3 ms·

Grew up in india, spent my twenties in the US, and now back in India. I can give you some potential explanation: Even though the poor and lower middle class ma

Grew up in india, spent my twenties in the US, and now back in India. I can give you some potential explanation: Even though the poor and lower middle class make abjectly low amounts of money, the upper middle class and the rich actually make money comparable to most developed countries. This is reflected in the real estate prices (Chennai, the fourth largest city, has prices comparable to Brooklyn). I can make 200k UsD a year and call myself upper middle class and no one will bat an eye. While you can kinda isolate yourself from the real poverty, you’re never fully shielded from it. You will see people struggling if you live in India. Then, the only way you can convince yourself you’re not an evil person is by playing some Mental gymnastics. Thus you have people who refuse to accept how outrageous the wealth disparity in India is. Combine this with this misplaced cultural pride that seems comparatively excessive here, and you get people who become belligerent if you mention most Indians are poorer than dirt.

buu700 5y ago
Then, the only way you can convince yourself you’re not an evil person is by playing some Mental gymnastics. Does benefiting from severe inequality imply amorality? I don't see any inherent contradiction between personal financial success and supporting policies intended to uplift the poor (similarly to how some uber-wealthy in America publicly advocate for more progressive taxation).
- austhrow743 5y ago
  What do policies have to do with anything? This isn't global warming where the big deal is only in the aggregate. That there are X million people you cant help even if you do all you can doesn't undermine the fact that if you make hundreds of thousands of dollars you could change the lives of many forever with not much of a lifestyle hit for yourself.
  - buu700 5y ago
    So, just to be clear, your position is that any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"? What do policies have to do with anything? I can't tell if this is a serious question. Policies are how we effect change at scale. Relying on countless people to each independently make the decision to follow your particular moral values isn't a practical solution for addressing inequality throughout the entire country of India.
    - fdfsasd22323 5y ago
      I don't want to speak for the person you're replying to, but.. > any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"? That is pretty much Peter Singer's position (who incidentally is Australian, and it appears the person you're replying to may be also), who is if nothing else at least providing serious and cogent arguments for such a position. You may disagree, but he argues fairly respectably, IMO. I'm a bit on the fence on that one, but I think there's something to be said for the fact that there is at least some immorality happening if a person worth 100.000$ walks past someone worth 0$ and doesn't help them out at least a little. If you're curious about this line of reasoning, here's a nice introduction: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving-101-the-princeton-class-that-teaches-students-to-be-less-selfish/281820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving...
- elihu 5y ago
  I think that if someone is well-off and yet they see a lot of people around them that aren't, it's pretty natural to feel uncomfortable about that. Like "why do I live in a house and not in a tent?" Luck plays a role, but that's not a satisfying answer. One way people deal with it is to construct a narrative to explain their success -- maybe they're smarter, or worked harder, or avoided the personal vices they see among the poor. Those narratives aren't necessarily entirely wrong, and I don't see those people as particularly evil, they just might have a few blind spots. For instance, they might not realize that even though they worked hard for their success, they also had a lot of second chances when they failed and they might not have had some of the roadblocks to success that others had, such as serious health problems, or a bad family situation, or prejudice, or violence, or lack of education, or lack of leisure time. I've never been to Delhi, so this is just based on my own observation of people in the United States. I assume this is probably one of those aspects of human nature that are more-or-less the same everywhere.
Kakashi4 5y ago
The upper middle class does not nearly make money comparable to most developed countries. If you make 200k USD a year in India you are strictly rich. I make 10x less than you and I'm still upper middle class. The average rent in a place like Anna Nagar in Chennai (which is probably one of the most expensive places to live) is about 50,000 INR a month or ~700$ for a 3 bhk apartment. In comparison, the average rent in Brooklyn for a 1 bedroom apartment is around 2000$ a month. Just wanted to clarify on the numbers, I do agree with everything else you've said.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  The median price for a home in Brooklyn in 900k, which translates to 6 crores. That’s definitely not a median price in central Chennai but it’s also not very far away. There’s also a significantly larger discrepancy between rent and home prices in India so that’s there.
baybal2 5y ago
> Even though the poor and lower middle class make abjectly low amounts of money, the upper middle class and the rich actually make money comparable to most developed countries. This is reflected in the real estate prices (Chennai, the fourth largest city, has prices comparable to Brooklyn). I can make 200k UsD a year and call myself upper middle class and no one will bat an eye. So true. People have very wrong expectation when "hiring poor Indians." India been a player in software development field for decades. People there know well how do they pay people in the US, not to say that most higher education in India automatically assumes some passable English. The upper part of India society lives with one leg in the Western world, others not so much. Mumbai may pass some times to a glass skyscraper city of the West, but drive 100km out of the city, and the reality will hit you like a truck.
baybal2 5y ago
> Grew up in india, spent my twenties in the US, and now back in India. I can give you some potential explanation: What did make you to move back to India?

