7 ms·

Because it was always about class warfare, and as W Buffett said, the rich are winning. Just how they promised us the industrial revolution would, but instead t

Because it was always about class warfare, and as W Buffett said, the rich are winning. Just how they promised us the industrial revolution would, but instead the rich gobbled up all the profits while starting the workers which led to the Era of robber barons. Anyone who thinks the information or automation revolution isn't going to result in the same thing unless we change fundamental business practice is in for a rough surprise.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Is this true? I think the average worker is much better off now than in the past. It's not that long ago that many people in the US didn't have electricity. I think what's happening is as we get richer our definition of what's necessary to have a middle class life gets continually revised upwards. Most people have a car, several electronic devices, eat out relatively often, etc. What used to be a luxury or aspirational becomes commonplace. That's not to say there aren't problems, but exaggerating how bad things are makes any argument to fix them less credible.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The average worker is one $1000 calamity away from financial ruin. The average worker is not better off, and your view about how “most people” live regarding vehicle ownership, electronics, and eating out is out of line with reality for the lower and middle class.
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    95% of American households have a car. So I'm not sure I'm that wrong. Maybe if you live in New York or Boston that's not true, but in most of the country you need a car to get around. I don't know too many lower class people, but I do know a decent amount of lower-middle class people (service industry jobs, no college degree). They all have cars, newish cell phones, and do go out to eat and go to bars. They don't save much money as far as I can tell, so they probably are $1000 away from financial ruin though.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      That car is likely 8-10 years old, and one of the $1000 calamities that would push them into insolvency.
      - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
        Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing. I was just saying that what is considered a reasonable expectation for a middle class life is much more than it used to be. On an absolute scale I think the average American is better off now than they were 50 years ago. I'm aware that there is small, but substantial part of the population that lives on a few dollars a day in the US, but I don't think that invalidates my main point.
        opportune 9y ago
        Here's the thing, happiness or just general "well being" is due in large part to how people perceive their world, not only due to the physical, material conditions of it. Yes, even poor people these days have smartphones and cars and refrigerators (in part because these are basically necessities to participate in Western economies). But that doesn't mean they'll ever not be poor, nor that they can easily afford those goods. And that doesn't even touch on all of the class-based cultural differences and systemic inequalities (e.g. in education and justice) that middle class/poor people are still subject to.
        classicsnoot 9y ago
        If happiness is relative and based on perception, could you make the argument that making everybody equally poor would be just as beneficial as contributing to everyone's success, rather everyone willing to work for it? If you continue to move the "goalposts of happiness" you could end up in a situation where there is the potential to do right by 98% of people, but you decide against it so that the 2% don't feel bad.
        opportune 9y ago
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Bread and circuses[1] satifies only the most base of human needs[2]. Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_need...
  - anarchimedes 9y ago
    And not everyone is secure enough in the "bread" either. "An estimated 12.3 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2016, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. That is essentially unchanged from 12.7 percent in 2015. The prevalence of very low food security also essentially unchanged, at 4.9 percent in 2016 and 5.0 percent in 2015." [1] [1]https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=84972 https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=849...
  - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
    >Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now You're gonna need a citation on that. Especially because it's far more likely that it's simply become more acceptable to talk about, and the definitions have expanded.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      I don't know how much easier it is to talk about but I do agree the definitions have expanded greatly. Perhaps a more objective measure is needed, such as the suicide rate: U.S. Suicide Rate Surges to a 30-Year High https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate...
  - opportune 9y ago
    I think there's a lot to be said for how helpless the average worker is in the modern economy. Part of it isn't just the absolute conditions of modern people, but the knowledge and zeitgeist that people have now. The concept of the "American Dream" isn't dead, but it's becoming increasingly reserved for only a small subset of people with specific backgrounds and skills. People that aren't, for lack of a better word, special simply aren't going to make it big; more importantly, even if this has always been the case, people now know that about themselves. People born in poverty look to lottery tickets, both literally and in the form of risky activities like gang activities and becoming professional sports players (which is risky relative to what else you could accomplish given the same amount of effort). They typically don't have access to education, or benefit from stable households, enough to break out. Middle class people don't realistically have a chance of becoming wealthy unless they're unusually smart or socially skilled. Neither group has the means to fix this situation politically or culturally because very wealthy people control politics and culture (or at the very least, all the important parts). Most modern success stories are essentially an upper-middle class person rising to the lower-upper class. I think we need a new frontier. Maybe that's just a substitute for a lottery ticket, but it's a lottery ticket with much better odds.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  This is a common retort and an overly simplistic way to look at the subject. In essence, it's not about the improvement overall compared to the past, it's about the potential for improvement that never reached the people because of exponentially growing wealth inequality. Trickle down is bullshit.
  - classicsnoot 9y ago
    I notice you side stepped the direct question regarding whether or not your initial statement was true. You then go on to state that it isn't about overall improvement (something that can be measured) but rather improvement compared to an imaginary world that might have existed (something that cannot be measured). You then say that wealth inequality has grown exponentially. I'd like to see a verifiable source for that assertion. If you are just going to virtue signal and call me names, there is no need to respond.
- mch82 9y ago
  Income distribution facts suggest income inequality is increasing and what's happening is the richest get richer at the expense of everyone else. http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/06/income-inequality-goes-viral/ http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/06/income-inequality-goes-vira...
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the conditions of the average person are better now than at any point in the past, even though income inequality has gone up. I'm in favor of marginal changes affecting how income is distributed by the way. I'm skeptical of large changes because I don't think we're very good at predicting the outcomes of such changes and the current system, though obviously deficient, is the best we (meaning the US) has been able to come up with at this point.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago

