3 ms·

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 n

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
        I suppose that is the logical reductio ad absurdum counter-argument. I'm no idealist, obviously some level of inequality is inevitable because humans are fundamentally different from each other in their abilities. I think it's really generational wealth and social mobility (two sides of the same coin) that are the important factors. Everybody knows that there will be "losers" in any game, whether it's a video game or the more serious economic game that we all play throughout our lives. I think the disaffectedness of the not-well-off is due to a sense of helplessness that even if they had the ability and wherewithal to contribute to the world and better their own lives, that they wouldn't be able to do so due to factors that are out of their control, not out of some misplaced belief in equity-of-outcome Note that I'm not railing against meritocracy. Rather, it's that the system currently equates a lot of "merit" with factors that very highly correlate with having a wealthy upbringing. Also, meritocracy taken to its own reductio-ad-absurdum of a small group of extremely capable people controlling all wealth is not in itself desirable - just because it's theoretically possible to achieve upward social mobility by being part of the top 0.01% of intelligence/capability/whatever doesn't mean it's "fair" that success is reserved for such a small group
- 111_1_111 9y ago
  It's amazing to me the number of friends I have who claim to be poor but then spend every weekend getting drunk at the bar. If you can't afford $1000 to repair your car without going completely broke, you should not be going to restaurants, bars, concerts, movies, or anything else the average "poor" american blows their money on. Those are luxuries for people with disposable incomes. If you choose to spend your money on luxuries even though you have nothing in savings, you do not deserve sympathy when you eventually go broke.

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
      I suppose that is the logical reductio ad absurdum counter-argument. I'm no idealist, obviously some level of inequality is inevitable because humans are fundamentally different from each other in their abilities. I think it's really generational wealth and social mobility (two sides of the same coin) that are the important factors. Everybody knows that there will be "losers" in any game, whether it's a video game or the more serious economic game that we all play throughout our lives. I think the disaffectedness of the not-well-off is due to a sense of helplessness that even if they had the ability and wherewithal to contribute to the world and better their own lives, that they wouldn't be able to do so due to factors that are out of their control, not out of some misplaced belief in equity-of-outcome Note that I'm not railing against meritocracy. Rather, it's that the system currently equates a lot of "merit" with factors that very highly correlate with having a wealthy upbringing. Also, meritocracy taken to its own reductio-ad-absurdum of a small group of extremely capable people controlling all wealth is not in itself desirable - just because it's theoretically possible to achieve upward social mobility by being part of the top 0.01% of intelligence/capability/whatever doesn't mean it's "fair" that success is reserved for such a small group
111_1_111 9y ago
It's amazing to me the number of friends I have who claim to be poor but then spend every weekend getting drunk at the bar. If you can't afford $1000 to repair your car without going completely broke, you should not be going to restaurants, bars, concerts, movies, or anything else the average "poor" american blows their money on. Those are luxuries for people with disposable incomes. If you choose to spend your money on luxuries even though you have nothing in savings, you do not deserve sympathy when you eventually go broke.