So far this thread is setting the record for deleted comments, as people who responded angrily realize it was a parody.
Perhaps the reason people reacted so violently is that they can imagine some reasonable arguments that sound like these. I.e. this is a case of people being made maddest by statements they worry might be true.
Who knows, maybe they even heard these arguments from people in mainstream society, coworkers and friends, who they thought were otherwise reasonable; perhaps they were shocked to hear such things from people they previously, but no longer, considered thoughtful, reasonable, and kind.
And while we're at it, maybe they would be just as surprised to hear that it's their own conclusions that make them take offense. "You disagree, so it must be true." Hearing this from someone they previously, but no longer, considered insightful might be understandably unpleasant, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were to delete their comments when the reality of the matter sets in: that the human social hierarchy, in all of its stark animal glory, doesn't care about those who are born and live in a state of poverty and powerlessness; time is once again entering an era where it is increasingly socially acceptable to judge (and profit from) people based on their birth circumstances, a sad situation which has been the story of human history to date and which humanity as a species shows no signs of overcoming.
To the contrary, what angered me ( yeah yeah, I also didn't realize it was a parody ) was the over generalization and the possibility that someone actually thinks like this.
That being said, I could see the statements being true to an extent. Probably even a greater extent that I'd like to admit. Its just the generalization that gets me... I think you'd get much the same reaction from people if you replaced "the poor" with, "the mexicans", or "the blacks", or "the rednecks".
To be honest, I somehow missed the possibility that it was a parody, as well. Which brings me to something a little 'meta' as far as this goes: What are some good heuristics / algorithms to determine if something is a parody? :)
It's more satire than parody. Some helpful heuristics:
(1) Is the author saying "things you can't say" in a place where normally the rules apply? (Bloomberg isn't an especially politically-incorrect news/opinion outlet.)
(2) Is the author out of character? This could have been written under a haughty pseudonym ("Edgar Charles Hyannisport, III") -- but was under the name of author Michael Lewis instead, who's written popular books about finance, business, technology, and sports. If a professional writer offends, you can figure they calculated to offend in service of their real persuasive/entertainment goals.
(3) Does the presentation match the implied mindset? Even people with similar views don't present them in this way, if they want to be effective.
(4) Gradual progression of implausibility. Lewis starts merely speaking more crudely than typical of "the poor", but then goes to the absurd (the poor should have teams of lawyers) and proceeds to talk of debtor's prisons and requiring menial labor of the indebted. A slow build keeps readers guessing, for at least a little while, while eventually causing most/all to realize the author is being facetious.
Your last clue should've been the biggest. If you read the article through to the part about dressing poor people up as clowns and seeing how many you could shove into a Maybach as entertainment at rich kids' birthday parties and still thought the author was being serious, your satire detector really, really needs a tune-up.
"When Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the distinguished musical satirist Tom Lehrer decided that he could no longer perform. "It was at that moment that satire died," says Lehrer, "There was nothing more to say after that.""
Perhaps the reason people reacted so violently is that they can imagine some reasonable arguments that sound like these. I.e. this is a case of people being made maddest by statements they worry might be true.