9 out of 10 Americans are completely wrong about this mind blowing fact

I saw this video posted by one of my leftist facebook friends.

I want to dig a little deeper into the source material of this, analyze some of the assumptions made, and examine not only the phrasing and terminology employed, but the motives behind them.

Politizane posted the video in November of 2012, and it's all the rage on the Leftist websites. We don't know who Politzane is. His youtube account was set up at the same time the video was posted and is the only thing he has posted. Apparently he has major connections, because every leftist website is citing the video. Makes me wonder if it was planted by leftist operatives and then circulated to foster its legitimacy.

Politizane begins, "A Harvard business professor and economist asked 5000 people..." So who is this Harvard "business professor?" A little research reveals it is Michael I. Norton. Dr. Norton is not an economist, he is a psychologist, with a "B.A. in Psychology and English from Williams College and a Ph.D. in Psychology from Princeton University."

Dr. Norton measures peoples' psychological attitudes about money. That's his job. Oh, and he teaches a couple of courses: "The Art of Marketing Science," and the "Program for Leadership Development and Strategic Marketing Management executive programs." This sounds to me like he's interested in how attitudes and opinions can be manipulated.

Here's his study, done in 2005. In it we find a premise, that is, "income inequality" not only exists, but is something that ought to be measured, surveyed and evaluated. Dr. Norton also wrote an article for the N.Y. Times. Here we read,

"My colleagues and I are now exploring whether educating Americans about the current level of wealth inequality (by showing them charts and pictures) might increase their support for policies that reduce this inequality." 

So his research is focused on manipulating opinions! He's not a scientist, he is a political operative interested in achieving political outcomes. He has an agenda.

Worse, his objective is to find ways to make it easier to redistribute wealth. From the Times article:

"In addition, we are assessing whether different forms of redistribution – for example, raising the minimum wage, or longer term interventions like reducing disparities in education – are less likely to evoke heated opposition, and perhaps increase advocacy for greater wealth equality." 

His aim is to reduce opposition to his political objectives. That's the nature of his "research."

Ok, now that we know this "scientist" has an agenda we can evaluate the rest of the video in terms of it also being a propaganda piece designed to manipulate opinions. Remember, Politizane says he just can't get the poll out of his mind. And the pollster admitted that he is trying to change attitudes. Can we conclude that Dr. Norton and Politizane share the same objectives? Could they be the same person?

Politizane informs us in the video that wealth in the U.S. is "shockingly skewed." To skew means to distort something. Something is out of kilter, it's not the way it should be, it's deviated from the ideal. To label something as skewed, coupled to the word "shockingly," is to make an a priori assumption that wealth distribution needs to be brought back to some sort of proper arrangement.

Politizane sets out to prove what he assumes. He attempts to present a "scholarly" veneer on the presentation, assuming a problem for which the video will provide a solution. But are we able to agree this is a problem? Is the premise sound? What, if any, problems are due to the "shockingly skewed" distribution of wealth? Even the use of the word "distribution" is a value judgment, presuming that certain outside forces are (or ought to be) working to "give" extra wealth to some and "take" it from others.

Next to appear on the screen is the text "'Dreaded' Socialism." Note that the video puts "dreaded" in quotes. The addition of the quotes is designed as a diminutive, so we are supposed to think that socialism isn't such a bad idea to consider. In keeping with this, Politizane says, "We all know that won't work" with a bit of sarcasm in his voice, suggesting that maybe socialism will indeed work. 

We must pause to note at this point that the Left vociferously objects to being called socialists. They get quite huffy and accuse conservatives of not understanding socialism. They resent the identifier, most likely because it is accurate. Socialists prefer their agenda to remain under wraps, obscured by emotion-laden words like "compassion," "fairness," "equality," and "tolerance." 

Apparently what we need is a little socialism to solve the "problem" of wealth inequality.

Now the discussion moves on to the actual poll results. Unfortunately, Politizane does not inform us of a crucial fact: Dr. Norton dealt with "net worth," not the rich, middle class, and poor. From the N.Y. Times article:

"We might think that people who have 'zero net worth' have nothing. But in fact, having zero net worth increasingly means owning a lot (cars, televisions, even houses) – but also owing a lot." 

So we aren't talking about poor people at all! This completely changes the character of the issue, which means any conclusions Politizane draws aren't related to the poor at all.

