6 ms·
I would say "isn't working" in the sense that the vast majority are struggling to achieve or retain financial security, while a tiny minority have concentrated
by DougWebb 10y ago
I would say "isn't working" in the sense that the vast majority are struggling to achieve or retain financial security, while a tiny minority have concentrated most of the weath for themselves. Also, the trend continues to concentrate wealth further, making it ever more difficult for the majority.
This is a recurring cycle, which has happened many times throughout history. Pretty much every time it ends with the elites killed, their wealth stolen, civilization collapsed or set back significantly, and a new cycle begins. I don't understand why the elites never see this coming, or take adequate steps to prevent it. All they have to do is be somewhat less greedy.
- Pyxl101 10y agoAre you implying that people have had to struggle less to achieve or retain financial security in the past? During what time period and in what country? Can you share some specific data substantiating the claim? Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years, and real family income has been rising overall since the 1950s. Wealth concentration today is lower than it was in the 1930s. Poverty has fallen since the 1960s. I excerpted these facts from (1). While it is also true that income and wealth inequality has been rising during this time as well, the fact of the rich being well off doesn't necessarily hurt the non-rich, especially if both groups are becoming richer over time, which the data shows is happening in the US. People are becoming better off over time. Why is our economic system failing us? Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. Near the official government poverty level, most Americans live quite comfortably (2), and have amenities such as housing, air conditioning, cable TV, mobile phones, etc. > government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. (2) (1) http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-... (2) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov...
- cmdrfred 10y ago>Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. Shut up poor people, you have sanitation and refrigeration! When people who make arguments like this are dragged from their beds kicking and screaming they will only have their own hubris to blame. Edit: Those who down vote forget that we once had an elite ruling class in this country. "what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson
- lucideer 10y agoTechnical progress has brought about any of the perceived benefits you mention; the economic system has only caused those benefits to be disproportionately applied. While the median quality of life has improved, the extremes continue to widen making that metric less and less relevant. The "average person" you talk about has become a tiny minority. Your comparison of wealth concentration to the 1930s is also disingenuous: wealth concentration spiked massively toward the end of the 1920s, it was far lower than now before and after that. That particular point in history isn't a particularly ambitious bar to set. Though if you're linking heritage.org while keeping a straight face, I fear this may fall on deaf ears...
- jomohn 10y ago>The "average person" you talk about has become a tiny minority. nice bait
- nhaehnle 10y agothe fact of the rich being well off doesn't necessarily hurt the non-rich That's debatable. Human beings have a pretty significant natural tendency to look at the relative well-being rather than their absolute well-being. It makes sense, given that for any social animal, relative well-being aka ranking in the group hierarchy, is essential. Some people are more affected by this and other less, but even all else equal, increased inequality can reduce people's quality of life. Add to that the effect of mass media which allows an easy comparison to some of the most wealthy and powerful people in society, and you have a recipe for widespread unhappiness.
- justinclift 10y ago> All they have to do is be somewhat less greedy. Or alternatively, implement something to stop the "elites killed, their wealth stolen [etc]" bit. Completely co-incidentally :), technology to monitor/influence large numbers of people seems to be happening, and research/development/manufacturing of automated weaponry for the er... "self defence" of said elites seems to be on the agenda. Gee, that sounds like it'll end well doesn't it. :(