5 ms·

If you’re a capitalist or a socialist or somewhere in between, I think we should try to find common ground that this isn’t a good position for society or the fu

If you’re a capitalist or a socialist or somewhere in between, I think we should try to find common ground that this isn’t a good position for society or the future.

throwaways885 6y ago
Aren't the poorest in society naturally always going to be the bottom 25% or so? The poorest American is still in the top 10% of the world.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  The poorest American, who earns 0 dollars in his lifetime, is absolutely not in the top 10% of world income.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    Well, a poor American is not better off than, say, a middle class Ghanaian. Along pretty much every meaningful metric of human development, access to health care, access to good foods, access to education, the Ghanaian is probably better off. At the same time though, there are nations like Nicaragua, Mali and Cameroon. A poor American is absolutely better off than a middle class Cameroonian, or a middle class person from Mali. So you're right that the old mantra about a poor American being in the top 10% of the world is no longer true. Having made that concession, we should also recognize that the poor in the US are still much better off than the poor in a lot of other countries. That group of countries has just been shrinking over the past 30 years. Our main societal concern should be, "How do we reverse that trend?" Because more and more of the middle class are joining the ranks of the poor, and though it's only my opinion, I don't think that will end well for us.
- trevyn 6y ago
  Poverty is about having difficulty meeting basic human needs, not an income percentile.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Relative economic standing != absolute economic standing. Statistical measures of poverty are set in terms of being able to afford the basic necessities of life, such as food, housing, medical care, transport, education and communications. Relative standing is irrelevant. Further, having 10 times more income (or wealth) than subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa is meaningless if your cost of living is 1000 times higher than that of a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa. Poor Americans aren't paying sub-Saharan African prices; they're paying American prices, and that means their income does not go very far.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    People don't have access to food? Sounds like that would be a self correcting problem if remotely true. The problem with asking the government to fix this in some way is that you'll most likely ensure the absolute floor of the pricing with be set higher. It's all those beautiful first world regulations we set out subsiding the price paid that ensure pricing is high, not capitalism. I'm not saying remove them but if we can not recognise the the true source of the problems it's hard to improve it meaningfully.
    - t-writescode 6y ago
      Did you intentionally or unintentionally paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge just then? If unintentional, perhaps you should consider your life and behavior in view of the three ghosts referenced in that novella.
troughway 6y ago
Nope, the middle class is living now better than kings have lived in the past. Let that thought wash over you and don't think twice about the jobless statistics whatsoever.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  Are you giving the same line to high income earners who are complaining about high taxes?
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  You're being downvoted because people on HN don't like being reminded about how good they have it. Sorry, you don't deserve this.
  - tyre 6y ago
    Or they might be downvoted because “kings hundreds of years ago” is an irrelevant comparison when talking about the lives of people today. This isn’t a dinner party conversation of whether I’d rather be a feudal lord in 1270 Britain or an American living paycheck to paycheck in 2020. Or they might be downvoted because this community skews towards makers, and “it’s better than it was so why talk about how to fix its problems?” is the antithesis of building, creating, making. It is the antithesis of the very real work of progress.
- II2II 6y ago
  This isn't about the middle class and there really is no legitimate basis for comparison when it comes to being in poverty. Those kings lacked modern luxuries, to be sure. They even lacked most modern comforts. Those kings of the past did not have to worry about being homeless and were unlikely to worry about putting food on the table. When it comes to the essentials, their needs were met and (for the most part) they did not have to concern themselves with losing it due to their economic position. While they may be concerned with losing those essentials due to the politics of the era, that is something entirely different. Edit: for clarity.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Having spoken with someone today, at length, that thinks any improvement in the current situation is “socialism”, I think common ground won’t be found with some folks (and that’s okay, as long as you can get a majority onboard). You have to do the right thing regardless (go to the mat for overwhelming fiscal policy stimulus firepower short term, and driving towards improved policy long term, increasing the minimum wage, universal healthcare, etc). With recent political events, I’m hopeful (and it has been some time since I’ve had hope). Just have to keep up the momentum.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  "improvement"? The fact that you don't seem to see your own bias shows that you might be part of the "no common ground" problem. Are you willing to accept that changes which you see as making things worse might actually be improvements? Even changes favored by that person you spoke with?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- jrobn 6y ago
  “Some folks” is approaching near 50/50 split of the population of the US who have been led to believe “socialism” is worse than death. I know so, because my friend goes to church and they are now talking about this in their sermons...God is a Republican apparently.
  - lopmotr 6y ago
    I think you need data to support that 50% claim. Otherwise you could just as easily claim the other 50% thinks the same way about fascism. Maybe it's just extremists you're looking at.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
claydavisss 6y ago
Given that a huge number of the current unemployed were made so by government fiat, I don't understand what political philosophy has to do with it.
jorblumesea 6y ago
I really don't believe people think that way, unfortunately. Many people see this as the "natural order of things". The idea that a significant percentage of the population should be in debt, jobless or lacking healthcare coverage has been normalized and institutionalized in the US. Anyone who wants to change this will be fighting an uphill battle against cultural norms, vested business interests and ideological positions.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  Its usually all of the above. In debt, jobless AND lacking healthcare.
- kiba 6y ago
  They do? Who are these people?
  - batt4good 6y ago
    Well yeah, animals that can't hunt or fend for themselves are killed by predators or starve to death. Humans are animals. If I have a family, I will care for my kin before strangers who don't know any better or are too stupid to help themselves. At a certain scale, helping hopeless people starts to harm society. This is true regardless of your political persuasion. Republicans point to never ending handouts and democrats point to "deplorables". Both are disgusting, however it's ironic what those in the west consider "suffering" in one of the most wealthy nations on earth. Laziness and self pity will kill a man faster than simply being disadvantaged.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Uhm, blatant Social-Darwinism is barely down-voted at HN now? That entire post is absolute garbage and bullshit and have no relation to history with the gem being this: "helping hopeless people starts to harm society". You do realize that we are all "useless" for the first 15-20 years? Not to mention the empirical evidence disproving that claim that you seemingly don't give a shit about; like other countries than the US.

