4 ms·

> I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far longer than it's been fashionable to do so You are pretty old then, I guess?

by olavk 11y ago

hkmurakami 11y ago
Considering there are quite a few pentagenerians on HN, that wouldn't be so rare.
wutbrodo 11y ago
Haha, fair enough: I can see how my pithy phrasing of that part of my comment could be interpreted to mean that I saw myself as the only one who cared about poverty and how the world was cruel and nobody else understood </angsty teenager>. What I actually meant by "fashionable" was that, in the couple decades preceding the financial crisis, it was far, far from the mainstream to be concerned about or even acknowledge some of the structural economic issues that had been growing since the 80s or so in the US (for example, dropping social mobility, which is more or less agreed to be a bad thing pretty much across the political spectrum). There were obviously plenty of people who cared in the same period, but that's not really what "fashionable" means. So no, I'm not particularly old, but caring about those issues in particular for a couple of decades gives me something like a 15-year head-start on the epoch we're currently in, when suddenly even the most ignorant and apathetic person in the country can quote factoids from a Robert Reich book or whatever. At any rate, it was a throwaway remark to point out that I'm not just pretending to care about the deeper issues underlying how "sad" Internet economics are because I think it's the "in" thing to do (I know plenty of people who are like this for any social issue that's currently in vogue).
- lsc 11y ago
  So, I'm probably not a whole lot older than you, I was born around the time Reagan was first elected. but I do consider myself a fan of history. my perception is that the time between somewhere around '80 and the 2008 crash was a rightward[1] cycle of the pendulum of public opinion, at least on economic issues,[2] and that before that, when my parents were youngsters, there was a lot more support for a safety net and for wealth redistribution in general. My feeling is that the 2008 crash and the lopsided[3] recovery from same has... given rise to the sorts of economic feelings that were popular in the '70s and before. Sanders isn't particularly radical by '70s standards, but compared to anyone who had a shot during my lifetime? he is extremely radical. [1]I like using "left" and "right" because their meanings are less complicated than "liberal" and "conservative" (essentially, on which side of the Legislative Assembly would you sit?) [2]- of course, we're talking about economics only, to the extent that you can talk about economics without talking about social issues. I have a much harder time supporting the claim of a leftwards social push during the same time. [3]by lopsided, I mean that some areas, and some people have done pretty okay. I certainly can't complain about my position. For that matter, compared to 2001? 2008 wasn't a crash for me and the people I hang out with at all. But, I am given to understand that others aren't so lucky.
  - matwood 11y ago
    I'm of similar age and understand the rightward cycle. Growing up we didn't have much, but I remember working in a grocery store and watching people who drive nice cars buy steaks with food stamps and beer and cigarettes with cash. My family was eligible for food stamps, and my parents fought about it often. My mom wanted my dad to go get them and he refused and instead took another side job. I think experiences like that shape people, and over time becomes part of their core. I'm more libertarian while many of my friends who grew up well to very well off are extremely liberal. They never experienced pulling themselves out of nearly nothing so they have a hard time imagining it is possible. I did it, so I think it is infinitely possible. Of course the reality is somewhere in the middle.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
mirimir 11y ago
Old beats dead :) Until it doesn't, anyway ;)
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
He must be, I would peg the start date of "finding poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad" at some time around the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Maybe earlier, I don't know, since similar sentiments were apparently expressed in the Roman province of Judea, circa 30AD.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  You're evidently unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "fashionable". Looking up the definition may help in understanding my post.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
    What are you saying - that fashion began in 1995?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Apparently he's not the only one. Care to enlighten us by explaining what the word means?
    - wutbrodo 11y ago
      Fair enough. "Fashionable" in the sense that it's used here means that it's fairly predominant in the discourse of the mainstream. Contrast the conversation about poverty and economic opportunity in 2006 to the conversation post-crisis. You and your friends individually may have considered social mobility, income inequality etc to be a significant issue, but it's pretty much objectively true that the discourse in the country at large did not. It didn't make the news, pundits didn't care, the population at large had a dual-earner-with-credit-cards-financed delusion that their quality of life was improving. In 2015? Try finding a group of people who considers them informed who doesn't have something to say about the topic. Eight years ago the word "socialist" was unambiguously a slur that Obama had to defend against, and now there's a candidate with a non trivial degree of support who identifies himself using the same word... And it's hardly a scandal at all. Further, it should be obvious from the context that I'm speaking about the local temporal context (last 40 years), as opposed to claiming that human society has never gone through periods where economic opportunity was prioritized more highly than today. Part of why my response was so dismissive is because bringing up the fact that people cared about poverty in Roman times means she's either uninterested in understanding my point or too stupid to do so.

