Danger to Class Envy discussions

[workpublic]

from the comments section

You know they use MS Word to make that flier. Just sayin'

[resolution]

I don't think we are anywhere near a breakdown in social order, but if the gap between the top and bottom of society continues to widen, I could see something happening in another generation. If the bottom half is able to stay even or have small gains I think it would be averted, but at the present time they are losing ground.

[Deleted]

I think Tough Times was right on with much she had to say.

Aside from the discussion...and I don't know why I focus on stuff like this, -crazy-but at the bottom of the flyer it states:
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
Shouldn't that read: Doesn't it always seem.....

[Tennesseer]

Feb 11, 2014 13:36:23 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I think Tough Times was right on with much she had to say.

Aside from the discussion...and I don't know why I focus on stuff like this, -crazy-but at the bottom of the flyer it states:
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
Shouldn't that read: Doesn't it always seem.....

Those are lyrics from Joni Mitchell's 'Big Yellow Taxi'.

[resolution]

I could easily be wrong on the time frame. I believe that the majority of the population is hard working middle class. However when I look at salary charts, they are making less on an inflation adjusted basis than they did in the 1970's and it is begining to stress our consumer society.

I don't see regular middle class workers getting sucked into civil unrest unless they are actively pushed into it by something outrageous. However if the downward trend continues, the lower classes will become large enough to give a big base for unrest. The increasing militarization of the police and the increasing surveillance of society indicate that the powers that be are preparing for this eventuality.

I agree that the entitlement and victim mentality are huge negatives that should be discouraged, but I think they will grow larger if more people working full time are not able to maintain a certain minimum standard of living.

Both of your points A and B are potential solutions, but it would take an enormous effort and political will to bring either into being. I like the stipend idea as long as the numbers worked out. It would be a lot cheaper to administer than the current social programs, but since everyone would qualify the amount of payments would be staggering.

Point B would be an ideal solution, but how do we get from here to there?

An increase in the minimum wage and pegging it to inflation is another potential solution but it comes with the danger of inflation and job losses.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2014 11:33:49 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

There has been significant debate on this board about the dangers of stoking us versus them and class envy discussions. We've heard perspectives from both sides of the arguments, but universally, people on this board seem to understand that it is dangerous to set a tone where americans turn on each other.

Something similar has been going on in SF for awhile, but now it's here in Seattle www.geekwire.com/2014/activists-block-microsoft-shuttles-anti-gentrification-protest/

I'll leave aside how misinformed the protesters are (Capital hill has been expensive for decades and even close to a century in some areas), and point out my grave concern that these kinds of events fueled by a "hate of the 1%" (which most Microsoft families are not a part of) are the kind of thing that could potentially set off a powder keg that would break down social order.

Is toughtimes still around, she usually had a pretty grim view of the results of these things.

this problem is really simple to fix.  all the rich have to do is show that they care about the poor.  this is precisely how they stopped the violent mobs during the depression.  i would suggest that they might want to start thinking about a coherent strategy for doing that before it reaches that stage, however.  the rhetoric about taxing the poor is not exactly what has been shown to work. 

[jkapp]

Feb 11, 2014 22:42:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 11, 2014 11:33:49 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

There has been significant debate on this board about the dangers of stoking us versus them and class envy discussions. We've heard perspectives from both sides of the arguments, but universally, people on this board seem to understand that it is dangerous to set a tone where americans turn on each other.

Something similar has been going on in SF for awhile, but now it's here in Seattle www.geekwire.com/2014/activists-block-microsoft-shuttles-anti-gentrification-protest/

I'll leave aside how misinformed the protesters are (Capital hill has been expensive for decades and even close to a century in some areas), and point out my grave concern that these kinds of events fueled by a "hate of the 1%" (which most Microsoft families are not a part of) are the kind of thing that could potentially set off a powder keg that would break down social order.

Is toughtimes still around, she usually had a pretty grim view of the results of these things.

this problem is really simple to fix.  all the rich have to do is show that they care about the poor.  this is precisely how they stopped the violent mobs during the depression.  i would suggest that they might want to start thinking about a coherent strategy for doing that before it reaches that stage, however.  the rhetoric about taxing the poor is not exactly what has been shown to work. 

