>>The alternative I say is "Yes, us 99% are so wronged by the 1%"
>
>Are you saying they were not?


I'm saying qualify and quantify your problems in a different manner.


Let's say we have:

Group A: the 1% in America

Group B is the American middle class..

Group C is the 1% in the world

Group D is the Chinese work force.

Ok.

Group B feels oppressed by Group A.

Group B wants Group A to cut them a break, so they can get ahead.

Group D wants Group C to cut them a break, so they can get ahead and stop feeling like throwing themselves off the Foxconn building where they make iPhones.


The sad irony of this is that Group C and Group B are the same people.

The American middle class wants the top 1% of America to cut them a break, but they would buy more iPhones.

They are expecting the top 1% of the 1st world to do for them something that they as the top 1% in the world at large won't do for the less advantaged.

It is not reasonable to hold people to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

Not only that, but if group A did grant your wish and cut group B some slack, it wouldn't make the world a better place. I mean, group B would be better off: they'd have more money to spend on funding the exploitation of human beings in China.


Good solutions to important problems will come when our focus is on those with less money than us.

All in all, as Bill Gates reports, more progress against disease and hunger and poverty happened last year than any other time recently.

If people are unwilling to acknowledge the progress we make today, why bend over backwards to impress them tomorrow?