Letter From The Boss

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

obviously this doesnt apply to bosses at the banks who are part of a counterfeiting cartel

Memo to All My Valued Employees

Author: The Boss

There have been rumblings around the office about the future of this company and, more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. The good news, however, is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job, however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

First, while it’s easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last year’s Christmas party. I’m sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up idealized thoughts about my life. But you don’t see the back story.

I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for three years. My entire apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which, by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting Nordstrom for the latest fashion item, I trolled through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the ’70s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived lives of luxury. I did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that, some day, I too, would be able to afford the luxuries my friends had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9 a.m., mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5 p..m., I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I, unfortunately, do not have that freedom. I eat and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a one-year-old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of my labor — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations. You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made.

Now the economy is falling apart and the guy who made all the right decisions and saved his money have to bail out all the people who didn’t. The people who overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I’ve paid is steep.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business and employing you is starting to eclipse the marginal benefit. Let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers’ compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then, guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him.

Most of my time is now occupied with government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with them. On October 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who’s stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good-paying jobs and serves more than 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (read: stole) 50% of your paycheck, you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. Why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded for only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree, which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don’t understand: to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Government black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate by shocking his thumb to bring him back to life, do you? No. You defibrillate his heart. Business is at the heart of our economy and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers believe the mud of economy is the essential driver of the economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I’ll fire you. I’ll fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem anymore.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed and, with it, will be my citizenship.

While tax cuts to 95% of the people sounds great on paper, don’t forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. Who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn’t? Whose policies will endanger your job?

Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you “It’s the economy, stupid,” I’m telling you it isn’t. If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the Constitution, and changed the landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed,

Your Boss

[TGP]

Aren't right-wing fantasies entertaining.

I notice this guy is throwing in the towel, and giving up the business he spent years working for, because he is again being asked to pay the tax rates in existence 8 years ago, and roughly 15-20% lower than the equivalent taxes in almost any other first world nation !

The gall of it ! To have to pay the tax rates he paid in 2000 !

Oh, the humanity.

Did he really "Go Galt" or is this just another right-wing chain mail about "Going Galt" in which no-one ever actually goes anywhere or does anything except send right-wing chain mails complaining about taxes and threatening to "Go Galt".

Where's the bit where he thanks the government for rescuoing the bank that his business owes a few hundered thou too ........ meaning that laon didn't get recalled at the end of the month, and meant the doors could stay open ?

Yours,

TGP

[LuckyOne]

Aren't right-wing fantasies entertaining.

I notice this guy is throwing in the towel, and giving up the business he spent years working for, because he is again being asked to pay the tax rates in existence 8 years ago, and roughly 15-20% lower than the equivalent taxes in almost any other first world nation !

The gall of it ! To have to pay the tax rates he paid in 2000 !

Oh, the humanity.

Did he really "Go Galt" or is this just another right-wing chain mail about "Going Galt" in which no-one ever actually goes anywhere or does anything except send right-wing chain mails complaining about taxes and threatening to "Go Galt".

Where's the bit where he thanks the government for rescuoing the bank that his business owes a few hundered thou too ........ meaning that laon didn't get recalled at the end of the month, and meant the doors could stay open ?

Yours,

TGP

The Laffer curve exists.

The story in the OP is very simplistic and political but it does contain some underlying truths. Increasing taxes are a disincentive to marginal work as are increasing social benefits.

[Dorkins]

Never mind that his business thrived so much because of a bubble economy during those 12 years due to cheap credit and low interest rates. Now his customers are stuffed to the gills with debt and they've stopped shopping. It's easier to blame taxes though, yes, that must be it.

[TGP]

Never mind that his business thrived so much because of a bubble economy during those 12 years due to cheap credit and low interest rates. Now his customers are stuffed to the gills with debt and they've stopped shopping. It's easier to blame taxes though, yes, that must be it.

And, of course.......... despite having a thriving profitable business the owner DOES NOT want to appoint a manager then retire, in the hopes of continuing a very useful income stream (of the kind that can buy huge houses and mercedes).

No. His taxes are going up 2 or 3%. Thats an outrage.

So....... in order to cut off his nose to spite his face.......he's going to close the whole damn thing down and retire. Take THAT Obama !