The problem is the poor of yesteryear were actually grateful for such things...today, with the entitlement/victim attitudes that seem to be engraned into the psyche of the poor, they would probably see such showings of care as an insult (as if the rich were being condescending). 

Just look at all the social programs running today...far more than there ever were during the depression era.  And what do we hear form the poor?  It's not enough.  They don't get enough food stamps, the free food at the schools isn't healthy enough, the food donated at food pantries isn't good enough, etc, etc.

People suck way too much for this situation to improve, IMHO.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2014 16:25:53 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Feb 11, 2014 22:42:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this problem is really simple to fix.  all the rich have to do is show that they care about the poor.  this is precisely how they stopped the violent mobs during the depression.  i would suggest that they might want to start thinking about a coherent strategy for doing that before it reaches that stage, however.  the rhetoric about taxing the poor is not exactly what has been shown to work. 

The problem is the poor of yesteryear were actually grateful for such things...today, with the entitlement/victim attitudes that seem to be engraned into the psyche of the poor, they would probably see such showings of care as an insult (as if the rich were being condescending). 

any evidence of this, or is this just one of these "gut feel" things for you?

[grits]

I encounter the lack of gratitude among certain groups of people on aid. Not all people are like that. I find that many older people are thankful for what they get. It is members of the younger generation that can be ungrateful. I think they take the system for granted. It has been there their whole life, and they have no clue what it'd be like without the aid.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 12, 2014 20:25:22 GMT -5 grits said:

I encounter the lack of gratitude among certain groups of people on aid. Not all people are like that. I find that many older people are thankful for what they get. It is members of the younger generation that can be ungrateful. I think they take the system for granted. It has been there their whole life, and they have no clue what it'd be like without the aid.

if you want anecdotal, i have never encountered a person that was not thankful for aid.  but i would never assert that this is a universal value.  i find it odd that some here would assert the opposite without offering better evidence than mine.

[grits]

I find a lot of things on the internet odd. People are not held accountable like they might be in real life, and run rampant.

For example, the extreme swearing that exists on this site could get you canned where I work. Directing the f bomb at someone would fall under zero tolerance.

[Lizard King]

if you want anecdotal, i have never encountered a person that was not thankful for aid. but i would never assert that this is a universal value.

You would assert that the rich aren't seen to care for the poor, and that that is something the rich need to address.

In other words, you'd support the idea that the poor are entitled to some overt recompense from the rich, because the rich are to some degree morally responsible for either the condition or at least the reaction to the condition of the poor.

How exactly is that not identical with jkapp's notion of engrained attitudes of victimhood and entitlement among "the poor" - which engrained attitudes are actively fostered as part of a politically-motivated program which, among other things, discourages upward mobility?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 9:18:30 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

if you want anecdotal, i have never encountered a person that was not thankful for aid. but i would never assert that this is a universal value.

You would assert that the rich aren't seen to care for the poor, and that that is something the rich need to address.

i have asserted that they could use better PR in this department.  disagree?

In other words, you'd support the idea that the poor are entitled to some overt recompense from the rich, because the rich are to some degree morally responsible for either the condition or at least the reaction to the condition of the poor.

no more than the poor are.  i think everyone in a society is responsible for the poor.  however, i think the rich are in a better position to deal with it.  i also think, fundamentally, that my wealth requires me to be more responsible.  but i will admit that the latter point is a personal value, not a universal one.

How exactly is that not identical with jkapp's notion of engrained attitudes of victimhood and entitlement among "the poor" - which engrained attitudes are actively fostered as part of a politically-motivated program which, among other things, discourages upward mobility?

i don't have much direct experience with that attitude, so i have no reason to suspect that it is true.  given that i tend to think the best of people that i don't know, rather than the worst, it would follow that i would not automatically conclude that the poor are suffering for due cause.

[Lizard King]

given that i tend to think the best of people that i don't know

Do you lock your doors? Or otherwise safeguard your property against the privations of strangers?

I've had some experience of engrained attitudes of victimhood and entitlement in communities blighted by generational unemployment and hampered in efforts at renewal by the ready supply of a stream of scapegoats. I'd agree with you that these attitudes are not universal, even within the unpromising restricted universe of those environments.

