to find sources of platitudinously manipulative confirmation of their ill informed stances.
• It is their fault they make fleeting to no effort to challenge and rigorously and critically investigate their own views and those of would be leaders who aim to use folks ignorance for personal political (perhaps also financial) power/gain.

So who are the "elites?" They are none other than the millions upon millions of Americans who have done exactly what they were told they should do -- go to school, do well and take up a career doing something that is in high demand -- and now reap the benefits of doing so rather than refusing to do so, rather than believing "it'll all work out." They are the people who took ownership of their lives rather than letting life happen to them.

 

[Tehon]

Generally speaking the term "elites" is a dog whistle. Though there may be some validity to the term in describing people who use their accumulated wealth or influence, in a political sense, in a less than scrupulous manner as it relates to society at large. You provided no context for Trump's usage of the term.

 

[Disir]

Nope. The elite squad are those who determine policy or attempt to shift societal norms and values by forcing others to conform. Social reform.

For example, I'm sure you have heard of the white, Protestant work ethic which heavily influenced early American culture and continues to this day. Poverty is a sin. Thus, the more successful you are the more you are "saved".

Another example would be the W.C.T.U advocating against first generation immigrants by implying they were dirty and drunks via film and attitude.You were never Christian enough or white enough.

Another example would be what is known the white upper class mainstream education system which refused for years to incorporate any other views in both literature and history.

You seem to think that you can just incorporate as many people as possible into the movers and shakers group and that isn't how it works. Would any of us on this board be able to command an audience in Congress regarding H1B visas? No, but do you know who can? Bill Gates. Now, that doesn't mean Trump is not a member of the elite squad. It simply means you can't take it and twist it for your own version of social reform.

 

[Toronado3800]

I disagree with the cut offs.

A person who makes $350,000 a year is not elite.

One making $35,000,000 a year has a whole different existence.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nope. The elite squad are those who determine policy or attempt to shift societal norms and values by forcing others to conform. Social reform.

For example, I'm sure you have heard of the white, Protestant work ethic which heavily influenced early American culture and continues to this day. Poverty is a sin. Thus, the more successful you are the more you are "saved".

Another example would be the W.C.T.U advocating against first generation immigrants by implying they were dirty and drunks via film and attitude.You were never Christian enough or white enough.

Another example would be what is known the white upper class mainstream education system which refused for years to incorporate any other views in both literature and history.

You seem to think that you can just incorporate as many people as possible into the movers and shakers group and that isn't how it works. Would any of us on this board be able to command an audience in Congress regarding H1B visas? No, but do you know who can? Bill Gates. Now, that doesn't mean Trump is not a member of the elite squad. It simply means you can't take it and twist it for your own version of social reform.

I disagree with the cut offs.

A person who makes $350,000 a year is not elite.

One making $35,000,000 a year has a whole different existence.

Pink:
I'm not trying to incorporate more or fewer folks into any cohort. I'm simply looking at the numbers. Tell me, under what system of performance measurement where the trait(s) measured are positive are the individuals who perform in the top 2% or top 1% not the elite performers within that system? At what point does one's performance under that system cease to reach the standard given by "elite?"

I think anyone would assert that the top 2% of performers in any system are elite. That's certainly the case with regard to the measurement of intelligence. In many constructs, even the top 10% are among the elite performers. Certainly in the academic experience we all have, people who are in the top 10% of their classes are considered elite students. The same is so in many work environments. It stands to reason that when it comes to measuring political or economic eliteness, the same should also be so.

I'm not suggesting that there are not gradations of eliteness. There clearly as as Toronado3800 suggests. All the same, the rallying cry we hear about elites is something that seems to me folks haven't thought through all that well when they ascribe and heel to it. The reality is that if elite means something akin to being a $35M/year earner, we are then talking about a very small quantity of citizens, something fewer than 2,000 individuals and soemthing more than about ~70 individuals in the U.S.

Accordingly, the idea that such a small quantity of persons is actively opposed to the entire rest of the population of the U.S. (or the world) and is able to act on and succeed in achieving their "against everyone else" objectives is just absurd. That sort of thing happened in the Renaissance and prior eras when there was a clearly defined and inflexibly fixed quantity of aristocrats. The inability to obtain a very happy existence in the U.S. is alive and well in the U.S., and one need only look at all manners of newly minted millionaires -- the owners and leaders of Google, Apple, AirBNB, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, and myriad other less famous entrepreneurs are just some of them; the doctors, engineers, attorneys, business managers, software developers and others are additional examples, even though it may take them a career's time to become very well off -- the growth of the upper middle class from 1979 to the present, or even the ascendancy of immigrants who've come all but penniless to the U.S. and thrived, some even becoming "seriously" well off.

