Life in the Lower 99, Revisited: A 2026 Commentary on the Wealth Gap From 2012 (A #throwbackthursday Essay)
âSo many of my friends post about how they feel about the present economy. I wonder how they would feel if, in the future, they were one of the fortunate ones who was earning a lot more money. Would you still be angry with them for having more than you? Would you still think they should pay more than they are now? Would you still think your money should support those who donât have, because they arenât ambitious as you?â (August 24th, 2012, Author Withheld)
When I saw this aggressively ill-informed post on Facebook 14 summers ago, I was gobsmacked. Four questions posed, four examples of total ignorance about the growing wealth gap in America, and the liberal reaction to the problem.
I live in Boston. The minimum wage in Boston was $8 in 2012 (federal minimum was $7.25.) The average rent in Boston 2012 was approximately $913 per month. In 2026? Average rent is $3,673, and upwards of $4k for two- and 3-bedrooms. Thatâs well over a 300% increase. Minimum wage? $15 in Boston â thatâs an 87% increase. Simply put, rent outpaces income spectacularly.
Federal minimum wage in 2026? Still $7.25. While the nationwide average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in 2026 has jumped to $1,795. A 96% increase over 2012 rates. Forget about buying. Itâs out of reach for most people.
When you factor in the exorbitantly high prices at the pump, at the supermarket, healthcare, and all the other necessities of life, itâs clear to anyone that late-stage capitalism cost-of-living is outpacing income.
Oh, but not for the big corporate CEOs. Oh no. According to the Economic Policy Institute, âCEO-to-worker pay has skyrocketed over the last six decades. In 2024, CEOs were paid 281 times as much as a typical worker â in contrast to 1965, when they were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker.â And according to the Harvard Law School Forum On Corporate Governance, âAs CEO compensation increased, so did the gap between executive and employee pay. Equilar 500 data shows that the median CEO pay ratio rose from 210:1 in 2024 to 219:1 in 2025, a 4.3% increase. Growth was also recorded at both the 25th and 75th percentiles, signaling a broad-based expansion in pay disparities across large public companies. The rising pay ratio suggests that compensation growth for CEOs continues to outpace gains for the typical employee, further widening the divide between executive and workforce earnings.â
Four questions posed, four examples of total ignorance about the growing wealth gap in America, and the liberal reaction to the problem.
"I wonder how they would feel if, in the future, they were one of the fortunate ones who was earning a lot more money."
"Would you still be angry with them for having more than you?"
"Would you still think they should pay more than they are now?"
"Would you still think your money should support those who donât have, because they arenât ambitious as you?â
Hereâs what I wrote in 2012 to âAuthor Withheld.â I wish I were wrong. I really do. But the proverbial writing was on the wall. On this #ThrowbackThursday, letâs take a look back.
_______________________________________
Life in the Lower 99 (Published August 24, 2012)
In any other political climate, the litany of wrongheaded assumptions in this rant would leave me astonished. As it is, I know that any conservative voter could have written it. Living quite comfortably in a suburban cashmere-lined bubble, in their heart of hearts these people actually believe that those less fortunate are just jealous. Iâve had that said right to my face. âYouâre just jealous.â Well âyour just jealousâ is probably what they say, letâs be real.
Whatâs actually happening is this: those without a sufficient grasp of the democratic social contract are unable and/or unwilling to mentally align themselves with the plight of friends and neighbors living at or below the poverty level. Like school children that join in with the bully, they grasp at a chance to align with the privileged. And also, clearly, they donât seem to understand what taxes even are, or how itâs all supposed to work. Letâs break it down.
"Why should people who are well to do be punished for working harder to make more?"
This is one sentence with a smattering of ideas that donât connect with anything. Who is talking about wealthy people being âpunishedâ here? All weâre saying is kill the tax loopholes and shelters that are siphoning the lifeblood from our economy and lining the pockets of people who have almost as much money as God. We need everyoneâs contribution or else there isnât enough in the kitty here. And what the hell do you mean âfor working harder.â I work my ass off, so did my parents. People are having to work two, three jobs just to put food on the table, struggling to keep up with how fast their kidsâ feet are growing. How dare you suggest that anyone without mansions and yachts just didnât work hard enough. It would be a personal insult if it werenât so stupid.
"Would you still think your money should support those who donât have, because they arenât ambitious as you?â
Excuse me, ambitious? See above.
"Would you still think they should pay more than they are now?"
