As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The wealth gap is widening and we shouldn't care!

emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
edited May 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
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.

emnmnme on
«13

Posts

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    One big issue for me is crime rates. High inequity has a strong correlation with increases in crime.

    Doc on
  • JoschuaESQJoschuaESQ Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Also, the disproportionate tax rates, with incomes being so anchored in one direction and with our current tax structure, we end up losing out on revenue for guberment cheese.

    JoschuaESQ on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    One big issue for me is crime rates. High inequity has a strong correlation with increases in crime.

    As I like to say, income inequality is a self-correcting problem. The thing is that it gets a little bloody when it corrects.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    As long as enough people put in the work to attempt to become more wealthy we'll be fine. I don't really care that the CEO of my company makes 8 figures, but I'll sure as hell work my ass off on the slim chance that it could be me. I don't think the top 2% having more money really effects regular folks. I've been to the third world, and certain parts of Europe, so I know that we have it pretty damn good here.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I agree with those paragraphs other than that they are defeatist and don't encourage any further progress. Even though it is arrogant of us to do so, and even though he lives better than so many in the world today and throughout history, our hearts still need to bleed for the poverty-stricken American with HDTV and A/C and a car and 3 meals, because if we don't, we lose motivation for further improvement.

    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?

    Yar on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    As long as enough people put in the work to attempt to become more wealthy we'll be fine. I don't really care that the CEO of my company makes 8 figures, but I'll sure as hell work my ass off on the slim chance that it could be me. I've been to the third world, and certain parts of Europe, so I know that we have it pretty damn good here.

    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.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The major thing of concern isn't that the gap is widening.... it's that it's widening at both sides. The rich are getting richer yes, but the poor are also getting poorer. And the lowest income demographic is suffering due to it.

    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?

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    If our government is smart about it it won't matter. Should the gap become horribly ridiculous I would like to think we'd see another New Deal type situation where the government starts a bunch of public works to provide jobs and taxes the rich to pay for them. I don't think we're at that point yet though I do hope the government takes action before the soup lines get started.

    Quid on
  • JoschuaESQJoschuaESQ Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Begin talk of socialism!
    I personally would begin by talking about tax structure and a balanced federal budget!
    But, we all know where this is going!:winky:

    JoschuaESQ on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    As long as enough people put in the work to attempt to become more wealthy we'll be fine. I don't really care that the CEO of my company makes 8 figures, but I'll sure as hell work my ass off on the slim chance that it could be me. I've been to the third world, and certain parts of Europe, so I know that we have it pretty damn good here.

    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.

    Well then what's the alternative?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Shouldn't the government of such a country do something about it?
    The government has its hands tied by the people it would be trying to help. Loss of affluence correlates with poor education, and when the demographic you're trying to help almost uniformly thinks that tax breaks are a good thing, you run into problems. Beyond that, local government and a bulk of voters nationwide are entitled Baby Boomers who have no interest in carrying a little bit of the weight themselves.

    It's a hell of a rut.

    Oboro on
    words
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    As long as enough people put in the work to attempt to become more wealthy we'll be fine. I don't really care that the CEO of my company makes 8 figures, but I'll sure as hell work my ass off on the slim chance that it could be me. I've been to the third world, and certain parts of Europe, so I know that we have it pretty damn good here.

    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.

    Well then what's the alternative?

    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.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I'm pretty comfortable with my income status and standard of living, so I honestly don't know how bad it is.

    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.

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    emnmnme wrote: »
    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.

    It could also be better. That's why we should care.

    Matrijs on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I'm pretty comfortable with my income status and standard of living, so I honestly don't know how bad it is.

    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.

    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.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I'm pretty comfortable with my income status and standard of living, so I honestly don't know how bad it is.

    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.

    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?

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Putting an actual conservative in the whitehouse might help. Unfortunately the choices are currently Liberals and Neo-Cons. :(

    PeekingDuck on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    I'm pretty comfortable with my income status and standard of living, so I honestly don't know how bad it is.

    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.

    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.