If you’re a capitalist or a socialist or somewhere in between, I think we should try to find common ground that this isn’t a good position for society or the future.

throwaways885 6y ago

Aren't the poorest in society naturally always going to be the bottom 25% or so? The poorest American is still in the top 10% of the world.

cool_dude85 6y ago
The poorest American, who earns 0 dollars in his lifetime, is absolutely not in the top 10% of world income.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Well, a poor American is not better off than, say, a middle class Ghanaian. Along pretty much every meaningful metric of human development, access to health care, access to good foods, access to education, the Ghanaian is probably better off. At the same time though, there are nations like Nicaragua, Mali and Cameroon. A poor American is absolutely better off than a middle class Cameroonian, or a middle class person from Mali. So you're right that the old mantra about a poor American being in the top 10% of the world is no longer true. Having made that concession, we should also recognize that the poor in the US are still much better off than the poor in a lot of other countries. That group of countries has just been shrinking over the past 30 years. Our main societal concern should be, "How do we reverse that trend?" Because more and more of the middle class are joining the ranks of the poor, and though it's only my opinion, I don't think that will end well for us.
trevyn 6y ago
Poverty is about having difficulty meeting basic human needs, not an income percentile.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Relative economic standing != absolute economic standing. Statistical measures of poverty are set in terms of being able to afford the basic necessities of life, such as food, housing, medical care, transport, education and communications. Relative standing is irrelevant. Further, having 10 times more income (or wealth) than subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa is meaningless if your cost of living is 1000 times higher than that of a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa. Poor Americans aren't paying sub-Saharan African prices; they're paying American prices, and that means their income does not go very far.
- Guthur 6y ago
  People don't have access to food? Sounds like that would be a self correcting problem if remotely true. The problem with asking the government to fix this in some way is that you'll most likely ensure the absolute floor of the pricing with be set higher. It's all those beautiful first world regulations we set out subsiding the price paid that ensure pricing is high, not capitalism. I'm not saying remove them but if we can not recognise the the true source of the problems it's hard to improve it meaningfully.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Did you intentionally or unintentionally paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge just then? If unintentional, perhaps you should consider your life and behavior in view of the three ghosts referenced in that novella.

