5 ms·

Why does everyone seem to ignore today's standards of living for even the poorest classes in America? All this talk about the top 1% just sounds like envy. Why

by nsxwolf 14y ago

Why does everyone seem to ignore today's standards of living for even the poorest classes in America? All this talk about the top 1% just sounds like envy. Why do we compare ourselves to that? I live in a neighborhood of a thousand 3000 square foot houses with three car garages. I imagine all the people in them reading that article and shaking their fists with anger at the 1% and realizing they're all failures who will never get ahead. I just don't get that mentality.

ditonal 14y ago
It's in everyone's best interest to have fair, just economic systems. Good systems where wealth is more strongly linked to economic output rather than birthrights lead to more prosperity and justice for everyone. Too much wealth inequality hurts growth, and it also creates political inequality that can create a feedback cycle that worsens the problem. Social justice and economic justice are inexorably linked, if one group has all the power, bad things happen. Also, you clearly live in a very wealthy neighborhood, but many people are struggling. Even if people aren't struggling, the "you can't complain about anything being injust because someone, somewhere is in a more unjust situation" is an absurd line of reasoning.
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  I know I'm not struggling and I know that other people are. I was just trying to demonstrate how silly it can look when people complain. No matter how much people have they're always comparing themselves against these impossible outcomes. I don't see how others having more in any way diminishes what you have. Also, why can't owning a hot dog stand that pays the bills and puts your kids through college be considered the American Dream? When did that turn into yachts and trips to the International Space Station?
- gadders 14y ago
  "Too much wealth inequality hurts growth" - that's just an assertion. China, for instance, would appear to defy this rule.
  - jbattle 14y ago
    There are a million other confounding variables, but you can also track a reasonably strong correlation to income inequality and growth rates in the US over the past several decades.
  - glesica 14y ago
    How so? China is still, to a great extent, a command economy. The usual rules don't apply. The Chinese government can create all the artificial growth it wants and is not directly answerable to the public. One could point to basically every country in Africa and many in Latin America and Asia for support of the assertion. One counter-example (not that I agree China is even a counter-example in this case) doesn't disprove the theory in social science. There are always weird exceptions.
    - gadders 14y ago
      Well, the original statement was that inequality hurts growth. It said nothing regarding command economies or otherwise.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Anyone who thinks China's growth is real needs to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E
randomdata 14y ago
I, like most programmers, am comfortably in the top 5% and cannot even imaging being able to own a home like you describe at my income level. There is a good chance those people are part of the 1% themselves. It actually doesn't take that much money to get there. Though it has been sold as a domain of people making tens of thousands of dollars per hour, so I can see why some may not even realize where they stand.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I, like most programmers, am comfortably in the top 5% and cannot even imaging being able to own a home like you describe at my income level. Sure you can. Anyone "comfortably in the top 5%" can afford a very large home, it just might not be exactly where you'd want it to be. You're choosing instead to devote more of your income to being close to where you work and/or living in an area with ready access to services you find valuable.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I just did a quick mortgage affordability calculation and someone who earns at the bottom end of the 5% can only afford a $300,000-400,000 home. Even where I live, which is very rural with comparatively cheap homes, only gets you a modest sized home. You need at least $500K to even start looking at 3000 sq. feet homes with big garages unless they are complete dives.
    - nsxwolf 14y ago
      Don't forget about dual income families.
      - twoodfin 14y ago
        Yes. Obviously a 3000 square foot house with a three car garage is a bit much for a single person, so I was assuming top 5% household income. Top 5% there is ~$200K/year. I'd be interested to see which calculator and which figures randomdata was using. I have a hard time getting less than $750,000 for a "conservative" figure, assuming your debt isn't absurd and you save up for a $100K down payment (should be very manageable with $200K gross).

by nsxwolf 14y ago

ditonal 14y ago

It's in everyone's best interest to have fair, just economic systems. Good systems where wealth is more strongly linked to economic output rather than birthrights lead to more prosperity and justice for everyone. Too much wealth inequality hurts growth, and it also creates political inequality that can create a feedback cycle that worsens the problem. Social justice and economic justice are inexorably linked, if one group has all the power, bad things happen. Also, you clearly live in a very wealthy neighborhood, but many people are struggling. Even if people aren't struggling, the "you can't complain about anything being injust because someone, somewhere is in a more unjust situation" is an absurd line of reasoning.

nsxwolf 14y ago
I know I'm not struggling and I know that other people are. I was just trying to demonstrate how silly it can look when people complain. No matter how much people have they're always comparing themselves against these impossible outcomes. I don't see how others having more in any way diminishes what you have. Also, why can't owning a hot dog stand that pays the bills and puts your kids through college be considered the American Dream? When did that turn into yachts and trips to the International Space Station?
gadders 14y ago
"Too much wealth inequality hurts growth" - that's just an assertion. China, for instance, would appear to defy this rule.
- jbattle 14y ago
  There are a million other confounding variables, but you can also track a reasonably strong correlation to income inequality and growth rates in the US over the past several decades.
- glesica 14y ago
  How so? China is still, to a great extent, a command economy. The usual rules don't apply. The Chinese government can create all the artificial growth it wants and is not directly answerable to the public. One could point to basically every country in Africa and many in Latin America and Asia for support of the assertion. One counter-example (not that I agree China is even a counter-example in this case) doesn't disprove the theory in social science. There are always weird exceptions.
  - gadders 14y ago
    Well, the original statement was that inequality hurts growth. It said nothing regarding command economies or otherwise.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Anyone who thinks China's growth is real needs to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E

randomdata 14y ago

I, like most programmers, am comfortably in the top 5% and cannot even imaging being able to own a home like you describe at my income level. There is a good chance those people are part of the 1% themselves. It actually doesn't take that much money to get there. Though it has been sold as a domain of people making tens of thousands of dollars per hour, so I can see why some may not even realize where they stand.

twoodfin 14y ago
I, like most programmers, am comfortably in the top 5% and cannot even imaging being able to own a home like you describe at my income level. Sure you can. Anyone "comfortably in the top 5%" can afford a very large home, it just might not be exactly where you'd want it to be. You're choosing instead to devote more of your income to being close to where you work and/or living in an area with ready access to services you find valuable.
- randomdata 14y ago
  I just did a quick mortgage affordability calculation and someone who earns at the bottom end of the 5% can only afford a $300,000-400,000 home. Even where I live, which is very rural with comparatively cheap homes, only gets you a modest sized home. You need at least $500K to even start looking at 3000 sq. feet homes with big garages unless they are complete dives.
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    Don't forget about dual income families.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      Yes. Obviously a 3000 square foot house with a three car garage is a bit much for a single person, so I was assuming top 5% household income. Top 5% there is ~$200K/year. I'd be interested to see which calculator and which figures randomdata was using. I have a hard time getting less than $750,000 for a "conservative" figure, assuming your debt isn't absurd and you save up for a $100K down payment (should be very manageable with $200K gross).