4 ms·

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 abo

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.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
"the country"? Please don't assume that the USA is one of the countries that I have lived in - it isn't. Thanks for your deep summary of recent developments in American society, though having seen bits of the Republican debates I hope you're right but suspect that for a whole lot of people you're not. Watch them call Sanders a "socialist" all day long if and when he has a nomination and there's a Republican who does too. You also can do better than "must be too stupid" if someone don't share this "obvious" parochial context. Or makes allusions to ancient events that you don't get.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Thanks for the explanation. You highlight important points (in particular, I didn't notice how fast sentiments toward political labels change). Even the TL;DR of that comment posted instead of dismissive response would be great... ... except: > means she's either uninterested in understanding my point or too stupid to do so. Please apply the principle of charity. People here aren't generally dumb (hell, most people aren't generally dumb); HN is frequented by people for whom English is not the native language, and then sometimes people post comments when they're tired, or feeling sick. Just because someone misses your point doesn't mean they're stupid.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  Concern about inequality has indeed come to the fore recently in American political thought, and global - see Thomas Piketty. Though I'm not sure how much this is really affecting the USA - witness Trump stand up and boast "I'm really rich" - which implies "I have far more money than you, we are unequal" and be rewarded for it. I'm also not sure how deep it runs - it seems that a simple security scare would shake it off and the usual tough posturing will again be a more effective political tool - see the recent Vegas Republican debate. But if there's an inexact use of the English language, "inequality" only came into it later - "social mobility, income inequality" is not exactly the same thing as "poverty" as originally responded to, is it?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> 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. Did they? I seem to recall most sentiment measures being stubbornly bad for most of the period between the 2001 recession and the Great Recession, despite periods of fairly positive results in top-line measures. (E.g., consumer confidence in the "expansion" period between the 2001 recession and the Great Recession never reached the level it was June of the March-November 2001 recession, and was often far below its levels from during the 2001 recession. [0]) Sure, the media presentation (what news and pundits were talking about) was generally positive up until the collapse and Great Recession, but I don't think that it necessarily reflected the "population at large". [0] http://www.econstats.com/r/usind__m5.htm http://www.econstats.com/r/usind__m5.htm

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

"the country"? Please don't assume that the USA is one of the countries that I have lived in - it isn't. Thanks for your deep summary of recent developments in American society, though having seen bits of the Republican debates I hope you're right but suspect that for a whole lot of people you're not. Watch them call Sanders a "socialist" all day long if and when he has a nomination and there's a Republican who does too. You also can do better than "must be too stupid" if someone don't share this "obvious" parochial context. Or makes allusions to ancient events that you don't get.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Thanks for the explanation. You highlight important points (in particular, I didn't notice how fast sentiments toward political labels change). Even the TL;DR of that comment posted instead of dismissive response would be great... ... except: > means she's either uninterested in understanding my point or too stupid to do so. Please apply the principle of charity. People here aren't generally dumb (hell, most people aren't generally dumb); HN is frequented by people for whom English is not the native language, and then sometimes people post comments when they're tired, or feeling sick. Just because someone misses your point doesn't mean they're stupid.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
Concern about inequality has indeed come to the fore recently in American political thought, and global - see Thomas Piketty. Though I'm not sure how much this is really affecting the USA - witness Trump stand up and boast "I'm really rich" - which implies "I have far more money than you, we are unequal" and be rewarded for it. I'm also not sure how deep it runs - it seems that a simple security scare would shake it off and the usual tough posturing will again be a more effective political tool - see the recent Vegas Republican debate. But if there's an inexact use of the English language, "inequality" only came into it later - "social mobility, income inequality" is not exactly the same thing as "poverty" as originally responded to, is it?

dragonwriter 11y ago

> 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. Did they? I seem to recall most sentiment measures being stubbornly bad for most of the period between the 2001 recession and the Great Recession, despite periods of fairly positive results in top-line measures. (E.g., consumer confidence in the "expansion" period between the 2001 recession and the Great Recession never reached the level it was June of the March-November 2001 recession, and was often far below its levels from during the 2001 recession. [0]) Sure, the media presentation (what news and pundits were talking about) was generally positive up until the collapse and Great Recession, but I don't think that it necessarily reflected the "population at large". [0] http://www.econstats.com/r/usind__m5.htm http://www.econstats.com/r/usind__m5.htm