5 ms·

If you are rich and already in the top class, then maybe. But it's not terribly good for the middle class.

Raphmedia 10y ago
If you are rich and already in the middle class, then maybe. But it's not terribly good for the poor class. ... Don't let wealth create unneeded divides. When you enter the mindset of "us vs. them" you will always be unhappy. Edit: I grew up in a very poor community and our family yearly income was well under the poverty line (20,209 in Canada). The middle class has always been the richest people in the world for me. Now that I am part of it, I don't feel rich at all. However, I know that I am lucky. It's question of perception. Don't let them divide and conquer you for political gains.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  While I agree you should try to be content with what you have, there's nothing wrong with aspiring to more. The middle class is being eroded away leaving us with a much larger group of have nots, and an increasingly hard to enter group of haves. I wouldn't have a problem with this except a lot of the haves are in that group via genetic lottery, nothing that they actually did or earned.
  - greendragon 10y ago
    If genetics determines all, then we should sort people to tasks best suited for their genetics. Ashkenazi Jew? Work on advancing gene therapy and retroviruses so humans now and in the future can be freed from genetic determinism. European? Build civilization. African? Physical labor/sports. East Asian? Also build civilization. To each is given the minimum necessary to do their genetically determined purpose, ignoring any abstract "human" needs for all. Surplus is captured by the State and hoarded, some used to incentivize the Jews to have more children since their problem is the most important. Eventually the Jews will succeed and no one will have any excuses anymore. That's not a world I'd like to live in. But it would solve you having a problem with inequality. Or maybe you just need a different perspective to not put so much into genetic determinism in the first place.
    - Inception 10y ago
      I think the OP was referring to people being born into wealth. ie. trust-fund babies. Also, WTF did I just read
      - greendragon 10y ago
        OP said "a lot" of the haves, so I get the impression they think it's actually a lot and justifiable to start imposing corrections to the problem on the lot of haves. My real issue is just the idea that more than a tiny fraction of the "haves" are in that group by genetic determinism, either from the lottery of being born to one's parents (and inheriting their genes, and their money, which they got somehow) or the other lottery of being born to a particular (and perhaps in today's economy, privileged) race. We all have to play the hand we're dealt, but the world and the brain are dynamic enough that there are lots of ways to play even when you have poor initial conditions. Having a problem with seemingly some large amount of people not having to play as hard is odd, especially when it's likely a much smaller set of people than imagined. Mindfuck of the day achieved, back to work...
        Raphmedia 10y ago
        Welcome to Gattaca.
        greendragon 10y ago
        We're already living Gattaca. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/27/495668299/new-york-fertility-doctor-says-he-created-baby-with-3-genetic-parents http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/27/495668299/...
        FussyZeus 10y ago
        > OP said "a lot" of the haves, so I get the impression they think it's actually a lot and justifiable to start imposing corrections to the problem on the lot of haves. That's a hell of a leap of logic. If you want to attempt to make the argument that being born into money gives you no intrinsic advantages in life, that's your argument to make. Access to resources (in the modern world, money) is a HUGE advantage. I'm not jaded, I don't hate the rich nor do I want to forcibly remove their wealth, I recognize that the motive to attain wealth is the single greatest motivator ever applied to people and the primary reason capitalist societies are (by most measures) the most successful. It's worth noting, however that the much derided and in recent history scaled back Estate Tax was originally intended to prevent the creation of a permanent landed gentry in the United States, or if you've never used that term, a group of wealthy estates that own so much they can effectively live from birth to death on the incomes of their properties. I would argue we have one, albiet not as bad as the one that inspired the law but one nonetheless. The failing of this counterargument is that I'm not advocating for equal results of all people, I'm advocating for more or less equal opportunity. There are plenty of factors at play that we cannot control; genetics are indeed one, as are number of involved parents, upbringing, what the child is exposed to, etc. but there are at least a few that we can help control and access to capital is one of them.
burke 10y ago
It may not be as good as it was 50 years ago, but there's a case to be made that it's nearly as good as it ever was prior to 1900.
