3 ms·

I don't know what the specific solution is, but it is a polarizing topic. I've read a lot of conservative opinions on this, from scholars to your average forum

I don't know what the specific solution is, but it is a polarizing topic. I've read a lot of conservative opinions on this, from scholars to your average forum users, and have spoken with people IRL about this topic - and one thing that pops up again and again, is that many conservatives don't see wealth inequality as a problem. The main argument is that the poor today have it better than N years ago, so the system must be working. And taxing the rich just stems from jealousy. Sprinkled in with just-world hypothesis. EDIT: My observation is that poor people have easier access to debt today, compared to 30+ year ago. When I grew up - if you were broke, you were broke. You called family or friends, went to the pawn shop, or whatever - banks wouldn't issue you a credit card. When I went to college, banks were literally throwing credit cards at everyone and their dog. I had zero income, but still got a CC with $5k limit. Never actually used it, but they it took 2 minutes to fill out the form (at the airport), and I got one in the mail a couple of weeks later. If it was that easy to get a CC, then I guess poor people must have managed to bankroll themselves through bad times, as long as they managed to meet the minimum payments, or get new cards to cover the old ones. Just an anecdote, of course.

kevingadd 3y ago
The problem with the poor surviving entirely on debt is that it creates the illusion of stability, so if a stranger looks at their life from the outside they go 'well, Bob's doing fine, he has a car and an apartment and can eat 2-3 times a day.' But then Bob gets sick just enough exactly once, and he gets fired because his employer isn't legally mandated to give him enough sick days or keep him around, and then he gets evicted because he has no savings, and then his car gets repossessed because he can't make the payments without a job, and then he can't get a new job because he needs a car to drive to work from the homeless shelter. And Bob still has 4-5 digits in credit card debt. Even worse still if he ends up sick enough to be hospitalized. Then he's probably got 5-7 digits worth of medical debts on top of being homeless and jobless. The problem isn't (IMO) the standard of living for america's poor, it's the precarity. At any moment even a small accident could ruin your life if you're poor in this country.
tgv 3y ago
> many conservatives don't see wealth inequality as a problem Conservatives have never been known for sympathy with the poor. It's basically their schtick: away with this democratic nonsense. That only gives power to the rabble. Back to the glory days of (fighting) the empire! What I don't get is your debt/CC anecdote. If you cover old debts by getting new ones, you're enlarging your debt (I don't think there's ever been a negative interest on personal debt in the period/society you refer to). That doesn't end well, until the system, which usually involves the government, as the market doesn't give a damn, manages to change your fortunes.
- TrackerFF 3y ago
  Again, it was just an anecdote. If you tag on student debt, health debt, auto debt, etc. - how many people out there are living in perpetual debt - and not the good kind of debt (mortgage)? Say you're a person that's juggling 2-3 jobs, making $30k-$40k/year in total. No job security, of course, and you lose one of those jobs. You're always living on the edge, and one month without salary would mean crisis. Luckily you have a credit card, and can use it to cover all your bills for that month. Next month work picks up again, and you're back to your normal salary. But now you have to pay back the CC debt, which you'll have to do over 6-12 months - because you don't have enough savings to pay it all off at once. Now add 2-3 other sources of debt, and it is easy to see that some people are trapped in debt. Their balance stays the same, or gets paid off very, very slow. Until the next crisis rolls around.
arrowsmith 3y ago
> banks were literally throwing credit cards at everyone That sounds dangerous - did anyone get injured?
Gareth321 3y ago
I don't see the issue with inequality in theory. As long as democracy remains robust and free of influence from the wealthy, and the poor continue to increase in wealth in aggregate. In practise I feel that the wealthy have been exerting undue influence in politics. This, however, can be addressed with targeted policies. It doesn't require restructuring society.

kevingadd 3y ago

The problem with the poor surviving entirely on debt is that it creates the illusion of stability, so if a stranger looks at their life from the outside they go 'well, Bob's doing fine, he has a car and an apartment and can eat 2-3 times a day.' But then Bob gets sick just enough exactly once, and he gets fired because his employer isn't legally mandated to give him enough sick days or keep him around, and then he gets evicted because he has no savings, and then his car gets repossessed because he can't make the payments without a job, and then he can't get a new job because he needs a car to drive to work from the homeless shelter. And Bob still has 4-5 digits in credit card debt. Even worse still if he ends up sick enough to be hospitalized. Then he's probably got 5-7 digits worth of medical debts on top of being homeless and jobless. The problem isn't (IMO) the standard of living for america's poor, it's the precarity. At any moment even a small accident could ruin your life if you're poor in this country.

tgv 3y ago

> many conservatives don't see wealth inequality as a problem Conservatives have never been known for sympathy with the poor. It's basically their schtick: away with this democratic nonsense. That only gives power to the rabble. Back to the glory days of (fighting) the empire! What I don't get is your debt/CC anecdote. If you cover old debts by getting new ones, you're enlarging your debt (I don't think there's ever been a negative interest on personal debt in the period/society you refer to). That doesn't end well, until the system, which usually involves the government, as the market doesn't give a damn, manages to change your fortunes.

TrackerFF 3y ago
Again, it was just an anecdote. If you tag on student debt, health debt, auto debt, etc. - how many people out there are living in perpetual debt - and not the good kind of debt (mortgage)? Say you're a person that's juggling 2-3 jobs, making $30k-$40k/year in total. No job security, of course, and you lose one of those jobs. You're always living on the edge, and one month without salary would mean crisis. Luckily you have a credit card, and can use it to cover all your bills for that month. Next month work picks up again, and you're back to your normal salary. But now you have to pay back the CC debt, which you'll have to do over 6-12 months - because you don't have enough savings to pay it all off at once. Now add 2-3 other sources of debt, and it is easy to see that some people are trapped in debt. Their balance stays the same, or gets paid off very, very slow. Until the next crisis rolls around.

arrowsmith 3y ago

> banks were literally throwing credit cards at everyone That sounds dangerous - did anyone get injured?

Gareth321 3y ago

I don't see the issue with inequality in theory. As long as democracy remains robust and free of influence from the wealthy, and the poor continue to increase in wealth in aggregate. In practise I feel that the wealthy have been exerting undue influence in politics. This, however, can be addressed with targeted policies. It doesn't require restructuring society.