Instead of netting $98,000 a year (instead of the $100,000 a year before the tax hike) he's going to close it all and net $0 a year, sacking all his staff in the process (it's not like they're real people right ? They're just revenue generating robots who he can switch off any time he likes. Why care about them any ? I bet he's a GREAT boss).

What a "top of his game" businessman he appears to be. "Lets shut a highly profitable business enterprise because it's 2% less profitable than before, albeit still highly profitable".

Hey employees.......... you know where he lives......... you know where he parks his mercedes.......... if he's sacking you all because he can't stand the thought of paying the taxes every business owner paid under Clinton , laying you all off in a fit of right-wing pique, I think some purchases of paint stripper and and a quick trip to sh*t on his doorstep are in order.

Yours,

TGP

[Guest_flaps_*]

He built the business, he's the boss, it's his to do what he likes with. Maybe the staff could do a buy out? If after all the years he has spent building it up he now fancies relieving himself of the stress and living an easy life in the Carribean, fair play. A hole will theoretically be left in the market which someone else with a pair of balls can go in and fill if they wish.

[TGP]

The Laffer curve exists.

The story in the OP is very simplistic and political but it does contain some underlying truths. Increasing taxes are a disincentive to marginal work as are increasing social benefits.

Yes, but this guy's boasting about how profitable his business is........ the big house, the mercedes......... and he is not claiming that he's going to sell it to a rival, or appoint a manager to run it, or anything else.

He's going to close the whole place down in a fit of pique.

The laffer curve may exist (although I'd argue it's pretty damn flat at the level of US tax rates)........ but this guy is just acting like a a**hole for the pleasure of acting like an a**hole......... I doubt there are any real businessmen this financially illiterate.

I also tend to question the logic of the laffer curve at low marginal rates...........Over 50%, maybe........ at our historical higher rates of 90-95%, then sure............ down at 30% ? I'm really NOT so sure.

I also suspect for many people the laffer curve is negative....... they have high fixed outgoings...... so if a tax rate reduces their net income from (say) $1000 a week to $950 their response is NOT to cut back on the work they do even more, it's to work even harder attempting to raise it back to $1000.

I just don't see why a businessman......who by his own admission "gacve up everything for years" in order to build his business would decide to let it fold, while still highly profitable, becuase his income twitched by a % point or two.

Whats he going to do if the Republicans get back in and reduce his income taxes again ? Start again from scratch ?

This is all right-wing fantasy.........not a single boss in America is making such a decision today (although I suspect a good many right-wingers are being forced to fold due to the reccession, caused largely by republicans, and then blaming it all on "Obama's taxes").

Yours,

TGP

[nixy]

And, of course.......... despite having a thriving profitable business the owner DOES NOT want to appoint a manager then retire, in the hopes of continuing a very useful income stream (of the kind that can buy huge houses and mercedes).

No. His taxes are going up 2 or 3%. Thats an outrage.

So....... in order to cut off his nose to spite his face.......he's going to close the whole damn thing down and retire. Take THAT Obama !

Instead of netting $98,000 a year (instead of the $100,000 a year before the tax hike) he's going to close it all and net $0 a year, sacking all his staff in the process (it's not like they're real people right ? They're just revenue generating robots who he can switch off any time he likes. Why care about them any ? I bet he's a GREAT boss).

What a "top of his game" businessman he appears to be. "Lets shut a highly profitable business enterprise because it's 2% less profitable than before, albeit still highly profitable".

Hey employees.......... you know where he lives......... you know where he parks his mercedes.......... if he's sacking you all because he can't stand the thought of paying the taxes every business owner paid under Clinton , laying you all off in a fit of right-wing pique, I think some purchases of paint stripper and and a quick trip to sh*t on his doorstep are in order.

Yours,

TGP

I think some purchases of paint stripper and and a quick trip to sh*t on his doorstep are in order.

You're not really the type to start business are you TGP?

Edited February 26, 2010 by nixy

[LuckyOne]

And, of course.......... despite having a thriving profitable business the owner DOES NOT want to appoint a manager then retire, in the hopes of continuing a very useful income stream (of the kind that can buy huge houses and mercedes).

No. His taxes are going up 2 or 3%. Thats an outrage.

So....... in order to cut off his nose to spite his face.......he's going to close the whole damn thing down and retire. Take THAT Obama !

Instead of netting $98,000 a year (instead of the $100,000 a year before the tax hike) he's going to close it all and net $0 a year, sacking all his staff in the process (it's not like they're real people right ? They're just revenue generating robots who he can switch off any time he likes. Why care about them any ? I bet he's a GREAT boss).

