This is a very interesting point. The focus of political rhetoric right now appears to be predominantly on the middle classes. This while the number of Americans living in poverty is at its highest level since the Census has published figures on this. (I assume however by “under classes” you mean the impoverished).

However, I would question the notion that government programs have “failed.” This depends on how you might define failure. Without a social safety net, the lot of the “poor” would be much worse, and no doubt instances of homelessness would be much higher. Yet with regards to the actual prevention of poverty, most government programs do not seem to address this issue adequately but neither do they appear designed to do so. However, there are a lot of other factors at play, the disappearance of jobs that were once the foundation of the working class being one of them.

It is always dangerous to generalize from our own life experiences; however, sometimes the observations are useful. Over my career in business, I’ve had a chance to meet thousands of people; many of them have been very successful. Most came from very ordinary backgrounds, and some emerged from families that experienced significant hardships and challenges. I and other members of senior management in my company mentored aspiring high potential employees from very diverse backgrounds. The most common characteristics of people who been very successful in my view are: aptitude, acquired and applied skills, excellent interpersonal skills, relevant educational achievements, outstanding performance over time, an industrious work ethic, the propensity to create value; and being in the right place at the right time. Risk and reward are equally important for entrepreneurs. Many more fail than succeed. Knowing someone and connections aren’t substitutes for these other characteristics.

Is there good data on the number of people within the top 1% over time? If so, I would like to see how this has changed. I would also like to see the composition of the strata within the top 1%. I have a feeling that is a much more interesting story than concentrating on the relatively small number of billionaires that exist.

Rather than concentrating on The Great Gatsby Curve, I would like to see graphic representations of how the structure of the economy has changed in the United States. My guess is that a huge part of our problem is the reduction of employment opportunities in major better paying sectors of the economy. If that is the case, then we can ask, what needs to be done to change this.

I continue to be fascinated by the lack of interest in addressing the under classes in our economy. This has been and continues to be a huge problem. In my opinion, changing our tax codes will not significantly change this chronic issue. Most governmental programs have failed.

Are union workers always better off than non-union workers in comparable industries and types of facilities? I’ve had substantial experience with both types of facilities. For me, the answer is that it depends on the facility and the way it operates. Alienation has been a problem with many types of manufacturing jobs. It can be addressed through high performance teams. These can be put in place at both union and non-union facilities; however, it is much easier to put in place at new facilities than existing facilities. One non-union facility than I am familiar with became one of the world’s highest quality and most productive facilities of its type with well-compensated and satisfied employees. I am familiar with parts of non-union facilities that changed parts of them with good results. It is easier to implement more innovative compensation systems (pay for knowledge, multi-craft premiums, gain sharing, profit sharing, and other performance based approaches) in non-unionized facilities. Organizational culture and contracts frequently impede organizational change. Restrictive old-style contracts tend to foster alienation and reduce productivity.

Unless we are willing to find ways to reshape the composition of the economy and creatively address the underclass issues, things may get worse.

It is always dangerous to generalize from our own life experiences; however, sometimes the observations are useful. Over my career in business, I’ve had a chance to meet thousands of people; many of them have been very successful. Most came from very ordinary backgrounds, and some emerged from families that experienced significant hardships and challenges. I and other members of senior management in my company mentored aspiring high potential employees from very diverse backgrounds. The most common characteristics of people who been very successful in my view are: aptitude, acquired and applied skills, excellent interpersonal skills, relevant educational achievements, outstanding performance over time, an industrious work ethic, the propensity to create value; and being in the right place at the right time. Risk and reward are equally important for entrepreneurs. Many more fail than succeed. Knowing someone and connections aren’t substitutes for these other characteristics.

Is there good data on the number of people within the top 1% over time? If so, I would like to see how this has changed. I would also like to see the composition of the strata within the top 1%. I have a feeling that is a much more interesting story than concentrating on the relatively small number of billionaires that exist.

Rather than concentrating on The Great Gatsby Curve, I would like to see graphic representations of how the structure of the economy has changed in the United States. My guess is that a huge part of our problem is the reduction of employment opportunities in major better paying sectors of the economy. If that is the case, then we can ask, what needs to be done to change this.

I continue to be fascinated by the lack of interest in addressing the under classes in our economy. This has been and continues to be a huge problem. In my opinion, changing our tax codes will not significantly change this chronic issue. Most governmental programs have failed.

Are union workers always better off than non-union workers in comparable industries and types of facilities? I’ve had substantial experience with both types of facilities. For me, the answer is that it depends on the facility and the way it operates. Alienation has been a problem with many types of manufacturing jobs. It can be addressed through high performance teams. These can be put in place at both union and non-union facilities; however, it is much easier to put in place at new facilities than existing facilities. One non-union facility than I am familiar with became one of the world’s highest quality and most productive facilities of its type with well-compensated and satisfied employees. I am familiar with parts of non-union facilities that changed parts of them with good results. It is easier to implement more innovative compensation systems (pay for knowledge, multi-craft premiums, gain sharing, profit sharing, and other performance based approaches) in non-unionized facilities. Organizational culture and contracts frequently impede organizational change. Restrictive old-style contracts tend to foster alienation and reduce productivity.

Unless we are willing to find ways to reshape the composition of the economy and creatively address the underclass issues, things may get worse.

Yet no one necessarily gets to where they are through their own efforts alone. They have had plenty of help along the way, and not just from their wealthy families. Warren Buffett, even though he was born into a well off family, still acknowledges the debt he owes to society for much of what he has. And, accordingly, he is willing to give back. Only egomaniacs believe they’ve earned what they’ve gotten throught their own efforts alone, and thus owe society nothing.