troughway 6y ago

Nope, the middle class is living now better than kings have lived in the past. Let that thought wash over you and don't think twice about the jobless statistics whatsoever.

spaetzleesser 6y ago
Are you giving the same line to high income earners who are complaining about high taxes?
Der_Einzige 6y ago
You're being downvoted because people on HN don't like being reminded about how good they have it. Sorry, you don't deserve this.
- tyre 6y ago
  Or they might be downvoted because “kings hundreds of years ago” is an irrelevant comparison when talking about the lives of people today. This isn’t a dinner party conversation of whether I’d rather be a feudal lord in 1270 Britain or an American living paycheck to paycheck in 2020. Or they might be downvoted because this community skews towards makers, and “it’s better than it was so why talk about how to fix its problems?” is the antithesis of building, creating, making. It is the antithesis of the very real work of progress.
II2II 6y ago
This isn't about the middle class and there really is no legitimate basis for comparison when it comes to being in poverty. Those kings lacked modern luxuries, to be sure. They even lacked most modern comforts. Those kings of the past did not have to worry about being homeless and were unlikely to worry about putting food on the table. When it comes to the essentials, their needs were met and (for the most part) they did not have to concern themselves with losing it due to their economic position. While they may be concerned with losing those essentials due to the politics of the era, that is something entirely different. Edit: for clarity.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Having spoken with someone today, at length, that thinks any improvement in the current situation is “socialism”, I think common ground won’t be found with some folks (and that’s okay, as long as you can get a majority onboard). You have to do the right thing regardless (go to the mat for overwhelming fiscal policy stimulus firepower short term, and driving towards improved policy long term, increasing the minimum wage, universal healthcare, etc). With recent political events, I’m hopeful (and it has been some time since I’ve had hope). Just have to keep up the momentum.

lopmotr 6y ago
"improvement"? The fact that you don't seem to see your own bias shows that you might be part of the "no common ground" problem. Are you willing to accept that changes which you see as making things worse might actually be improvements? Even changes favored by that person you spoke with?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jrobn 6y ago
“Some folks” is approaching near 50/50 split of the population of the US who have been led to believe “socialism” is worse than death. I know so, because my friend goes to church and they are now talking about this in their sermons...God is a Republican apparently.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  I think you need data to support that 50% claim. Otherwise you could just as easily claim the other 50% thinks the same way about fascism. Maybe it's just extremists you're looking at.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 6y ago

claydavisss 6y ago

Given that a huge number of the current unemployed were made so by government fiat, I don't understand what political philosophy has to do with it.

jorblumesea 6y ago

I really don't believe people think that way, unfortunately. Many people see this as the "natural order of things". The idea that a significant percentage of the population should be in debt, jobless or lacking healthcare coverage has been normalized and institutionalized in the US. Anyone who wants to change this will be fighting an uphill battle against cultural norms, vested business interests and ideological positions.

ilaksh 6y ago
Its usually all of the above. In debt, jobless AND lacking healthcare.
kiba 6y ago
They do? Who are these people?
- batt4good 6y ago
  Well yeah, animals that can't hunt or fend for themselves are killed by predators or starve to death. Humans are animals. If I have a family, I will care for my kin before strangers who don't know any better or are too stupid to help themselves. At a certain scale, helping hopeless people starts to harm society. This is true regardless of your political persuasion. Republicans point to never ending handouts and democrats point to "deplorables". Both are disgusting, however it's ironic what those in the west consider "suffering" in one of the most wealthy nations on earth. Laziness and self pity will kill a man faster than simply being disadvantaged.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Uhm, blatant Social-Darwinism is barely down-voted at HN now? That entire post is absolute garbage and bullshit and have no relation to history with the gem being this: "helping hopeless people starts to harm society". You do realize that we are all "useless" for the first 15-20 years? Not to mention the empirical evidence disproving that claim that you seemingly don't give a shit about; like other countries than the US.