3 ms·

Oh, I agree that poor by American standards are still good compared to world wide or historical standards. The problem is that if everyone around you has a car

by derekp7 11y ago

Oh, I agree that poor by American standards are still good compared to world wide or historical standards. The problem is that if everyone around you has a car, you really can't get by without one (due to society expectations, such as being able to get from where you live to a job that could be 30 miles away). Whereas if everyone around you didn't have transportation, then jobs, stores, and housing would be closer together. And in the past (and in poorer areas of the world), daycare is provided by family instead of having to pay half your income to cover it. Not to mention that it is more miserable to go from school or work or stores with A/C and then go home to a house without it. Whereas if you aren't exposed to A/C anywhere else in the summer, you can acclimate to the heat better.

CWuestefeld 11y ago
I see what you mean: we're bidding up the cost of entry into white-collar society, and people feel pressure to keep up with it. But... 1. The fact that someone has something you don't doesn't make you worse off in an absolute sense. I have trouble making the moral leap that we need to do something that will amount to handicapping those who have earned wealth, based only on feelings of envy in the broader population. 2. In any case, it kind of proves my main point: it's not true that only 1% is successful, and the rest of us are doomed to desperate drudgery. Your explanation demonstrates that a lot of us - indeed, enough of us to set a standard of sorts - achieve success. So the point that keeps coming up in this thread about it being a winner-take-all world where any failure dooms one to purgatory is clearly false.
- kaybe 11y ago
  1. If the infrastructure is then built solely for people that have that something you don't, then you are worse off compared to a situation where everyone does not have it and the infrastructure reflects that. This is not just about jealousy.

by derekp7 11y ago

CWuestefeld 11y ago

I see what you mean: we're bidding up the cost of entry into white-collar society, and people feel pressure to keep up with it. But... 1. The fact that someone has something you don't doesn't make you worse off in an absolute sense. I have trouble making the moral leap that we need to do something that will amount to handicapping those who have earned wealth, based only on feelings of envy in the broader population. 2. In any case, it kind of proves my main point: it's not true that only 1% is successful, and the rest of us are doomed to desperate drudgery. Your explanation demonstrates that a lot of us - indeed, enough of us to set a standard of sorts - achieve success. So the point that keeps coming up in this thread about it being a winner-take-all world where any failure dooms one to purgatory is clearly false.

kaybe 11y ago
1. If the infrastructure is then built solely for people that have that something you don't, then you are worse off compared to a situation where everyone does not have it and the infrastructure reflects that. This is not just about jealousy.