I find it doubtful, on another hand, that there is something some notionally rich person could do on behalf of some notionally poor population that would obviate class envy - particularly in the face of several colluding factors promoting class envy. It's not a PR problem, exactly. It's a framing problem.

If we look at inequality of resources as an issue created, sustained, or exacerbated by the wealth of the wealthiest in society, then nothing short of the redistribution of that wealth will address the problem - and any degree of redistribution that retains inequality doesn't go far enough: the problem remains. In the paradigm where the poor feel entitled to a greater share of the common wealth than they have, the only way the rich can show sympathy for the poor is to give of their portion to those less fortunate - but for them to SHOW it, it must be done overtly and explicitly, and arguably by mandate: because nobody will believe that a wealthy man is willing to give up as much as he might be compelled to give up.

[Lizard King]

i think everyone in a society is responsible for the poor.

This may seem like semantics: but are they responsible FOR the poor, or TO the poor? I have issues with either formulation, but far more with the former.

[zibazinski]

I don't think everyone in society is responsible for the poor. Does anyone remember that woman with umpteen children saying "SOMEONE had to be responsible for them?" Certainly not her or any of her baby daddies, huh?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:20:54 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

given that i tend to think the best of people that i don't know

Do you lock your doors? Or otherwise safeguard your property against the privations of strangers?

i won't answer that on a public board, but you are free to ask me in private.  however, it has no bearing on my feelings about people in general.  in every bushel there are a few bad apples.  i don't avoid eating apples because of it.

I've had some experience of engrained attitudes of victimhood and entitlement in communities blighted by generational unemployment and hampered in efforts at renewal by the ready supply of a stream of scapegoats. I'd agree with you that these attitudes are not universal, even within the unpromising restricted universe of those environments.

I find it doubtful, on another hand, that there is something some notionally rich person could do on behalf of some notionally poor population that would obviate class envy - particularly in the face of several colluding factors promoting class envy. It's not a PR problem, exactly. It's a framing problem.

i don't view PR and framing as different. 

If we look at inequality of resources as an issue created, sustained, or exacerbated by the wealth of the wealthiest in society, then nothing short of the redistribution of that wealth will address the problem - and any degree of redistribution that retains inequality doesn't go far enough: the problem remains. In the paradigm where the poor feel entitled to a greater share of the common wealth than they have, the only way the rich can show sympathy for the poor is to give of their portion to those less fortunate - but for them to SHOW it, it must be done overtly and explicitly, and arguably by mandate: because nobody will believe that a wealthy man is willing to give up as much as he might be compelled to give up.

i could talk about this a lot more, but i should really get back to my raping and pillaging. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:21:43 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

i think everyone in a society is responsible for the poor.

This may seem like semantics: but are they responsible FOR the poor, or TO the poor? I have issues with either formulation, but far more with the former.

yeah, my engrish is not so good.  to.  and i should have said "good society".  crappy societies disown the poor.

[Lizard King]

The two are often used interchangeably, to the detriment of both concepts in practice.

I'm wondering what would actually happen to a society that really did disown the poor - let's say one that attached an asset test to citizenship rights. There'd be no legitimate way for the poor outcastes to acquire the assets necessary to assert citizenship rights; as such, they'd represent a material threat to the rights of those people granted full citizenship, and would I presume be either executed or perhaps enslaved en masse.

I imagine great pains would be taken to avoid slipping into outcaste status, or allowing one's children to be born into it. I wonder if the lot of both the average and the least wealthy citizen would be better in that society than in ours, and if the mass murder or mass enslavement of a population whose only crime was being poor might justify it, at least to members of that society.

[billisonboard]

Feb 21, 2014 16:04:34 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

The two are often used interchangeably, to the detriment of both concepts in practice.

I'm wondering what would actually happen to a society that really did disown the poor ...

Is Oceania a fictional example of such a society?

[Lizard King]

Is Oceania a fictional example of such a society?

"If there is hope, it lies with the proles."

If I recall correctly, measures were taken by the Party to maintain the proles in happy stupor, just as to maintain members of the Outer Party in relative ignorance. The proles worked within the society, not beyond it - indeed, they were essential to its functioning, merely blind to their importance and collective power.