Moving on. The first poll is the what those who were polled thought was the ideal distribution of wealth. Politizane intones, "Even the poor people aren't poor, the poverty line has stayed almost completely off the chart." Wait. We just learned that we aren't necessarily talking about poor people at all. But more crucially, the delineation level deemed to be the "poverty line" is a political selection. The "poverty line" even appears as a government chart, which is modified regularly. Therefore, it isn't possible to have 100% of the populace above the poverty line. The bottom level, say 10-15%, is automatically the poor.

Politizane moves on to Dr. Norton's second poll: "expectation of present reality." This is what the polled individuals thought was the way it really is right now, worse than the ideal distribution of wealth cited before. Quoting the voice-over: "The poorest 20-30% are starting to suffer quite a lot. The middle class is certainly struggling more than they were." Ah, the suffering. How horrible. I'm sure it is obvious by now that we cannot determine any level of suffering based on the net wealth of anyone. This is nothing more than emotional manipulation.

Politizane next covers the actual distribution of wealth, not what those who were polled believed it to be. At this point we don't know if the graph is accurate, given Politizane's propensity for manipulation. "1% has 40% of nation's wealth, the bottom 80% has 7% of wealth." It must be a revelation to Politizane that the poor don't have money and the rich do. This is known as a tautology. 

And, it has "gotten worse over the last 20-30 years." Actually, it has been for a lot longer than that. But "20-30 years" is a time frame that conveniently brings it close to home, as if recent events and political disagreements are to blame. With the exception of 2001-2007, the Democrats have had either partial or total control of the government in the modern era. But things have gotten worse? How is that possible? After trillions of dollars wealth transfer and progressive taxation, and the incessant demonization of the wealthy, things are not better? The Great Society didn't make society Great? 

The "top 1% own half the country's stocks bonds mutual funds, bottom 50% only own 1/2%, which means they aren't investing, they're just scraping by." Ok, so it must also be surprising that the rich also can afford to own investments but the poor can't? Another tautology.

Continuing on, Politizane asks: "Is a wealthy CEO working 380x harder than the average worker?" Note the pejorative characterization. More critically, note also that the conversation has switched from wealth to income. We are suddenly talking about something completely different,

But let's go with it. Does Politizane not know that pay is not based on how hard someone works? A construction worker probably works harder than anyone, as far as physical labor. A brain surgeon probably doesn't break a sweat. Who should be paid more? Obviously, the one whose skill is rarer. 

Workers are paid based on the value, skill, and productivity they bring to the workplace, not by how hard they work. Why does Peyton Manning earn millions of dollars per year? Because he possesses skills that fill stadium seats. Why does a backhoe operator earn more money than a ditch digger? Because a backhoe operator can move a lot more dirt.

So, CEOs may not seem to work particularly hard, but they have a rare skillset. They are (or should be) paid based on the huge profits they generate for the company. But we need to note that the relationship is voluntary. Society does not get to decide the value of the CEO's work, the Board of Directors do. If the stockholders don't like it, they can vote or get rid of their shares. If the consumer doesn't like it, he can take his shopping dollar elsewhere.

The video concludes, "We certainly don't have to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair." Wow. this single sentence contains a wealth of idiocy. First, there is that ubiquitous "we." As previously noted, the employer-employee relationship is consensual, private, and not a matter for society to decide. And "we" never means you and me, it means government.

Second, there is an implicit assumption that nothing has been done up until now. We apparently haven't had decades of redistribution. Socialists are new on the scene. So today is a new day, where we are starting with a blank slate, trying to decide the best way to punish the rich help the poor.

Third, there is really no such thing as a little bit of socialism. Therefore, we are perfectly justified in deeming any particular economic feature as socialism, even if the system in which it appears is not socialistic. We are talking about principles, you see, and socialistic principles, wherever they appear, are worthy of being reproached. And can we ask, if we shouldn't go "all the way to socialism," just far should we go?

Fourth, he tells us that surely we can "find something that is fair," which apparently means a society that contains exactly the right amount of socialism. The video tells us the total value of the nation's wealth is $54 trillion, money that must be just sitting around in a pot somewhere, waiting to be divvied up in a "fair" way by these oh-so-wise socialists. Of course, they know exactly what is fair. And, they want to bring the force of government down upon us all to make it happen. So "we," meaning government, is going to come up with a "fair" way to take money from the people who earned it and give it to people to which it does not belong. Government, I guess, ought to have to power to decide who has too much money, and who else deserves it more.

This is the economics of envy, where people sit in judgment of others, deciding what those others are entitled to, and taking the excess away. They imagine they know better what is fair. They believe they ought to be able to legislate morality by punishing greed. So the greedy take money from the greedy and give it to the greedy.

It's "fair."