I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Obviously if the average salary for Americans is $27,000, then SOMEONE must be able to survive on less than that. Apparently, 50% of the population do... Go figure.
> > > "The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me."
>
> True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
This all started when someone posted that Marxian meme that "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer".
BULLSHIT.
Then people started talking about median and/or average incomes in dollars. Nice, but you're missing the point. You're thinking about dollars, but dollars are useless without wealth.
If you want to know how "the poor" are doing, you've gotta be talking "wealth".
My grandparents were working class. Their idea of a "fridge" was a block of ice. Their idea of "luxury" was cranking ice cream by hand in a steel container surrounded by rock salt and ice chunks. And it took days to cross the Atlantic, a trip that was only for the Filthy Rich.
My parents were working class. Their idea of "comfort" was when they got air conditioning. Their idea of "luxury" was when they went from black and white to a color TV. And took hours to cross the Atlantic, and that was only for the Pretty Well Off.
I'm working class. When I was a kid, my idea of "cool" was the 3D graphics in "Tron", and my idea of "luxury" was a Cray Supercomputer I could call my own. And from my 2.0 GHz laptop with 3D card with T&L capabilities, I can alt-Tab out of Max Payne, and with a few mouse clicks, cross the Atlantic (alas, it still takes a few hours) for half the price of the laptop.
And I can show my grandparents that laptop.
I don't mind if Bill Gates has enough money to fly to the moon for his vacation. Because if someone builds commercial space tourism for the Bill Gateses of the world, I can rest easy knowing that by the time I'm in my hip-fracture years, I'll be living them in 1/6 gravity.
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
That brought a tear to my eye. Especially when you consider the contents of my fridge right now contains an assortment of food that would make a King from earlier times weep. The contents of my spice cabinet would be under armed guard.
My wife and I are having a baby. There is no doubt both she and the baby are actually going to survive the birthing process, and it's a pretty solid bet the kid is going to live to adulthood. That cannot be said of many places in the world, or even here before modern medicine. (And gripe what you will about the cost, but we HAVE it.)
I recently went to Roatan, Honduras, where this is especially true. On the small island where I was for a couple weeks this summer, I saw the effect of a free clinic that has existed for only seven years. While the locals used to have children one after the other, just to account for the high mortality rate, now there is a huge number of children under 5 (compared to the number of teenagers). Women live through childbirth, something all but the youngest members of that society know that they are blessed
That "Marxian meme" made a lot of sense when it was coined in early industrial era England. Cheap manufacturing destroyed the cottage industries that had provided most of the skilled trades with what was for the time a steady, secure and comfortable (if not lavish) life. Extreme power and authority really only existed for the bizarre and mystical elites (landowners, and the clergy). Progress and improvements in the standard of living had been slow and incremental, and were generally only experienced by t
> Pragmatically, you describe your wealth as evidence that "capitalism" has improved your standard of living incredibly from the level experienced by your grandparents. Indeed it has -- my own grandparents lived in unheated row housing in England when they were children. This seems more like a product of scientific progress, however -- capitalism is the mechanism whereby the capitalist uses his or her personal power (i.e access to capital) as leverage to gain even more access to capital. In othe
Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Tell that to some guy in Brazil... one of the richest countries in South America, and a country with an upper class that is richer than some parts of USA (eg. there are more Armani suits sold in Sao Paulo than even New York)...yet the lowre classes in Brazil is far worse off than many other places...
And your whole idea of 'luxury' is meaningless. When you are talking about classes, you are talking about RELA
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Oh, like in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and its satellites where the nomenclatura became insanely wealthy and the poor became worse off than under communism.
It might also explain why the census bureau has a section entitled "Historical Income Inequality," which is an interesting read:
http://www.ce
> Your pride in technological advance does not have any relevance. I can just see the comparison in a turn of the 20th century sweat shop -- "but, hey, we have electric lights and flush toilets, when used to crap in the woods with a candle, so it's all good."
> >No, it wasn't and it is not.
"But hey, when we used to crap in the woods with a candle, we didn't live half as long, the cities were full of smog."
Yes, it is, and it is.
> In 1970, the bottom 10% earned $8,276 In 1970, the t
You missed the point entirely, although you quickly countered with precisely my point, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with free-market capitalism and everything to do with social progressives, lefties, whatever you want to label them.
The problem that social progressives and marxists have succeeded in addressing is that capitalism does NOT inherently benefit all. Without those movements, be it the race/labor/feminist/glbt/peace/consumer rights/anti-globalisation movements etc., you would have mu
Company-sponsored health care wasn't a result of Socialism/Communism in any way that I can think of. How can you justify that statement?
You would NOT have airbags, seatbelts, 911 service, 30mpg.
Why not? If enough people died without airbags and seatbelts, car manufacturers, to meet the demand for safer cars, would start putting them in. Cars had airbags LONG before the federal government mandated it (have they mandated it yet?). As far as 911, it could a private company
Now THAT'S what I call a "fair and balanced" unbiased source of information!
The Heritage Foundation is fundamentally opposed to all things remotely similar to the forms of government found in Northern Europe, so it comes as little surprise that they would rank them lower. "Economic Freedom" in Heritage Foundation parlance effectively means no taxes with the smallest government possible and means not much beyond that. That "Economic Freedom" has absolutely little directly to do with "standard of living" a
In terms of GDP per capita, Norway, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic socialist government, ranks higher than the United States as well as ranking higher in terms of the HDI.
If you count GROSS domestic product, maybe... but how about NET domestic product? If all the money each family makes goes directly back to the government, what's the point of working harder to make more money (which will go right back to the government)? The lower the taxes, the higher the motivation.
