Megan McArdle has been reading the 99 Percent website, and says we’d do well not to look down on the 99 Percenters:

When the gap between the number of job openings and the number of people who are out of work is so large, there are going to be a hefty number of unemployed people.  Maybe these people individually could have done more to get themselves out of their situation, but at the macro level, that would just have meant that someone else was out of work and suffering.

I think it’s hard to read through this list of woes without feeling both sympathy, and a healthy dose of fear.  Take all the pot shots you want at people who thought that a $100,000 BFA was supposed to guarantee them a great job–beneath the occasionally grating entitlement is the visceral terror of someone in a bad place who doesn’t know what to do.  Having found myself in the same place ten years ago, I can’t bring myself to sneer.  No matter how inflated your expectations may have been, it is no joke to have your confidence that you can support yourself ripped away, and replaced with the horrifying realization that you don’t really understand what the rules are.  Yes, even if you have a nose ring.
I wonder to what extent McArdle’s own experience with unemployment and underemployment, despite her top-flight credentials, makes her more empathetic to these people? Plainly a lot. But I’m wondering too to what extent the lack of experience with unemployment and financial security drives the disdain of people who look down on them? I’m not asking rhetorically. I really would like to know.
Reader Stef sends along this essay by the liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz, in which he argues that the top one percent are undermining their own self-interest:
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

Here is another essay Stef sent in, said to have been written by an anonymous investment manager who asked for anonymity to protect his relationships with his very wealthy clients. He argues that the top tenth of the 1 percent are the real problem, and that most of the one-percenters are in a more perilous position than they may realize. Please read on, because I have an important political question I’d like to put to the room, and it comes at the end of the quoted excerpt:
Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the U.S. They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business opportunities, and many other benefits. Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%. In my view, the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it.
More:
Recently, I spoke with a younger client who retired from a major investment bank in her early thirties, net worth around $8M. We can estimate that she had to earn somewhere around twice that, or $14M-$16M, in order to keep $8M after taxes and live well along the way, an impressive accomplishment by such an early age. Since I knew she held a critical view of investment banking, I asked if her colleagues talked about or understood how much damage was created in the broader economy from their activities. Her answer was that no one talks about it in public but almost all understood and were unbelievably cynical, hoping to exit the system when they became rich enough.
And:

Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it’s infrequent to meet one whose wealth wasn’t acquired through direct or indirect participation in the financial and banking industries. … The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal.

I think it’s important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn’t the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit. It made huge profits in the build-up to the credit crisis and huge profits when it sold itself as “too big to fail” and received massive government and Federal Reserve bailouts. Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it.

Finally:
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex and largely discrete set of laws and exemptions from laws has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much less the top 0.1%. Moreover, those at the very top have no incentive whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules. I am not optimistic.
I have a political question for everyone reading this — liberals, conservatives, moderates, everybody. What social issues would you be willing to put aside to vote for a Congressional or presidential candidate dedicated to fixing this problem? 
Liberals have a habit of blaming conservatives for supposedly voting against their own economic interests by taking certain social issues — abortion and gay marriage, typically, but also affirmative action — so seriously as to allow them to determine their vote. But I don’t see many liberals who would be willing to vote for a pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage, anti-affirmative action candidate who believed in effectively addressing these problems of inequality and the gamed system. I wonder at what point the economic situation becomes so severe that cultural liberals and cultural conservatives (like me) are willing to vote for someone who doesn’t share our views on social issues, but who is on the right side of economic questions, and trustworthy? For social conservatives in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren’s Senate candidacy seems like a test of that. For social liberals elsewhere? We’ll see. I do think this is a question that all of us, left or right, whose vote is mostly determined by social and cultural concerns will be facing in the very near future. I’d love to hear an honest discussion from my readers — and please don’t leave a turd in the combox pool by saying that all would be well if people who disagreed with you on your favorite social issues would just come around to your way of seeing things. That’s not what I’m asking here. I’m asking at what point the economic situation becomes so severe that you’ll be willing to put aside social issues that are important to you and choose a candidate who holds dramatically different social views, because you judge the dire economic situation as more important.
(Mind you, feel free to dodge this question and discuss the information in McArdle’s post, Stiglitz’s post, and the anonymous post. But I sure would love it if y’all will talk about this question too.)