Yes. Of course I would. Do you think my belief in the concept of âfair shareâ changes depending upon my personal share? Thatâs an appalling point of view, frankly. The reason that Mitt Romney only pays 14% in taxes has zero to do with how âhardâ he has worked, lady. In fact that guy never had to put in a hard dayâs labor in his life. Martin Sheen put it, âHe was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.â When income is in the form of capital gains, and those earnings are not taxed at the same rate as my paycheck, that means these people get to keep a significantly larger percentage of what they earn.
"Would you still be angry with them for having more than you?"
Average Americans are not âangryâ about top 1% âhaving more.â Weâre not toddlers, whatâs wrong with you? Of course there will always be families whoâve done well for themselves, that can leave behind a legacy of wealth that shore up generations. And naturally there will always be average families living modestly as well. Thatâs not even close to why weâre âangry.â
Hereâs what we are, okay?
We are pissed off because our former robust democracy has transformed into a sick oligarchy. As a nation, thanks to this brand of upside-down, backwards thinking, weâve exchanged âwe the peopleâ for an economy and society controlled by about four hundred guys, give or take.
We are outraged that the wealthy have the means to insert politicians into power. These conservative money-backed politicians are mere puppets of the elite, ready with a âyesâ vote on any bill that will empower the elite, a sweaty grip on the red pen to abolish any initiative designed to gut our basic American freedom.
We are astonished that people like you think itâs totally fair game to essentially rig the system in oneâs favor, to purchase policy that rewards wealth and obliterates the poor and the middle class. The people whose political seats have been paid for by the 1% have craftily engineered the tax code to siphon off funds that should be bolstering our nationâs infrastructure. They have set up tax shelters where there should be homeless shelters and womenâs shelters. The Federal Reserve just came out with a report in black and white that shows what we have been saying for twelve years: the median net worth for the middle class family has dropped steadily since there was a Democrat in the oval office, and has plummeted ever further into the abyss since 2007; during the same time period, over 90% of all new income was earned by the top 1%. That means 99% of people shared the remaining 10%. Does that sound right to you? That most of the American people are grimly trudging along, battling ever-higher housing, fuel, education, health expenses and growing poorer every year? And itâs not because they are less âambitious.â And itâs not because theyâre âjealous.â Itâs a rigged system. âLoopholeâ is never defined as a positive thing. And that does not sound right to me.
We are incensed because the politicians who themselves feel safe with their top-rated health insurance (for themselves, and their families, and for life by the way) are empowered to decide what âaffordableâ health care means, doggedly slashing programs and insisting that privatized medicine is the answer. Everyone knows that âprivatizedâ is code for âyou get what you pay for,â and going by that logic, all of the ailing rich will be treated while the poor will simply crawl off to some hole in the ground to die. Cancer isnât bad enough, we should also become destitute and homeless?
We are furious that the economy is in an unnecessary recession. Those of us with jobs are facing the highest food and housing costs ever, many havenât had a salary increase in years, Many are under-employed. I have brilliant friends with college degrees who are driving cabs and working the till at the supermarket. It wasnât the 99% that caused this recession. It was the greedy 1%, and now they want to fix it by taking even MORE from us. These people bullied their way into the big chairs, voted consistently to make sure the rest of us would need to struggle just to maintain the basics, and it all came to a head when there was no other option but to approve that sickening $700 billion bailout through the TARP program, plus the Federal Reserve provided $16 trillion to your schoolyard bullyâs gargantuan corporations. The media gave it a cute title (Too Big To Fail) and a jingle and a graphic and then talked about Angelina Jolie some more.
âThe enormous bets they made on worthless, complex, and exotic financial instruments went bad, and they stuck the American people with the bill,â wrote U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders in June of this year. Senator Sanders also wrote that âthe wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million peopleâŚthe top 1 percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns 2 percentâŚIncredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just 0.3 percent of the wealth of the country.â
"I wonder how they would feel if, in the future, they were one of the fortunate ones who was earning a lot more money."
Really? Hereâs the thing about liberals. Our core value system is not for sale. Thatâs the difference between liberals and âconservatives,â which, frankly nobody understands what it is youâre trying to conserve. Liberals want everyone in America to have enough healthy food, affordable housing, libraries, art programs and a chance at college and all of the other things that our combined taxes are supposed to support. What decent person believes that right idea is to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps and other social programs the bullies can get their sweaty hands on, whilst enhancing and strengthening the obscene tax shelters, corporate handouts and loopholes that are the real root cause of the problem? There is plenty of money. Plenty. The system would work if the oligarchy wasnât rigging policy to beat the system in this sickening way. How would I feel if I achieve a higher tax bracket? I would feel awesome that I could help more. I sure as heck wouldnât go out of my way to hide, keep and squander more than my own fair share, the money thatâs supposed to be going towards the greater good. Shame on you. Seriously, shame on all of you.â