    Doc on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Shouldn't the government of such a country do something about it?
    The government has its hands tied by the people it would be trying to help. Loss of affluence correlates with poor education, and when the demographic you're trying to help almost uniformly thinks that tax breaks are a good thing, you run into problems. Beyond that, local government and a bulk of voters nationwide are entitled Baby Boomers who have no interest in carrying a little bit of the weight themselves.

    It's a hell of a rut.

    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.

    Aldo on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Well for years socialism has been sysnonymous with Reds. The same people who made us cower under our desks and such. I think a change in the perception will just take time.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    I'm pretty comfortable with my income status and standard of living, so I honestly don't know how bad it is.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Well for years socialism has been sysnonymous with Reds. The same people who made us cower under our desks and such. I think a change in the perception will just take time.
    It's weird, I live in a country within pissing distance of the USSR and we had one of the most socialist governments in the world during the Cold War, save from the communists.

    C-can we blame all this on McCarty? :D

    Aldo on
  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    If someone made 7500 bucks a month and was still 'treading water' I would look for more immediate things to blame than the government. That's a goddamn decent amount of money.

    MikeMcSomething on
  • CIPHERHILLCIPHERHILL __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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.

    CIPHERHILL on
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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?

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • CIPHERHILLCIPHERHILL __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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?

    CIPHERHILL on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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.

    Aldo on
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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?

    Just kind of came off that way, which is why I asked.

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Yes using a word like 'resign' invokes it's definition.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • CIPHERHILLCIPHERHILL __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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.

    School is free. And anyone can retire. Even the poor. Sorry but this is no longer the barometer of middle-class.

    CIPHERHILL on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    An elementary school is 'free'. I guess most state school's can be relatively expensive if you're a resident. Also retiring comfortably because of a well-funded 401k and other investments is different from toeing the poverty line.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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.

    School is free. And anyone can retire. Even the poor. Sorry but this is no longer the barometer of middle-class.
    Uh? Since when are schools free? I'm paying quite a lot of cash to get a decent education, dunno about you. o_O
    Yes you *can* retire, but then you run out of money.

    Aldo on
  • CIPHERHILLCIPHERHILL __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    You are on the poverty line when you are constantly thinking about how much money you will need.

    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.

    CIPHERHILL on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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.

    School is free. And anyone can retire. Even the poor. Sorry but this is no longer the barometer of middle-class.



    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.

    Regina Fong on
  • CIPHERHILLCIPHERHILL __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    You know some people really don't give 2 shits if they are poor, and stuff like this "Wealth gap problem" doesn't really matter to them as long as they have other things they want, which would be ideal Christian values, safety against terrorists, and gun rights, etc.. These are the things they cling to.

    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.

    School is free. And anyone can retire. Even the poor. Sorry but this is no longer the barometer of middle-class.
    Uh? Since when are schools free? I'm paying quite a lot of cash to get a decent education, dunno about you. o_O
    Yes you *can* retire, but then you run out of money.

    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.

    CIPHERHILL on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Oh, I get it, we're all thinking in economics and material wealth and then you come in talking about spiritual wealth.

    Right, okay.

    Aldo on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    It is impossible to live anything but on the poverty line without post-secondary school in America at present. Those who "don't care," per your example, are free to go to 2-year trade school for a pittance and work in the soon-to-boom manufacturing sector folding sheet metal for the rest of their lives.

    That's uh, about the only option though. And even that -- skilled labor -- requires paid post-secondary school.

    Oboro on
    words
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »

    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.



    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.

    Regina Fong on
  • CIPHERHILLCIPHERHILL __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    Oh, I get it, we're all thinking in economics and material wealth and then you come in talking about spiritual wealth.

    Right, okay.

    No, what I said was that there are people who don't give a shit about being poor, and would gladly stay poor.

    CIPHERHILL on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    CIPHERHILL wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Oh, I get it, we're all thinking in economics and material wealth and then you come in talking about spiritual wealth.

    Right, okay.

    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.

    Aldo on
Sign In or Register to comment.