The wealth gap is widening and we shouldn't care!
emnmnme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm not insane. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. But what's a good response to 'The American Poor Aren't Really Poor'? I don't believe a word of what's in the following paragraphs but it's still a classic debate.
So we're hearing on the evening news that America is inches away from a recession. Some speculators figure the recent stimulus package isn't going to stimulate squat and both blue collar and white collar jobs are feeling an economic pinch in their day to day living. We also hear corporate upper management and wealthiest 2% have gotten crazy rich through finance and investment over the past two decades.
So the American middle class is preparing itself for a slide into lower-middle class and they're mad at the rich for being rich but is it really so bad to be poor in America? Compared to the chronically destitute from third world countries, the American peasantry is well-off. Even if you're just staying above the poverty line, you can still be a good consumer and enjoy Nike shoes, last year's video games, and be well-clothed. There's a chicken in every pot even for unskilled labor so who cares if a CEO is making 43 times what he pays his average employee? Would you rather be poor in India? Heck, no! Trickle down economics may be completely ineffective but why bother worrying about how the celebrities and plutocrats live? It could be worse.
So we're hearing on the evening news that America is inches away from a recession. Some speculators figure the recent stimulus package isn't going to stimulate squat and both blue collar and white collar jobs are feeling an economic pinch in their day to day living. We also hear corporate upper management and wealthiest 2% have gotten crazy rich through finance and investment over the past two decades.
So the American middle class is preparing itself for a slide into lower-middle class and they're mad at the rich for being rich but is it really so bad to be poor in America? Compared to the chronically destitute from third world countries, the American peasantry is well-off. Even if you're just staying above the poverty line, you can still be a good consumer and enjoy Nike shoes, last year's video games, and be well-clothed. There's a chicken in every pot even for unskilled labor so who cares if a CEO is making 43 times what he pays his average employee? Would you rather be poor in India? Heck, no! Trickle down economics may be completely ineffective but why bother worrying about how the celebrities and plutocrats live? It could be worse.
emnmnme on
0
Posts
As I like to say, income inequality is a self-correcting problem. The thing is that it gets a little bloody when it corrects.
At the other end, I think it's just a matter of practicality. While economically there is no end to how much money one man needs, realistically there is an end to how happy it will make him or how useful it will be to him or anyone else for him to have it.
Finally, what is the connection between the two? Is there one? Does gross wealth increase or decrease the quality of life at the poverty level?
File the above under "does not get it."
The thing isn't just that your CEO makes 8 figures, but that he does so at the expense of the rank and file. If he makes massive gains, then he says that he's entitled to all the reward, but if he fucks up, then he expects to be bailed out. Returns are privatized, risk is socialized.
Let's turn it around:
Is it right that in the richest country of earth, where the rich have so much money they cannot come up with things to spend it on, that has had that status for over 60 years, there are people who cannot afford many aspects of healthcare, that have to work double jobs just for food, that cannot afford to properly educate their children, cannot afford to move out of crime and gang infested areas, that have the gangs in the first place, that has the lowest social mobility (Chance of your children getting a better social situation then you) of any 1st world country? And that that group of people is both getting poorer, and the group getting larger?
Shouldn't the government of such a country do something about it?
I personally would begin by talking about tax structure and a balanced federal budget!
But, we all know where this is going!:winky:
Well then what's the alternative?
It's a hell of a rut.
Get rid of the "superstar CEO" myth. Most of the "superstars" really weren't when you actually do an honest postmortem on their terms as CEO. Honestly, the only true superstar CEO I can think of is Jobs, and even there that's got a lot of problems on the horizon for Apple. Once we return CEOs bact to what they are (stewards for the company), you'd see a lot of the pressures to give them oodles of money disappear.
I didn't see any pretty charts or graphs in the OP, so I'll ask. Just how bad is it?
It just seems to be that aside from way too much dividing between classes in the middle, it looks like a pretty standard bell curve for capitalism. You've got the super rich and the super poor, and in the middle is everyone else, from about 30K a year to about 90K a year.
Please correct me, because I just don't get it.
It could also be better. That's why we should care.
The thing though is that that middle is backsliding. It used to be not that long ago that someone that made $90K/year was doing pretty damn well. Now, they're treading water in lots of cases.
But can't a lot of that be chalked up to American buying habits in general that have caused at least part of this slide?
Yes, god yes. I know people who will, in the same breath, talk about how they never have any money, and then mention their collection of 600 DVDs.
That's the thing, more taxes would not affect the poor, they would affect the rich. However: right wing media would not mention this.
Now excuse while I make some sweeping generalisations:
A lot of poor people should (1) vote and (2) vote for more socialist/left candidates, because those candidates will help them. However, they do not vote, let alone for a left candidate. Why? Because their family values do not collide with those of the left candidates, they are looking for an obvious Christian, pro-guns middle-aged white man who promises not to take any "freedoms" away from them.
The sentiment of a lot of poor Americans that they don't need a government is really crippling them. There's so much they could gain from a more socialist/left government, but they won't have it. I'm almost sure that the people who would gain from a socialist/left government would outnumber those who profit from a capitalist/right government, but it's the rich who vote and the poor who don't even bother.
See, that's my thing, even in the last decade especially, we've seen a shift in focusing more on excess. If I had 90K a year I would be able to retire in my late 30's. (40's if I have kids, we're still discussing that), but I don't spend TOO much money on bullshit.
C-can we blame all this on McCarty?
Travelling around this country, I find that so many people are quick to resign themselves to a life of mediocrity for the rest of their life. They don't ever expect or work toward becoming rich, they just sit on the sidelines and ride life out. They just want to work their jobs, raise their kids, and eventually retire with dignity and respect.
I'm confused, are you saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, because what's wrong with accepting your job, enjoying it, making enough money to be comfortable, even while raising a family, and retiring at an age where you can still enjoy life?
Did I say it was a bad thing?
What is your point anyway? If you can send your kids off to a good school, retire at around 65 and live happily ever after you're not poor, you're middle-class.
Just kind of came off that way, which is why I asked.
School is free. And anyone can retire. Even the poor. Sorry but this is no longer the barometer of middle-class.
Yes you *can* retire, but then you run out of money.
You are rich when you have so much fucking money you don't really even know how much you have.
Everyone else should basically be middle class, but a man is really only as rich as the things he can afford to leave alone. Hence my first post in this thread.
School is free? What country are we talking about here? A K-12 education in the United States is free, but the quality of that education varies greatly based on location, and quality by location is closely tied to the median income of the area in question (ie: the poor get a worse K-12 education than the middle class and wealthy). A K-12 education will also not position you to enter the middle class work force. Higher education is a requirement for a middle class lifestyle in most cases, and it is becoming increasingly expensive to obtain.
Schools are typically free. Colleges and Universities cost money, but a lot of people in this nation do not go to college, do not care about the fact they didn't go to college, and still live lives that they are happy with physically, spiritually and financially.
Right, okay.
That's uh, about the only option though. And even that -- skilled labor -- requires paid post-secondary school.
Happiness is irrelevant to the discussion, it is not a function of wealth. The lower echelons of American society, and indeed, the lower end of the middle class are frequently without healthcare, so they are "healthy" only as long as they don't get sick, at which point they are fucked, physically, financially, emotionally, etc.
No, what I said was that there are people who don't give a shit about being poor, and would gladly stay poor.
Yeah okay, they take their happiness out of other things. Now excuse me while I continue worrying about the vast majority who would actually like to have 3 meals per day and proper health care.