What a "top of his game" businessman he appears to be. "Lets shut a highly profitable business enterprise because it's 2% less profitable than before, albeit still highly profitable".

Hey employees.......... you know where he lives......... you know where he parks his mercedes.......... if he's sacking you all because he can't stand the thought of paying the taxes every business owner paid under Clinton , laying you all off in a fit of right-wing pique, I think some purchases of paint stripper and and a quick trip to sh*t on his doorstep are in order.

Yours,

TGP

Wealth gives some people rights that others don't have.

One of the rights that it gives the wealthy is the decision to decide whether the effort of generating additional wealth is worth it to them or not. Because of saved wealth that has been previously generated, they are in a position to make this choice.

I do not think that society has (nor should have) any ability to take away this right.

The argument in the OP doesn't make sense though. The business owner would only shut down the business if he couldn't sell it for at least $1. The tax and regulatory regimes would have to be absolutely dire if they rendered a viable business worthless. We seem to be trending in that direction but we are nowhere near that point yet.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Yes, but this guy's boasting about how profitable his business is........ the big house, the mercedes......... and he is not claiming that he's going to sell it to a rival, or appoint a manager to run it, or anything else.

He's going to close the whole place down in a fit of pique.

The laffer curve may exist (although I'd argue it's pretty damn flat at the level of US tax rates)........ but this guy is just acting like a a**hole for the pleasure of acting like an a**hole......... I doubt there are any real businessmen this financially illiterate.

I also tend to question the logic of the laffer curve at low marginal rates...........Over 50%, maybe........ at our historical higher rates of 90-95%, then sure............ down at 30% ? I'm really NOT so sure.

I also suspect for many people the laffer curve is negative....... they have high fixed outgoings...... so if a tax rate reduces their net income from (say) $1000 a week to $950 their response is NOT to cut back on the work they do even more, it's to work even harder attempting to raise it back to $1000.

I just don't see why a businessman......who by his own admission "gacve up everything for years" in order to build his business would decide to let it fold, while still highly profitable, becuase his income twitched by a % point or two.

Whats he going to do if the Republicans get back in and reduce his income taxes again ? Start again from scratch ?

This is all right-wing fantasy.........not a single boss in America is making such a decision today (although I suspect a good many right-wingers are being forced to fold due to the reccession, caused largely by republicans, and then blaming it all on "Obama's taxes").

Yours,

TGP

The guy is arguing that the amount of effort isn't reflected in the reward.

L2UNDERSTAND

[PopGun]

Boss man moans about the feckless MEWing their mortgaged homes and going over drawn..........

...in order to spend in the economy enabling his so called business to grow.

And now the piper has come calling.

Another moron who conveniently refuses to join the dots.

[kenny dalglish]

you will find a bazillion of these folksy,"no-nonsense","common sense" "real-life" mails all over the web. Usually in the US, usually adhering to a left/right wing agenda. Simplisitc and primitive but effective, hence the chatter on these boards. When you start to read about "single mum's", that's when you know it's got some frothing republican's dabs all over it....

[tahoma]

This post illustrates the fork in the road between left and right.

The Left think it is ok to squeeeeeeze people like this a little bit more every year, because it worked in the past and - they'll do something to pay, won't they. That's what people like him are there for, to pay the bills for the Left's sanctimonious 'social conscience', while being damned for the privilege. But he'll do something! He's got to! He must!

Entertaining, isn't it, how it is OK - a badge of honour even - for the public sector to go on strike in the face of a massive recession as the private sector implodes. Despite the fact that they already enjoy higher pay, notional prestige and far more job security than the private sector.

But for this guy to go on his own strike - oh, how evil. But he is just leaving the company as he found(ed) it, in a state of non-existence.

Like I said, the fork in the road. This thread could run for 1,000,000 pages and neither side would change their position one iota. I know which path I am taking.

Oh, and if this guy is less entitled to riches off the back of a credit bubble, then so is the public sector. You can't have it both ways.

[LuckyOne]

This post illustrates the fork in the road between left and right.

The Left think it is ok to squeeeeeeze people like this a little bit more every year, because it worked in the past and - they'll do something to pay, won't they. That's what people like him are there for, to pay the bills for the Left's sanctimonious 'social conscience', while being damned for the privilege. But he'll do something! He's got to! He must!