> I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far longer than it's been fashionable to do so You are pretty old then, I guess?

by olavk 11y ago

> I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far longer than it's been fashionable to do so You are pretty old then, I guess?

hkmurakami 11y ago

Considering there are quite a few pentagenerians on HN, that wouldn't be so rare.

wutbrodo 11y ago

Haha, fair enough: I can see how my pithy phrasing of that part of my comment could be interpreted to mean that I saw myself as the only one who cared about poverty and how the world was cruel and nobody else understood </angsty teenager>. What I actually meant by "fashionable" was that, in the couple decades preceding the financial crisis, it was far, far from the mainstream to be concerned about or even acknowledge some of the structural economic issues that had been growing since the 80s or so in the US (for example, dropping social mobility, which is more or less agreed to be a bad thing pretty much across the political spectrum). There were obviously plenty of people who cared in the same period, but that's not really what "fashionable" means. So no, I'm not particularly old, but caring about those issues in particular for a couple of decades gives me something like a 15-year head-start on the epoch we're currently in, when suddenly even the most ignorant and apathetic person in the country can quote factoids from a Robert Reich book or whatever. At any rate, it was a throwaway remark to point out that I'm not just pretending to care about the deeper issues underlying how "sad" Internet economics are because I think it's the "in" thing to do (I know plenty of people who are like this for any social issue that's currently in vogue).

lsc 11y ago
So, I'm probably not a whole lot older than you, I was born around the time Reagan was first elected. but I do consider myself a fan of history. my perception is that the time between somewhere around '80 and the 2008 crash was a rightward[1] cycle of the pendulum of public opinion, at least on economic issues,[2] and that before that, when my parents were youngsters, there was a lot more support for a safety net and for wealth redistribution in general. My feeling is that the 2008 crash and the lopsided[3] recovery from same has... given rise to the sorts of economic feelings that were popular in the '70s and before. Sanders isn't particularly radical by '70s standards, but compared to anyone who had a shot during my lifetime? he is extremely radical. [1]I like using "left" and "right" because their meanings are less complicated than "liberal" and "conservative" (essentially, on which side of the Legislative Assembly would you sit?) [2]- of course, we're talking about economics only, to the extent that you can talk about economics without talking about social issues. I have a much harder time supporting the claim of a leftwards social push during the same time. [3]by lopsided, I mean that some areas, and some people have done pretty okay. I certainly can't complain about my position. For that matter, compared to 2001? 2008 wasn't a crash for me and the people I hang out with at all. But, I am given to understand that others aren't so lucky.
- matwood 11y ago
  I'm of similar age and understand the rightward cycle. Growing up we didn't have much, but I remember working in a grocery store and watching people who drive nice cars buy steaks with food stamps and beer and cigarettes with cash. My family was eligible for food stamps, and my parents fought about it often. My mom wanted my dad to go get them and he refused and instead took another side job. I think experiences like that shape people, and over time becomes part of their core. I'm more libertarian while many of my friends who grew up well to very well off are extremely liberal. They never experienced pulling themselves out of nearly nothing so they have a hard time imagining it is possible. I did it, so I think it is infinitely possible. Of course the reality is somewhere in the middle.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

mirimir 11y ago

Old beats dead :) Until it doesn't, anyway ;)

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

He must be, I would peg the start date of "finding poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad" at some time around the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Maybe earlier, I don't know, since similar sentiments were apparently expressed in the Roman province of Judea, circa 30AD.

wutbrodo 11y ago
You're evidently unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "fashionable". Looking up the definition may help in understanding my post.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  What are you saying - that fashion began in 1995?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Apparently he's not the only one. Care to enlighten us by explaining what the word means?
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    Fair enough. "Fashionable" in the sense that it's used here means that it's fairly predominant in the discourse of the mainstream. Contrast the conversation about poverty and economic opportunity in 2006 to the conversation post-crisis. You and your friends individually may have considered social mobility, income inequality etc to be a significant issue, but it's pretty much objectively true that the discourse in the country at large did not. It didn't make the news, pundits didn't care, the population at large had a dual-earner-with-credit-cards-financed delusion that their quality of life was improving. In 2015? Try finding a group of people who considers them informed who doesn't have something to say about the topic. Eight years ago the word "socialist" was unambiguously a slur that Obama had to defend against, and now there's a candidate with a non trivial degree of support who identifies himself using the same word... And it's hardly a scandal at all. Further, it should be obvious from the context that I'm speaking about the local temporal context (last 40 years), as opposed to claiming that human society has never gone through periods where economic opportunity was prioritized more highly than today. Part of why my response was so dismissive is because bringing up the fact that people cared about poverty in Roman times means she's either uninterested in understanding my point or too stupid to do so.