3 ms·

Are 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

by Pyxl101 10y ago

Are 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 ago
Technical 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 ago
the 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.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years Average wealth doesn't matter. Relative wealth does. The reason is simple: wealth is a proxy for political power. Let's say Bob had 10 dubloons yesterday and Alex had 20, and today Bob has 20 and Alex has 100. Sure, Bob is twice as wealthy as he was, but Alex is five times as wealthy and also five times wealthier than Bob (as opposed to twice). Now replace "wealth" in the above paragraph with "power" and you'll see the issue.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Wealth has nothing to do with gold coins or green pieces of paper. Wealth is about the total amount and quality of goods and services you consume. Your house is of much higher quality than the houses of the 1950s. Just because the mansions are even bigger and better, This doesn't take away the quality of life improvement of you owning a better house or car or your ability to be cured of diseases that were incurable in 1950.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    The apartment I'm living in now is in a renovated factory which was built in the 30's. Very solid brick and concrete construction. There's a new apartment building not far from me; they built a two-story concrete structure with a slab on top, and then put a stick-built four-story building on top of that. Wood stud and foam exterior walls, and metal studs and drywall inside. Looks like a firetrap, and the noise from other apartments must be awful. Before I lived here I was in a single-family house, also built in the 30's, also very sturdy. I've seen other houses being built nearby, McMansion style. They look nice (new, anyway) but they use the same shoddy materials and construction techniques. Prior to that, I lived in a new condo. I bought it while it was still under construction. (Big mistake.) The builder neglected a few details, like flashing on all of the windows. When it rained, water poured in around my window casings. People on the top floor had their whole ceilings cave in. I managed to get out of there, but a year or two later after the lawsuits the entire brick exterior had to be ripped down to fix the windows, then put back up. So I disagree that today's houses are "much higher quality" than the houses of the 1950s. An older house, with modern upgrades, is more likely to be high quality than a new house with the same features. That's all besides the point, because without wealth, without those gold coins and green pieces of paper, you can't afford the nice house, or better car, or the healthcare. Without wealth (in all senses) you don't have financial security, and without financial security you're forced to make decisions about how you use your limited resources. You buy lower-quality goods, you skimp on maintenance, you don't upgrade things, you hold off on preventative care until you need emergency care. Your quality of life is lower, despite having (potential) access to much better things than you might have had in the past.
jimbokun 10y ago
Interesting you choose 60s and 50s as comparison points, as many statistics suggest wage increases have been almost nonexistent since the 70s.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  increases are fun, but non-increases are better than decreases. Is our economic life worse than the 70s?
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Could make a very good case for our economic life today being worse than the 60s.
  - xg15 10y ago
    If there is an increase in living costs at the same time and/or a decrease in quality of goods then obviously yes.
srtjstjsj 10y ago
> Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. That doesn't means that we should set by and let modern kings steal most of our economic surplus. And American wealth has grown at the expense of creating enemies who are in a growing position to exact retribution.
xg15 10y ago
And medieval peasants were orders of magnitude better off than people living in the stone-age. You can always find comparisons showing anything, the question is how relevant they are. In this case I'd argue your comparisons are apparently not relevant for a lot of people - or else, if everything is so wonderful, how do you explain trump?

by Pyxl101 10y ago

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 ago

Technical 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 ago

the 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.

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years Average wealth doesn't matter. Relative wealth does. The reason is simple: wealth is a proxy for political power. Let's say Bob had 10 dubloons yesterday and Alex had 20, and today Bob has 20 and Alex has 100. Sure, Bob is twice as wealthy as he was, but Alex is five times as wealthy and also five times wealthier than Bob (as opposed to twice). Now replace "wealth" in the above paragraph with "power" and you'll see the issue.

stale2002 10y ago
Wealth has nothing to do with gold coins or green pieces of paper. Wealth is about the total amount and quality of goods and services you consume. Your house is of much higher quality than the houses of the 1950s. Just because the mansions are even bigger and better, This doesn't take away the quality of life improvement of you owning a better house or car or your ability to be cured of diseases that were incurable in 1950.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  The apartment I'm living in now is in a renovated factory which was built in the 30's. Very solid brick and concrete construction. There's a new apartment building not far from me; they built a two-story concrete structure with a slab on top, and then put a stick-built four-story building on top of that. Wood stud and foam exterior walls, and metal studs and drywall inside. Looks like a firetrap, and the noise from other apartments must be awful. Before I lived here I was in a single-family house, also built in the 30's, also very sturdy. I've seen other houses being built nearby, McMansion style. They look nice (new, anyway) but they use the same shoddy materials and construction techniques. Prior to that, I lived in a new condo. I bought it while it was still under construction. (Big mistake.) The builder neglected a few details, like flashing on all of the windows. When it rained, water poured in around my window casings. People on the top floor had their whole ceilings cave in. I managed to get out of there, but a year or two later after the lawsuits the entire brick exterior had to be ripped down to fix the windows, then put back up. So I disagree that today's houses are "much higher quality" than the houses of the 1950s. An older house, with modern upgrades, is more likely to be high quality than a new house with the same features. That's all besides the point, because without wealth, without those gold coins and green pieces of paper, you can't afford the nice house, or better car, or the healthcare. Without wealth (in all senses) you don't have financial security, and without financial security you're forced to make decisions about how you use your limited resources. You buy lower-quality goods, you skimp on maintenance, you don't upgrade things, you hold off on preventative care until you need emergency care. Your quality of life is lower, despite having (potential) access to much better things than you might have had in the past.

jimbokun 10y ago

Interesting you choose 60s and 50s as comparison points, as many statistics suggest wage increases have been almost nonexistent since the 70s.

srtjstjsj 10y ago
increases are fun, but non-increases are better than decreases. Is our economic life worse than the 70s?
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Could make a very good case for our economic life today being worse than the 60s.
- xg15 10y ago
  If there is an increase in living costs at the same time and/or a decrease in quality of goods then obviously yes.

srtjstjsj 10y ago

> Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. That doesn't means that we should set by and let modern kings steal most of our economic surplus. And American wealth has grown at the expense of creating enemies who are in a growing position to exact retribution.

xg15 10y ago

And medieval peasants were orders of magnitude better off than people living in the stone-age. You can always find comparisons showing anything, the question is how relevant they are. In this case I'd argue your comparisons are apparently not relevant for a lot of people - or else, if everything is so wonderful, how do you explain trump?