Entertaining, isn't it, how it is OK - a badge of honour even - for the public sector to go on strike in the face of a massive recession as the private sector implodes. Despite the fact that they already enjoy higher pay, notional prestige and far more job security than the private sector.

But for this guy to go on his own strike - oh, how evil. But he is just leaving the company as he found(ed) it, in a state of non-existence.

Like I said, the fork in the road. This thread could run for 1,000,000 pages and neither side would change their position one iota. I know which path I am taking.

Oh, and if this guy is less entitled to riches off the back of a credit bubble, then so is the public sector. You can't have it both ways.

That is an excellent way to put it.

The tax and regulatory regimes in an economy are the "terms and conditions" for business owners.

Both the public and private sectors strike over "terms and conditions". The private sector thinks that the public sector are "unfair" for doing so. The public sector things that the private sector are "unfair" for doing so.

In the end, the problem is the same one : what proportion of wealth generated within a society belongs to the people or groups who generate it and how much of it belongs to society as a whole? The right thinks that the proportion is lower than the left.

[tahoma]

In the end, the problem is the same one : what proportion of wealth generated within a society belongs to the people or groups who generate it and how much of it belongs to society as a whole? The right thinks that the proportion is lower than the left.

True. But here is a thought experiment - a group from which faction would you want to be stuck on a desert island with?

Christ, imagine being stuck with a bunch of Lefties. By the time they finish building the bureaucracy required to gather food, and regulate it's labelling and classification, you would all have starved to death. In the end, all they know how to do is stick their palms out and whine.

[TwoWolves]

This post illustrates the fork in the road between left and right.

The Left think it is ok to squeeeeeeze people like this a little bit more every year, because it worked in the past and - they'll do something to pay, won't they. That's what people like him are there for, to pay the bills for the Left's sanctimonious 'social conscience', while being damned for the privilege. But he'll do something! He's got to! He must!

Entertaining, isn't it, how it is OK - a badge of honour even - for the public sector to go on strike in the face of a massive recession as the private sector implodes. Despite the fact that they already enjoy higher pay, notional prestige and far more job security than the private sector.

But for this guy to go on his own strike - oh, how evil. But he is just leaving the company as he found(ed) it, in a state of non-existence.

Like I said, the fork in the road. This thread could run for 1,000,000 pages and neither side would change their position one iota. I know which path I am taking.

Oh, and if this guy is less entitled to riches off the back of a credit bubble, then so is the public sector. You can't have it both ways.

Spain had a civil war over the principles that underlie this point. I think we are well overdue ours.

[LuckyOne]

True. But here is a thought experiment - a group from which faction would you want to be stuck on a desert island with?

Christ, imagine being stuck with a bunch of Lefties. By the time they finish building the bureaucracy required to gather food, and regulate it's labelling and classification, you would all have starved to death. In the end, all they know how to do is stick their palms out and whine.

Agreed.

The funadmental reason that the right thinks that the proportion is lower than the left is because the right believes that people should do more things for themselves than the left.

The right are optomistic people who have faith in the ability of the individual. The left are pessimists who have no faith in the ability of the individual and think that collective action is better than individual action.

[TwoWolves]

The left are pessimists who have no faith in the ability of the individual and think that collective action is better than individual action.

Because they themselves are mediocre and in their haze of mediocrity they believe that everyone else is also mediocre. When proven otherwise they just become violent.

[LuckyOne]

Because they themselves are mediocre and in their haze of mediocrity they believe that everyone else is also mediocre. When proven otherwise they just become violent.

Yup. If they can't succeed on their own merits, they try to band together and try to succeed by becoming bullies.

[PopGun]

Because they themselves are mediocre and in their haze of mediocrity they believe that everyone else is also mediocre. When proven otherwise they just become violent.

What, like when a big business buys out it's main rival as they don't have the gumption to or balls to let the market run it's course?!

Yes, all RW capitalists are 100% confident in their own abilities, and never have to resort to bully boy tactics.

Not that your profiling of typical socialists isn't true of course, and succinctly put.

Edited February 26, 2010 by PopGun

[Orsino]

Spain had a civil war over the principles that underlie this point. I think we are well overdue ours.

Impossible. The public sector side wouldn't turn up on time and their field hospitals would be full of people suffering from stress before the first shot was fired.