Another point is that the promise the U.S. offers is that one need not be "to the manor born" to achieve that to which one fully, efficiently and effectively puts one's brain and brawn. That promise has not been revoked. What has happened is that far too many Americans have evolved this sense of entitlement whereby the most meager degrees of effort on their part is supposed to yield the rewards of that promise. Too many folks expect the fruits of the "American Dream" to fall into their laps merely because they are Americans. That alone has never been enough and it's not now.

Red:
I really cannot say. I don't know the individuals who participate on this board.

Blue:
Yes. I can. My U.S. Representative has met with me when I've requested a meeting. The topics weren't H1B visas, but I asked for meetings and met with her.

 

[GaryDog]

I think the term "elite" requires another qualifier and a subset of categories. Intellectual "elites" may make a relatively small income but have a wealth of knowledge and skill. Wall Street "elites" may not know their ass from their elbow but may be worth north of $100M.

 

[Silent Warrior]

I think the term refers to political elites, not the economic elites in your example. Political elites are the same on both sides of the isle and are more concerned with retaining political power than with anything else. They do or say anything according to the number of votes it gets rather than the effect it has on the country. Trump may be an economic elite, but not a political one, hence the elites in the RNC want him out. They would rather look at a Dem elite in office than a Rep non-elite. I think the attraction of so many to Trump is that for good or bad he is not someone who's only accomplishments are those in elective office having never “paid their dues” in the workforce. Obviously that does not mean that he would make a good political leader, but since he is facing the ultimate in political elites and both parties look the same many seem willing to try something different.

 

[JoeMoma]

I disagree with the cut offs.

A person who makes $350,000 a year is not elite.

One making $35,000,000 a year has a whole different existence.

Where is the line?

 

[320 Years of History]

I disagree with the cut offs.

A person who makes $350,000 a year is not elite.

One making $35,000,000 a year has a whole different existence.

Where is the line?

I too am looking for the answer to that question. I don't expect there is something so binarily ideal as a line, but a range or relative starting point that is somewhat objectively understandable by all would be just fine. I'm sure there is no meaningful economic difference, say, between earning $350K and earning $330K or $370K, or any other roughly similar sums, so that's why I say binary precision isn't what I require in answer to the question "where is the line?"

 

[JoeMoma]

I disagree with the cut offs.

A person who makes $350,000 a year is not elite.

One making $35,000,000 a year has a whole different existence.

Where is the line?

I too am looking for the answer to that question. I don't expect there is something so binarily ideal as a line, but a range or relative starting point that is somewhat objectively understandable by all would be just fine. I'm sure there is no meaningful economic difference, say, between earning $350K and earning $330K or $370K, or any other roughly similar sums, so that's why I say binary precision isn't what I require in answer to the question "where is the line?"

It's relative. I'm sure that the average American seem elite to a Hatian.

 

[Disir]

It isn't that hard to figure out.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm looking for a cut off:

Someplace around a million to two million a year you start earning as much as a good number of "normal" folks do in a life time.

At two million a year you start to have real power to never have to earn money again but you may not be able to really "change the world".

To me elite should be the top tier, "change the world" type money so I could go with the billionaires as a definition

Poor $0 to $18,000 yearly
Near Poor $18,000 to $30,000 yearly
Lower Middle Class $30,000 to $50,000 yearly
Middle Class $50,000 to $90,000 yearly
Upper Middle Class $90,000 to $150,000 yearly
Well Off $150,000 to $500,000 yearly
Wealthy $500,000 to $2,000,000 yearly
Rich $2,000,000 to 75,000,000 yearly
Elite $1,000,000,000 net worth

Maybe there should be one more between rich and elite.

For a mid-westerner those seem to be steps where you can tell people's lives are different.

For example, the daily life of a guy making $100,000 a year is probably not much different from a guy making $150,000 a year.

But a fella making $500,000 a year is not concerned if his kid gets a scholarship to an ivy league school.

.

 

[Disir]

It isn't rocket science.