I think you are correct that the medium of wealth has increased, that the poor are much better off than they were before, but...( you had to know it was coming )
While there will always be those who have more and those with less, the proportions matter, most especially to a democracy where money buys you a greater voice with your government. CEO's pay has increased astronomically, but it hasn't been proportional to anything in the economy.
I hypothesize: Mass consumer society is a development of the early 20th century, coinciding with labor militancy, intensification of the international division of labor and expansion of trade, and the introduction of techniques of scientific management and mass production. The relatively high wages of Henry Ford et al. ensured efficiency and worker discipline, as well as a ready market.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Oh well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Obviously if the average salary for Americans is $27,000, then SOMEONE must be able to survive on less than that. Apparently, 50% of the population do... Go figure.
Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:5, Insightful)
> > "The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me."
>
> True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
This all started when someone posted that Marxian meme that "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer".
BULLSHIT.
Then people started talking about median and/or average incomes in dollars. Nice, but you're missing the point. You're thinking about dollars, but dollars are useless without wealth.
If you want to know how "the poor" are doing, you've gotta be talking "wealth".
My grandparents were working class. Their idea of a "fridge" was a block of ice. Their idea of "luxury" was cranking ice cream by hand in a steel container surrounded by rock salt and ice chunks. And it took days to cross the Atlantic, a trip that was only for the Filthy Rich.
My parents were working class. Their idea of "comfort" was when they got air conditioning. Their idea of "luxury" was when they went from black and white to a color TV. And took hours to cross the Atlantic, and that was only for the Pretty Well Off.
I'm working class. When I was a kid, my idea of "cool" was the 3D graphics in "Tron", and my idea of "luxury" was a Cray Supercomputer I could call my own. And from my 2.0 GHz laptop with 3D card with T&L capabilities, I can alt-Tab out of Max Payne, and with a few mouse clicks, cross the Atlantic (alas, it still takes a few hours) for half the price of the laptop.
And I can show my grandparents that laptop.
I don't mind if Bill Gates has enough money to fly to the moon for his vacation. Because if someone builds commercial space tourism for the Bill Gateses of the world, I can rest easy knowing that by the time I'm in my hip-fracture years, I'll be living them in 1/6 gravity.
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I are having a baby. There is no doubt both she and the baby are actually going to survive the birthing process, and it's a pretty solid bet the kid is going to live to adulthood. That cannot be said of many places in the world, or even here before modern medicine. (And gripe what you will about the cost, but we HAVE it.)
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of the world still lives that way... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A lot of the world still lives that way... (Score:3, Insightful)
wealth is DEFINED by relative difference (Score:1)
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:1)
Tell that to some guy in Brazil... one of the richest countries in South America, and a country with an upper class that is richer than some parts of USA (eg. there are more Armani suits sold in Sao Paulo than even New York)...yet the lowre classes in Brazil is far worse off than many other places...
And your whole idea of 'luxury' is meaningless. When you are talking about classes, you are talking about RELA
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
Well, comparing across anything is meaningless when the person you're conversing with won't admit when they're wrong.
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:1)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2, Insightful)
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Oh, like in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and its satellites where the nomenclatura became insanely wealthy and the poor became worse off than under communism.
It might also explain why the census bureau has a section entitled "Historical Income Inequality," which is an interesting read: http://www.ce
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
>
>No, it wasn't and it is not.
"But hey, when we used to crap in the woods with a candle, we didn't live half as long, the cities were full of smog."
Yes, it is, and it is.
> In 1970, the bottom 10% earned $8,276 In 1970, the t
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
The problem that social progressives and marxists have succeeded in addressing is that capitalism does NOT inherently benefit all. Without those movements, be it the race/labor/feminist/glbt/peace/consumer rights/anti-globalisation movements etc., you would have mu
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
Company-sponsored health care wasn't a result of Socialism/Communism in any way that I can think of. How can you justify that statement?
You would NOT have airbags, seatbelts, 911 service, 30mpg.
Why not? If enough people died without airbags and seatbelts, car manufacturers, to meet the demand for safer cars, would start putting them in. Cars had airbags LONG before the federal government mandated it (have they mandated it yet?). As far as 911, it could a private company
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
Uh huh. Sure. Tell us another one.
Ok, I'll tell you where you can confirm that Norway, Sweden and Canada are rated higher in terms of human development.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indica t or/indicator.cfm?File=indic_290_1_1.html [undp.org]
As for having to be a Soviet Marxist to be a social progressive and all the other b.s. that went with those comment
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
I thought we were talking about the standard of living, not "human development".
Norway isn't a great example... as it's ranked #27 on the Index of Economic Freedom [heritage.org]. Not looking so good in Scandinavia...
Also, Sweden has some of the highest taxes in the world [walnet.org], and is "dependant" on the welfare system [bbc.co.uk]. Also, it is ranked #11 on the Index of Economic Freedom [heritage.org].
Without going into too many
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
The Heritage Foundation is fundamentally opposed to all things remotely similar to the forms of government found in Northern Europe, so it comes as little surprise that they would rank them lower. "Economic Freedom" in Heritage Foundation parlance effectively means no taxes with the smallest government possible and means not much beyond that. That "Economic Freedom" has absolutely little directly to do with "standard of living" a
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
If you count GROSS domestic product, maybe... but how about NET domestic product? If all the money each family makes goes directly back to the government, what's the point of working harder to make more money (which will go right back to the government)? The lower the taxes, the higher the motivation.
The fact also remain
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:1)
While there will always be those who have more and those with less, the proportions matter, most especially to a democracy where money buys you a greater voice with your government. CEO's pay has increased astronomically, but it hasn't been proportional to anything in the economy.
http://www.stw.org/research/CEO_Pay_charts.html
In one respect y
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:0)