[Dorkins]

This is not really a Left-Right issue. The guy's takings have dropped say 30% because his debt-soaked customers can no longer afford to borrow and spend money they don't have. His personal tax bill is going up 3% because some temporary tax cuts (in a country with one of the lowest tax burdens in the OECD, especially for the wealthy) are expiring. Sure, maybe the effort he puts into his business is no longer worth the reward, but is it because of the 30% or the 3%? Thing is, he can see where the 3% is coming from and not the 30%, so he moans about the one he understands.

The rightwingers on this thread need to wake up. You can cut taxes on the rich until the cows come home, but it won't make that 30% drop in demand from consumers go away. The tax burden now is not really that different from 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950, maybe a few percent higher or a few percent lower depending on which decade you compare it to but there's not a lot in it. It's not taxes that are strangling the US, the UK, and every other developed country. It's debt. That burden has gone up several fold. You want your customers back? Raise interest rates and bring on deleveraging. When they're done paying back (or maybe even defaulting on) the banksters they will start buying from you again.

[LuckyOne]

This is not really a Left-Right issue. The guy's takings have dropped say 30% because his debt-soaked customers can no longer afford to borrow and spend money they don't have. His personal tax bill is going up 3% because some temporary tax cuts (in a country with one of the lowest tax burdens in the OECD, especially for the wealthy) are expiring. Sure, maybe the effort he puts into his business is no longer worth the reward, but is it because of the 30% or the 3%? Thing is, he can see where the 3% is coming from and not the 30%, so he moans about the one he understands.

The rightwingers on this thread need to wake up. You can cut taxes on the rich until the cows come home, but it won't make that 30% drop in demand from consumers go away. The tax burden now is not really that different from 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950, maybe a few percent higher or a few percent lower depending on which decade you compare it to but there's not a lot in it. It's not taxes that are strangling the US, the UK, and every other developed country. It's debt. That burden has gone up several fold. You want your customers back? Raise interest rates and bring on deleveraging. When they're done paying back (or maybe even defaulting on) the banksters they will start buying from you again.

Where I differ with you is that I think that the 30% drop in demand will come back when the state's take of current and future economic output is reduced.

I agree that deleveraging has to take place. I fail to see how raising taxes will accelerate the process : less funds are available to pay off private debt. I also fail to see how replacing private leverage with public leverage is going to improve the situation.

[kenny dalglish]

This is not really a Left-Right issue. The guy's takings have dropped say 30% because his debt-soaked customers can no longer afford to borrow and spend money they don't have. His personal tax bill is going up 3% because some temporary tax cuts (in a country with one of the lowest tax burdens in the OECD, especially for the wealthy) are expiring. Sure, maybe the effort he puts into his business is no longer worth the reward, but is it because of the 30% or the 3%? Thing is, he can see where the 3% is coming from and not the 30%, so he moans about the one he understands.

The rightwingers on this thread need to wake up. You can cut taxes on the rich until the cows come home, but it won't make that 30% drop in demand from consumers go away. The tax burden now is not really that different from 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950, maybe a few percent higher or a few percent lower depending on which decade you compare it to but there's not a lot in it. It's not taxes that are strangling the US, the UK, and every other developed country. It's debt. That burden has gone up several fold. You want your customers back? Raise interest rates and bring on deleveraging. When they're done paying back (or maybe even defaulting on) the banksters they will start buying from you again.

Dorkins you really don't get it, do you ? This is not wha these threads/boards are about. They are about bashing certain sectors of the population single mums, people on the dole, gypsies, people who are not white etc using tired arguments that do not bear close scrutiny. Please take your reasoned and balanced arguments elsewhere...

right everybody now where were we.. oh..yes..boo to dole scroungers/single mums etc !

[LuckyOne]

Dorkins you really don't get it, do you ? This is not wha these threads/boards are about. They are about bashing certain sectors of the population single mums, people on the dole, gypsies, people who are not white etc using tired arguments that do not bear close scrutiny. Please take your reasoned and balanced arguments elsewhere...

right everybody now where were we.. oh..yes..boo to dole scroungers/single mums etc !

Peronally, I don't see sectors of the population. I see single economic agents which have fluid and loose connections and alignments of interests that vary over time.

I see no need to define sectors of the population and to then try to find commonality in their behaviours which would then necessitiate a policy response. In fact, the end result of this way of thinking is really just a collection of insitutionalised "-isms".