- sbov 10y ago
  > It may not be as good as it was 50 years ago If you're a white male.
  - zardo 10y ago
    Who wasn't sent to kill or be killed in South East Asia against your will.
  - kr7 10y ago
    Women's self-reported happiness has dropped over the last 50 years [1], so possibly add "women" too. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html
- sjclemmy 10y ago
  It's better in every way. Racism, sexism, apartheid, LGBT, corporal punishment...
  - AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
    Yes, and despite the best efforts of the Dali Lama, who favors "traditional roles" for women, and is opposed to same-sex marriage.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
    Exactly. Most of the people I hear that try to make the case that it was better, even a few decades ago, are usually white and/or male.
  - 18972345 10y ago
    If you genuinely think these are the best markers for improvement in society, you must be an extremely lucky person. Having a job, having a job that doesn't completely suck, having enough money to move out of your parents house at the age of 30. These are things that people are facing today. In Australia, there are lots of people that are still living with their parents into their 30s because they simply can't afford rent or a mortgage. Racism and sexism and other terms are used more for political purposes these days then they are for anything of worth. Why didn't you mention the discrimination people with autism face, for example? Autism simply isn't a useful political tool because it doesn't get enough votes. Yet people with autism face more discrimination then the types you have listed. It is politics and nothing more.
sjclemmy 10y ago
Yet you have enough food, shelter, health. My comparison is about the whole of human history.
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
But it is terribly, terribly good for the middle class. Penicillin, socialised medicine, low violent crime rates (#), no need to hunt our food, no need to build our own shelters or rub sticks together to make fire. The finest actors of this and past generations wait for me in my living room while I pee, something that past kings could not even achieve, I travel vast continents in the time it takes for a long sleep, I was the first of my father's line to go to University as a youth. As a consequence I can read and write (almost coherent sentences). The energy I consume per day would be equal to 40 slaves but I enslave no-one (directly) [##] Maybe we can make an argument that for the current white western male middle class, it is not as good as it was 50 years ago, but perhaps Frank Sinatra would like an iPhone, or modern throat surgery? I do know Sammy Davis Jr would prefer the Civil Rights he would enjoy in Vegas today than in the 50s. Compared to only a hundred and fifty years ago we are amazingly better off in every measurable way, compared to a thousand its almost shameful. If that does not make us happy, that's a different issue. After all we were only promised the pursuit of happiness. [#] See Steven Pinkers "Better Angels of our nature" [##] See Prof. David Mackay - http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewt...
- petra 10y ago
  >> If that does not make us happy, that's a different issue. Why ?
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    Fair point. I guess we are socialising our way up Maslow's hierarchy
- 18972345 10y ago
  No need to hunt for food isn't even a good thing. We are designed to hunt. We actually like doing it. Now, people don't get enough exercise or the right type of exercise and so after our 9 hours of work, we have to go to the gym and simulate physical work. Most people also hate their jobs because we were not designed to sit on a computer all day.
paulddraper 10y ago
How many middle-class people had instant access to 90% of the human knowledge and entertainment 30 years ago? How many have instant access right this second? Life is far easier and more convenient than it used to be. Most of the middle-class live as better than kings of past centuries.
- smacktoward 10y ago
  > How many middle-class people had instant access to 90% of the human knowledge and entertainment 30 years ago? But at the same time as they got that, they lost access to things their parents took for granted like job security and reliable health care and thriving, stable communities. Getting access to Wikipedia is great, but it does not automatically balance that scale.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > reliable health care Health care is more available to humanity than at any time in history.
  - Arnt 10y ago
    Let me guess: your parents were WASPs.
hx87 10y ago
Not terribly good, but certainly /better/.
ajkjk 10y ago
As far as I can tell, the qualify-of-life of the middle class is astoundingly high compared to almost-everyone in almost-all of history.
MikeHolman 10y ago
Most people aren't living in abject poverty for the first time in the history of mankind. Sure, it's not all roses, but we're moving in the right direction.

