Emotion has nothing to do with it. A strong, functional middle class is critical for the economic health of the nation, as will as it's ability to survive as a Democracy. With very, very few exceptions - wealth disparity is inversely related to the health, stability, and happiness of a populace. Nations with greater wealth disparity generally have less freedom, choice and social mobility. This was recognized multiple times in the nation's history, and upon action, economic growth was spurred. These are not emotions, these are facts that I won't even cite because a simple google search results in many scientific studies backing them.
On a slightly more emotional side:
With individual productivity increasing annually, it's a shame that individuals are not seeing proportional wage increases in return.
And none of that even touches upon the reality that those making the billions are rarely those with exceptional talent or skill. It's those who had the connections and financial wherewithall to build networks that are unreachable for those born into lower socioeconomic circumstances. No, I don't have data for that, but a simple unscientific survey of Execs making hundreds or thousands of times more than their employees are rarely from anything less than middle-upper class backgrounds, and most often have family money that allowed them opportunities never imaginable to lower rungs of society.
I do not like the idea of paying higher taxes, but I also recognize that individuals and companies are sitting on trillions upon trillions of dollars because they are making so much money that they can't spend it all. Just ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, both who agree with this and argue for higher taxes.
But emotions aside, it's simple economics. When social mobility is poor and inequality high, there simply aren't enough consumers to support the level needed for a country to remain 'first world'.
I am going to have to recant I guess. Quickly looking through the IDC, Gartner, World Bank and Strategy Analytics numbers, I can't find something to cite. If you look at global device shipment numbers from 1996 - 2013 and plot shipments per year with a 5 year tailing use to estimate the user base (which seems the norm for the PC user base values) it seems like 15-20% would be closer to the average, not 10% like I stated. I doubt it's important enough to either of us to spend the time to it. ;)
I did a quick check right now and couldn't find it either (always easy to find shipment numbers, but not user base). I am pretty sure it was an IDC or Gartner chart that I saw that showed worldwide pc users per year. Let me do some checking this afternoon when I have more free time and will post a link.
In 2001 the PC install base was less than a 10th of what it is today. Raw sales are kind of a terrible comparison. Relevant to MS's revenue, sure, but not a good means of comparison. The better comparison would be the relative market share. I haven't seen numbers, but I would guess that XP's market share was substantially better than W8's over the same duration, even if only considering PCs operating on Windows.
I think they both merit discussion, as one enables the other. Ignoring corruption, the super wealthy can set the topic if not the tone of discourse for entire nations (and increasingly do).
On a slightly more emotional side:
With individual productivity increasing annually, it's a shame that individuals are not seeing proportional wage increases in return.
And none of that even touches upon the reality that those making the billions are rarely those with exceptional talent or skill. It's those who had the connections and financial wherewithall to build networks that are unreachable for those born into lower socioeconomic circumstances. No, I don't have data for that, but a simple unscientific survey of Execs making hundreds or thousands of times more than their employees are rarely from anything less than middle-upper class backgrounds, and most often have family money that allowed them opportunities never imaginable to lower rungs of society.
I do not like the idea of paying higher taxes, but I also recognize that individuals and companies are sitting on trillions upon trillions of dollars because they are making so much money that they can't spend it all. Just ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, both who agree with this and argue for higher taxes.
But emotions aside, it's simple economics. When social mobility is poor and inequality high, there simply aren't enough consumers to support the level needed for a country to remain 'first world'.