5 ms·

My thought here is that there is a significant lack of outrage in weak wage growth and income disparities because the data is not relatable enough. There's cer

My thought here is that there is a significant lack of outrage in weak wage growth and income disparities because the data is not relatable enough. There's certainly some protest at the most abhorrent levels of minimum wage meeting acceptable levels for a living, but shouldn't everyone from the upper to lower class be up in arms if there is such a favoritism toward executives and shareholders? Maybe something along the lines as showing what normal wage growth in tangible quality of live areas (e.g. this is the home you could afford) would look like for certain income levels might be a better way to explain this.

ddingus 8y ago
I agree. Personify these things so people can internalize them, better understand what they are experiencing and why. Most will find it unacceptable, as they should. Honestly, most of this is a priority problem. And informed people will be a higher priority than uninformed ones are.
pmoriarty 8y ago
"shouldn't everyone from the upper to lower class be up in arms if there is such a favoritism toward executives and shareholders?" Most people are just too tired, too busy with their own lives, too disillusioned with idealistic promises of change, and too fearful of repercussions to try to rock the boat unless they're starving and have nothing to lose. As long as they've got their bread and circuses, nothing will substantively change. Even if/when it does change, history shows that we'll probably just wind up with a new boss who's the same as the old boss.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  > Even if/when it does change, history shows that we'll probably just wind up with a new boss who's the same as the old boss. But history doesn’t show anything of the sort? History instead shows a clear path to how Europe ended up with the bottom 50% ending up with a much larger portion of wealth than the top 1%. What’s remarkable here is not how impossible change is, but how Americans have utterly resigned themselves to the supposed unchanging inevitability of their current situation despite clear evidence that alternative modes of operating aren’t just possible but clearly exist right now. America’s primary problem with change seems first and foremost to be its own fatalistic delusion that being any other way is impossible.
  - dmoy 8y ago
    s/bottom 1%/top 1%/ ? Otherwise that's trivially true for all countries, no?
    - msbarnett 8y ago
      Whoops, top, yeah.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
    > But history doesn’t show anything of the sort? Depends on the timescale, but it looks a lot more like the hierarchies re-establish in a similar fashion. Often from the same lineages, over time!
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > History instead shows a clear path to how Europe ended up with the bottom 50% ending up with a much larger portion of wealth than the top 1%. I'm convinced that this was mostly due to the war. Indiscriminate destruction and injury is a great leveller. It also triggered the end of colonialism in the 70s, which was critical to egalitarianism. This almost happened in America, but it's difficult to trace the exact point of failure. Possibly Carter's failed Iran rescue and subsequent non re election?
    - msbarnett 8y ago
      Europe went heavily in on trade unions after the war, partially as an antidote to fascism and occasionally with direct US support for strengthening them (as in post-War Germany). Domestically, however, the US significantly weakened unions first by strongly opposing efforts for unions to receive a seat on corporate board of directors (which they had supported in Germany), and via Red Scare union busting tactics. The long term hostility toward unions essentially won in the ‘80s when Regan broke the air traffic controllers, and the rapid rise in wealth inequality from the ‘80s onwards seems a very direct result.
davidw 8y ago
Part of what Trump was successful at doing was to channel some of that latent rage. But rather than at companies or rent-seeking individuals (like himself), he made it about immigrants.
- misja111 8y ago
  That's not entirely true. He's openly opposed to Amazon and to companies that outsource to factories abroad.
  - davidw 8y ago
    He's opposed to Amazon in no small part because Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, which publishes stuff like https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/22/video-one-rally-one-hour-almost-30-trumpian-claims/?utm_term=.af5980025265 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/... A lot of his and his daughter's clothes and other stuff is manufactured abroad - he doesn't really have a problem with that. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/395557-chinese-factory-claims-to-be-making-trumps-2020-campaign-flags http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/395557-chinese-factory-...

ddingus 8y ago

I agree. Personify these things so people can internalize them, better understand what they are experiencing and why. Most will find it unacceptable, as they should. Honestly, most of this is a priority problem. And informed people will be a higher priority than uninformed ones are.

pmoriarty 8y ago

"shouldn't everyone from the upper to lower class be up in arms if there is such a favoritism toward executives and shareholders?" Most people are just too tired, too busy with their own lives, too disillusioned with idealistic promises of change, and too fearful of repercussions to try to rock the boat unless they're starving and have nothing to lose. As long as they've got their bread and circuses, nothing will substantively change. Even if/when it does change, history shows that we'll probably just wind up with a new boss who's the same as the old boss.

msbarnett 8y ago
> Even if/when it does change, history shows that we'll probably just wind up with a new boss who's the same as the old boss. But history doesn’t show anything of the sort? History instead shows a clear path to how Europe ended up with the bottom 50% ending up with a much larger portion of wealth than the top 1%. What’s remarkable here is not how impossible change is, but how Americans have utterly resigned themselves to the supposed unchanging inevitability of their current situation despite clear evidence that alternative modes of operating aren’t just possible but clearly exist right now. America’s primary problem with change seems first and foremost to be its own fatalistic delusion that being any other way is impossible.
- dmoy 8y ago
  s/bottom 1%/top 1%/ ? Otherwise that's trivially true for all countries, no?
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    Whoops, top, yeah.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > But history doesn’t show anything of the sort? Depends on the timescale, but it looks a lot more like the hierarchies re-establish in a similar fashion. Often from the same lineages, over time!
- pjc50 8y ago
  > History instead shows a clear path to how Europe ended up with the bottom 50% ending up with a much larger portion of wealth than the top 1%. I'm convinced that this was mostly due to the war. Indiscriminate destruction and injury is a great leveller. It also triggered the end of colonialism in the 70s, which was critical to egalitarianism. This almost happened in America, but it's difficult to trace the exact point of failure. Possibly Carter's failed Iran rescue and subsequent non re election?
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    Europe went heavily in on trade unions after the war, partially as an antidote to fascism and occasionally with direct US support for strengthening them (as in post-War Germany). Domestically, however, the US significantly weakened unions first by strongly opposing efforts for unions to receive a seat on corporate board of directors (which they had supported in Germany), and via Red Scare union busting tactics. The long term hostility toward unions essentially won in the ‘80s when Regan broke the air traffic controllers, and the rapid rise in wealth inequality from the ‘80s onwards seems a very direct result.

davidw 8y ago

Part of what Trump was successful at doing was to channel some of that latent rage. But rather than at companies or rent-seeking individuals (like himself), he made it about immigrants.

misja111 8y ago
That's not entirely true. He's openly opposed to Amazon and to companies that outsource to factories abroad.
- davidw 8y ago
  He's opposed to Amazon in no small part because Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, which publishes stuff like https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/22/video-one-rally-one-hour-almost-30-trumpian-claims/?utm_term=.af5980025265 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/... A lot of his and his daughter's clothes and other stuff is manufactured abroad - he doesn't really have a problem with that. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/395557-chinese-factory-claims-to-be-making-trumps-2020-campaign-flags http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/395557-chinese-factory-...