If you are rich and already in the middle class, then maybe. But it's not terribly good for the poor class. ... Don't let wealth create unneeded divides. When you enter the mindset of "us vs. them" you will always be unhappy. Edit: I grew up in a very poor community and our family yearly income was well under the poverty line (20,209 in Canada). The middle class has always been the richest people in the world for me. Now that I am part of it, I don't feel rich at all. However, I know that I am lucky. It's question of perception. Don't let them divide and conquer you for political gains.

FussyZeus 10y ago
While I agree you should try to be content with what you have, there's nothing wrong with aspiring to more. The middle class is being eroded away leaving us with a much larger group of have nots, and an increasingly hard to enter group of haves. I wouldn't have a problem with this except a lot of the haves are in that group via genetic lottery, nothing that they actually did or earned.
- greendragon 10y ago
  If genetics determines all, then we should sort people to tasks best suited for their genetics. Ashkenazi Jew? Work on advancing gene therapy and retroviruses so humans now and in the future can be freed from genetic determinism. European? Build civilization. African? Physical labor/sports. East Asian? Also build civilization. To each is given the minimum necessary to do their genetically determined purpose, ignoring any abstract "human" needs for all. Surplus is captured by the State and hoarded, some used to incentivize the Jews to have more children since their problem is the most important. Eventually the Jews will succeed and no one will have any excuses anymore. That's not a world I'd like to live in. But it would solve you having a problem with inequality. Or maybe you just need a different perspective to not put so much into genetic determinism in the first place.
  - Inception 10y ago
    I think the OP was referring to people being born into wealth. ie. trust-fund babies. Also, WTF did I just read
    - greendragon 10y ago
      OP said "a lot" of the haves, so I get the impression they think it's actually a lot and justifiable to start imposing corrections to the problem on the lot of haves. My real issue is just the idea that more than a tiny fraction of the "haves" are in that group by genetic determinism, either from the lottery of being born to one's parents (and inheriting their genes, and their money, which they got somehow) or the other lottery of being born to a particular (and perhaps in today's economy, privileged) race. We all have to play the hand we're dealt, but the world and the brain are dynamic enough that there are lots of ways to play even when you have poor initial conditions. Having a problem with seemingly some large amount of people not having to play as hard is odd, especially when it's likely a much smaller set of people than imagined. Mindfuck of the day achieved, back to work...
      - Raphmedia 10y ago
        Welcome to Gattaca.
        greendragon 10y ago
        We're already living Gattaca. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/27/495668299/new-york-fertility-doctor-says-he-created-baby-with-3-genetic-parents http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/27/495668299/...
      - FussyZeus 10y ago
        > OP said "a lot" of the haves, so I get the impression they think it's actually a lot and justifiable to start imposing corrections to the problem on the lot of haves. That's a hell of a leap of logic. If you want to attempt to make the argument that being born into money gives you no intrinsic advantages in life, that's your argument to make. Access to resources (in the modern world, money) is a HUGE advantage. I'm not jaded, I don't hate the rich nor do I want to forcibly remove their wealth, I recognize that the motive to attain wealth is the single greatest motivator ever applied to people and the primary reason capitalist societies are (by most measures) the most successful. It's worth noting, however that the much derided and in recent history scaled back Estate Tax was originally intended to prevent the creation of a permanent landed gentry in the United States, or if you've never used that term, a group of wealthy estates that own so much they can effectively live from birth to death on the incomes of their properties. I would argue we have one, albiet not as bad as the one that inspired the law but one nonetheless. The failing of this counterargument is that I'm not advocating for equal results of all people, I'm advocating for more or less equal opportunity. There are plenty of factors at play that we cannot control; genetics are indeed one, as are number of involved parents, upbringing, what the child is exposed to, etc. but there are at least a few that we can help control and access to capital is one of them.

burke 10y ago

It may not be as good as it was 50 years ago, but there's a case to be made that it's nearly as good as it ever was prior to 1900.

