4 ms·

This seems to put blame on people who have avoided the meltdown in manufacturing and other blue collar jobs, rise in housing and medical costs, etc as if it wer

by gedy 5y ago

This seems to put blame on people who have avoided the meltdown in manufacturing and other blue collar jobs, rise in housing and medical costs, etc as if it were a zero sum game, and blaming it on "meritocracy".

DangitBobby 5y ago
I can think of no rational reading of this article that could bring you to such a summary. The problem is not that they aren't destroyed by the wider social or economic instability that destroys the lower class. It's that they are cutting rungs off of the socioeconomic ladder by the policies that they support. Ironically, your response is addressed in the body of the article. In part what we have here is a listening problem. Americans have trouble telling the difference between a social critique and a personal insult. Thus, a writer points to a broad social problem with complex origins, and the reader responds with, “What, you want to punish me for my success?”
- gedy 5y ago
  Perhaps I'm focusing on the "9.9%" aspect in terms of salary, but many tech folks I know are there and certainly not the ones "cutting the runs off the ladder" nor do they support many of these policies. In fact, many are from lower classes and it's unfair to blame them for the real elites failings.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
He also seems to think that bringing everyone up to a prosperous and stable level (ignore the nuts and bolts of how) would reduce strife/polarization and increase unity. Some people without real problems tend to make mountains out of their mole-hills and be very petty over what are little differences. But I guess living in the moneyed Boston bubble it's hard to fathom that there exist people who, given the requisite good health and economist stability, would rather rip around on a dirt-bike than paddle a kayak up the Charles or would rather buy fireworks and cheap beef than impossible burger. Mr. Steward doesn't seem to understand that his tile guy and hair stylist won't magically act and think like him if their healthcare and kid's college becomes genuinely affordable. Say nothing of their opinions on the more touchy social issues or more contentions issues about how society should be run. I'm all for making things better for the lower classes (who isn't?). But solving their problems freeing them to care about others is a stick of societal dynamite. I don't care where it goes off. I want to see it go off, I think we'll be better off for it in the long run. I don't get the feeling the author understands the full implications of what he's asking for.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  What would you say he is asking for, exactly?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    He seems to be advocating for some sort of economic rearrangement that will have an ultimate effect of giving the current lower classes similar access to healthcare, education, housing, etc as the upper classes have or at least substantially better access than they have now. He seems to be advocating for tax policy to do that but I don't think the specific policy nuts and bolts are relevant in this case. I think the goal is noble and I endorse it but I think it comes with more baggage than he thinks it comes with and does not solve some problems he thinks it does.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      Part of what underlies the discussion is that basically you must address inequality or else. Or else the oppressed class will rise up to upset the status quo, typically violently. He touches on this idea as well.

by gedy 5y ago

DangitBobby 5y ago

I can think of no rational reading of this article that could bring you to such a summary. The problem is not that they aren't destroyed by the wider social or economic instability that destroys the lower class. It's that they are cutting rungs off of the socioeconomic ladder by the policies that they support. Ironically, your response is addressed in the body of the article. In part what we have here is a listening problem. Americans have trouble telling the difference between a social critique and a personal insult. Thus, a writer points to a broad social problem with complex origins, and the reader responds with, “What, you want to punish me for my success?”

gedy 5y ago
Perhaps I'm focusing on the "9.9%" aspect in terms of salary, but many tech folks I know are there and certainly not the ones "cutting the runs off the ladder" nor do they support many of these policies. In fact, many are from lower classes and it's unfair to blame them for the real elites failings.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

He also seems to think that bringing everyone up to a prosperous and stable level (ignore the nuts and bolts of how) would reduce strife/polarization and increase unity. Some people without real problems tend to make mountains out of their mole-hills and be very petty over what are little differences. But I guess living in the moneyed Boston bubble it's hard to fathom that there exist people who, given the requisite good health and economist stability, would rather rip around on a dirt-bike than paddle a kayak up the Charles or would rather buy fireworks and cheap beef than impossible burger. Mr. Steward doesn't seem to understand that his tile guy and hair stylist won't magically act and think like him if their healthcare and kid's college becomes genuinely affordable. Say nothing of their opinions on the more touchy social issues or more contentions issues about how society should be run. I'm all for making things better for the lower classes (who isn't?). But solving their problems freeing them to care about others is a stick of societal dynamite. I don't care where it goes off. I want to see it go off, I think we'll be better off for it in the long run. I don't get the feeling the author understands the full implications of what he's asking for.

DangitBobby 5y ago
What would you say he is asking for, exactly?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  He seems to be advocating for some sort of economic rearrangement that will have an ultimate effect of giving the current lower classes similar access to healthcare, education, housing, etc as the upper classes have or at least substantially better access than they have now. He seems to be advocating for tax policy to do that but I don't think the specific policy nuts and bolts are relevant in this case. I think the goal is noble and I endorse it but I think it comes with more baggage than he thinks it comes with and does not solve some problems he thinks it does.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Part of what underlies the discussion is that basically you must address inequality or else. Or else the oppressed class will rise up to upset the status quo, typically violently. He touches on this idea as well.