buu700 5y ago

Then, the only way you can convince yourself you’re not an evil person is by playing some Mental gymnastics. Does benefiting from severe inequality imply amorality? I don't see any inherent contradiction between personal financial success and supporting policies intended to uplift the poor (similarly to how some uber-wealthy in America publicly advocate for more progressive taxation).

austhrow743 5y ago
What do policies have to do with anything? This isn't global warming where the big deal is only in the aggregate. That there are X million people you cant help even if you do all you can doesn't undermine the fact that if you make hundreds of thousands of dollars you could change the lives of many forever with not much of a lifestyle hit for yourself.
- buu700 5y ago
  So, just to be clear, your position is that any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"? What do policies have to do with anything? I can't tell if this is a serious question. Policies are how we effect change at scale. Relying on countless people to each independently make the decision to follow your particular moral values isn't a practical solution for addressing inequality throughout the entire country of India.
  - fdfsasd22323 5y ago
    I don't want to speak for the person you're replying to, but.. > any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"? That is pretty much Peter Singer's position (who incidentally is Australian, and it appears the person you're replying to may be also), who is if nothing else at least providing serious and cogent arguments for such a position. You may disagree, but he argues fairly respectably, IMO. I'm a bit on the fence on that one, but I think there's something to be said for the fact that there is at least some immorality happening if a person worth 100.000$ walks past someone worth 0$ and doesn't help them out at least a little. If you're curious about this line of reasoning, here's a nice introduction: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving-101-the-princeton-class-that-teaches-students-to-be-less-selfish/281820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving...
elihu 5y ago
I think that if someone is well-off and yet they see a lot of people around them that aren't, it's pretty natural to feel uncomfortable about that. Like "why do I live in a house and not in a tent?" Luck plays a role, but that's not a satisfying answer. One way people deal with it is to construct a narrative to explain their success -- maybe they're smarter, or worked harder, or avoided the personal vices they see among the poor. Those narratives aren't necessarily entirely wrong, and I don't see those people as particularly evil, they just might have a few blind spots. For instance, they might not realize that even though they worked hard for their success, they also had a lot of second chances when they failed and they might not have had some of the roadblocks to success that others had, such as serious health problems, or a bad family situation, or prejudice, or violence, or lack of education, or lack of leisure time. I've never been to Delhi, so this is just based on my own observation of people in the United States. I assume this is probably one of those aspects of human nature that are more-or-less the same everywhere.

Kakashi4 5y ago

The upper middle class does not nearly make money comparable to most developed countries. If you make 200k USD a year in India you are strictly rich. I make 10x less than you and I'm still upper middle class. The average rent in a place like Anna Nagar in Chennai (which is probably one of the most expensive places to live) is about 50,000 INR a month or ~700$ for a 3 bhk apartment. In comparison, the average rent in Brooklyn for a 1 bedroom apartment is around 2000$ a month. Just wanted to clarify on the numbers, I do agree with everything else you've said.

ramraj07 5y ago
The median price for a home in Brooklyn in 900k, which translates to 6 crores. That’s definitely not a median price in central Chennai but it’s also not very far away. There’s also a significantly larger discrepancy between rent and home prices in India so that’s there.

baybal2 5y ago

> Even though the poor and lower middle class make abjectly low amounts of money, the upper middle class and the rich actually make money comparable to most developed countries. This is reflected in the real estate prices (Chennai, the fourth largest city, has prices comparable to Brooklyn). I can make 200k UsD a year and call myself upper middle class and no one will bat an eye. So true. People have very wrong expectation when "hiring poor Indians." India been a player in software development field for decades. People there know well how do they pay people in the US, not to say that most higher education in India automatically assumes some passable English. The upper part of India society lives with one leg in the Western world, others not so much. Mumbai may pass some times to a glass skyscraper city of the West, but drive 100km out of the city, and the reality will hit you like a truck.

baybal2 5y ago

> Grew up in india, spent my twenties in the US, and now back in India. I can give you some potential explanation: What did make you to move back to India?