Is this true? I think the average worker is much better off now than in the past. It's not that long ago that many people in the US didn't have electricity. I think what's happening is as we get richer our definition of what's necessary to have a middle class life gets continually revised upwards. Most people have a car, several electronic devices, eat out relatively often, etc. What used to be a luxury or aspirational becomes commonplace. That's not to say there aren't problems, but exaggerating how bad things are makes any argument to fix them less credible.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
The average worker is one $1000 calamity away from financial ruin. The average worker is not better off, and your view about how “most people” live regarding vehicle ownership, electronics, and eating out is out of line with reality for the lower and middle class.
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  95% of American households have a car. So I'm not sure I'm that wrong. Maybe if you live in New York or Boston that's not true, but in most of the country you need a car to get around. I don't know too many lower class people, but I do know a decent amount of lower-middle class people (service industry jobs, no college degree). They all have cars, newish cell phones, and do go out to eat and go to bars. They don't save much money as far as I can tell, so they probably are $1000 away from financial ruin though.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    That car is likely 8-10 years old, and one of the $1000 calamities that would push them into insolvency.
    - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
      Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing. I was just saying that what is considered a reasonable expectation for a middle class life is much more than it used to be. On an absolute scale I think the average American is better off now than they were 50 years ago. I'm aware that there is small, but substantial part of the population that lives on a few dollars a day in the US, but I don't think that invalidates my main point.
      - opportune 9y ago
        Here's the thing, happiness or just general "well being" is due in large part to how people perceive their world, not only due to the physical, material conditions of it. Yes, even poor people these days have smartphones and cars and refrigerators (in part because these are basically necessities to participate in Western economies). But that doesn't mean they'll ever not be poor, nor that they can easily afford those goods. And that doesn't even touch on all of the class-based cultural differences and systemic inequalities (e.g. in education and justice) that middle class/poor people are still subject to.
        classicsnoot 9y ago
        If happiness is relative and based on perception, could you make the argument that making everybody equally poor would be just as beneficial as contributing to everyone's success, rather everyone willing to work for it? If you continue to move the "goalposts of happiness" you could end up in a situation where there is the potential to do right by 98% of people, but you decide against it so that the 2% don't feel bad.
        opportune 9y ago
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Bread and circuses[1] satifies only the most base of human needs[2]. Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_need...
- anarchimedes 9y ago
  And not everyone is secure enough in the "bread" either. "An estimated 12.3 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2016, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. That is essentially unchanged from 12.7 percent in 2015. The prevalence of very low food security also essentially unchanged, at 4.9 percent in 2016 and 5.0 percent in 2015." [1] [1]https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=84972 https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=849...
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago
  >Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now You're gonna need a citation on that. Especially because it's far more likely that it's simply become more acceptable to talk about, and the definitions have expanded.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    I don't know how much easier it is to talk about but I do agree the definitions have expanded greatly. Perhaps a more objective measure is needed, such as the suicide rate: U.S. Suicide Rate Surges to a 30-Year High https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate...
- opportune 9y ago
  I think there's a lot to be said for how helpless the average worker is in the modern economy. Part of it isn't just the absolute conditions of modern people, but the knowledge and zeitgeist that people have now. The concept of the "American Dream" isn't dead, but it's becoming increasingly reserved for only a small subset of people with specific backgrounds and skills. People that aren't, for lack of a better word, special simply aren't going to make it big; more importantly, even if this has always been the case, people now know that about themselves. People born in poverty look to lottery tickets, both literally and in the form of risky activities like gang activities and becoming professional sports players (which is risky relative to what else you could accomplish given the same amount of effort). They typically don't have access to education, or benefit from stable households, enough to break out. Middle class people don't realistically have a chance of becoming wealthy unless they're unusually smart or socially skilled. Neither group has the means to fix this situation politically or culturally because very wealthy people control politics and culture (or at the very least, all the important parts). Most modern success stories are essentially an upper-middle class person rising to the lower-upper class. I think we need a new frontier. Maybe that's just a substitute for a lottery ticket, but it's a lottery ticket with much better odds.
arca_vorago 9y ago
This is a common retort and an overly simplistic way to look at the subject. In essence, it's not about the improvement overall compared to the past, it's about the potential for improvement that never reached the people because of exponentially growing wealth inequality. Trickle down is bullshit.
- classicsnoot 9y ago
  I notice you side stepped the direct question regarding whether or not your initial statement was true. You then go on to state that it isn't about overall improvement (something that can be measured) but rather improvement compared to an imaginary world that might have existed (something that cannot be measured). You then say that wealth inequality has grown exponentially. I'd like to see a verifiable source for that assertion. If you are just going to virtue signal and call me names, there is no need to respond.
mch82 9y ago
Income distribution facts suggest income inequality is increasing and what's happening is the richest get richer at the expense of everyone else. http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/06/income-inequality-goes-viral/ http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/06/income-inequality-goes-vira...
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the conditions of the average person are better now than at any point in the past, even though income inequality has gone up. I'm in favor of marginal changes affecting how income is distributed by the way. I'm skeptical of large changes because I don't think we're very good at predicting the outcomes of such changes and the current system, though obviously deficient, is the best we (meaning the US) has been able to come up with at this point.