sbov 10y ago
> It may not be as good as it was 50 years ago If you're a white male.
- zardo 10y ago
  Who wasn't sent to kill or be killed in South East Asia against your will.
- kr7 10y ago
  Women's self-reported happiness has dropped over the last 50 years [1], so possibly add "women" too. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html
sjclemmy 10y ago
It's better in every way. Racism, sexism, apartheid, LGBT, corporal punishment...
- AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
  Yes, and despite the best efforts of the Dali Lama, who favors "traditional roles" for women, and is opposed to same-sex marriage.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
  Exactly. Most of the people I hear that try to make the case that it was better, even a few decades ago, are usually white and/or male.
- 18972345 10y ago
  If you genuinely think these are the best markers for improvement in society, you must be an extremely lucky person. Having a job, having a job that doesn't completely suck, having enough money to move out of your parents house at the age of 30. These are things that people are facing today. In Australia, there are lots of people that are still living with their parents into their 30s because they simply can't afford rent or a mortgage. Racism and sexism and other terms are used more for political purposes these days then they are for anything of worth. Why didn't you mention the discrimination people with autism face, for example? Autism simply isn't a useful political tool because it doesn't get enough votes. Yet people with autism face more discrimination then the types you have listed. It is politics and nothing more.

sjclemmy 10y ago

Yet you have enough food, shelter, health. My comparison is about the whole of human history.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

But it is terribly, terribly good for the middle class. Penicillin, socialised medicine, low violent crime rates (#), no need to hunt our food, no need to build our own shelters or rub sticks together to make fire. The finest actors of this and past generations wait for me in my living room while I pee, something that past kings could not even achieve, I travel vast continents in the time it takes for a long sleep, I was the first of my father's line to go to University as a youth. As a consequence I can read and write (almost coherent sentences). The energy I consume per day would be equal to 40 slaves but I enslave no-one (directly) [##] Maybe we can make an argument that for the current white western male middle class, it is not as good as it was 50 years ago, but perhaps Frank Sinatra would like an iPhone, or modern throat surgery? I do know Sammy Davis Jr would prefer the Civil Rights he would enjoy in Vegas today than in the 50s. Compared to only a hundred and fifty years ago we are amazingly better off in every measurable way, compared to a thousand its almost shameful. If that does not make us happy, that's a different issue. After all we were only promised the pursuit of happiness. [#] See Steven Pinkers "Better Angels of our nature" [##] See Prof. David Mackay - http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewt...

petra 10y ago
>> If that does not make us happy, that's a different issue. Why ?
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  Fair point. I guess we are socialising our way up Maslow's hierarchy
18972345 10y ago
No need to hunt for food isn't even a good thing. We are designed to hunt. We actually like doing it. Now, people don't get enough exercise or the right type of exercise and so after our 9 hours of work, we have to go to the gym and simulate physical work. Most people also hate their jobs because we were not designed to sit on a computer all day.

paulddraper 10y ago

How many middle-class people had instant access to 90% of the human knowledge and entertainment 30 years ago? How many have instant access right this second? Life is far easier and more convenient than it used to be. Most of the middle-class live as better than kings of past centuries.

smacktoward 10y ago
> How many middle-class people had instant access to 90% of the human knowledge and entertainment 30 years ago? But at the same time as they got that, they lost access to things their parents took for granted like job security and reliable health care and thriving, stable communities. Getting access to Wikipedia is great, but it does not automatically balance that scale.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > reliable health care Health care is more available to humanity than at any time in history.
- Arnt 10y ago
  Let me guess: your parents were WASPs.

hx87 10y ago

Not terribly good, but certainly /better/.

ajkjk 10y ago

As far as I can tell, the qualify-of-life of the middle class is astoundingly high compared to almost-everyone in almost-all of history.

MikeHolman 10y ago

Most people aren't living in abject poverty for the first time in the history of mankind. Sure, it's not all roses, but we're moving in the right direction.