But I think an argument could be made that Big Brother does exemplify the model, so possibly. A more creative solution to the outcaste problem than either execution or explicit enslavement - Aldous Huxley explored something similar in Brave New World, of course. Dosing the outcastes with soma, or Honey Boo Boo, would work just as well, I'm sure.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2014 15:48:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:20:54 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

Do you lock your doors? Or otherwise safeguard your property against the privations of strangers?

i won't answer that on a public board, but you are free to ask me in private.  however, it has no bearing on my feelings about people in general.  in every bushel there are a few bad apples.  i don't avoid eating apples because of it.

Seriously? A question about whether you lock your doors needs to be some secret hush hush discussion? What an asinine statement.

I'm sure you'll come up with some witty comment and try to make yourself feel superior...ya know....because you are....but in my opinion...you making some pointless statement is akin to being asked: "Are you hungry?" and the answer being "We need to go in this room where nobody can hear us before I answer that question!".

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:10:32 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Feb 21, 2014 15:48:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Seriously? A question about whether you lock your doors needs to be some secret hush hush discussion? What an asinine statement.

i have been stalked from the board.  maybe you are cool with giving out security information on the web, but i am not.

I'm sure you'll come up with some witty comment and try to make yourself feel superior...ya know....because you are....but in my opinion...you making some pointless statement is akin to being asked: "Are you hungry?" and the answer being "We need to go in this room where nobody can hear us before I answer that question!".

it is up to each poster to find his comfort level for stuff like this.  but i am dead serious about it.  nothing witty going on here.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2014 17:26:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 17:10:32 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Seriously? A question about whether you lock your doors needs to be some secret hush hush discussion? What an asinine statement.

i have been stalked from the board.  maybe you are cool with giving out security information on the web, but i am not.

I'm sure you'll come up with some witty comment and try to make yourself feel superior...ya know....because you are....but in my opinion...you making some pointless statement is akin to being asked: "Are you hungry?" and the answer being "We need to go in this room where nobody can hear us before I answer that question!".

it is up to each poster to find his comfort level for stuff like this.  but i am dead serious about it.  nothing witty going on here.

"Yes, I lock my doors" is hardly "security information" in this day and age. I'd say that you're (general) ignorant if you don't lock your doors...regardless of how safe a neighborhood/area you may live in. But if you're uncomfortable with it then it's understandable....especially having been stalked at some point. Been there...it wasn't fun. Mine had nothing to do with "online"...so it was even more fun.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:38:41 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Feb 21, 2014 17:26:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is up to each poster to find his comfort level for stuff like this.  but i am dead serious about it.  nothing witty going on here.

"Yes, I lock my doors" is hardly "security information" in this day and age. I'd say that you're (general) ignorant if you don't lock your doors...regardless of how safe a neighborhood/area you may live in. But if you're uncomfortable with it then it's understandable....especially having been stalked at some point. Been there...it wasn't fun. Mine had nothing to do with "online"...so it was even more fun.

mine breached the online part, which is why i am way more careful than i probably need to be.

[grits]

It has been my privilege to know many wealthy people. Most of them gave generously to help the poor. There is a mobile mammogram machine that gives free mammograms to women without insurance who have proof they cannot afford one. There is free prostate cancer screening for men. There are all kinds of programs here that are sponsored by philanthropists. The massive state hospital system in Galveston was largely built by donations from wealthy citizens. Sadly, the state underinsured it, and closed a lot down after Ike hit. The Herman Hospital system, Herman park, and such were funded by one man. M D Anderson in Houston was started as the result of a gift from one man. The hospital where I was born was started by one lady. The same with the first hospital where I now reside.

Numerous scholarships have been funded by wealthy citizens here.  The list goes on and on.

There comes a time where the poor must also help themselves.  If a free college or trade school education is available to you, get it.  Don't goof off and say it is someone else's fault I stay poor.    

[b2r]

If you've been watching the Olympics long enough to make it to a commercial break you have no doubt seen this 99%...occupy tahoe kid. 

[zibazinski]

DF says she must be Jewish!

[workpublic]

it's not personal, it's just bidness.

[EVT1]

I'd say it has a lot to do with how they make their money rather than the amounts.  One sector actually makes things- and the other gambles in the markets until it makes a mistake then crashes the economy and has to come begging to the taxpayers.

I am outraged by all CEO pay when it comes to public companies- it has been way out of control for a long time.