The wealth redistribution ideals of the far left

[deziloooooo]

Mar 4, 2011 12:55:32 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Let's just say people used to have class and thanked their lucky stars at their good fortune.

It isn't luck, but I wouldn't expect lazy, handout-seeking welfare junkies to understand the difference...

There are always going to be people who are comfortable. What has changed here in the good old USA, that after the second WW, because of many things, our coming out of it as one of the two strongest nations militarily, Soviets also, but they were saddled with massive destruction in their country as well as unbelievable casualties, 20 million dead plus millions more by Stalins actions,
we had great advantages to grow our economy and build our middle class.
The rest of the world was having to rebuild , we were free from that, we educated people by the millions because of the GI bill who would never have been so educated, to get through High School was a accomplishment for so many before that event, and shortly , as one measures these things a strong middle class was born.
Unions were strong, 1945 and on, estimated membership 45 % of all American workers, thus good wages , benefits that also spilled over to those who were not members, employers had to compete with the union jobs. Overall times were good.

Middle class? What is it? My feelings, possibly wrong, but still give it a shot, , good chance to own residence where one lived, automobile, be able to educate one's kids after high school, for some , vacations, even vacation home some where, ability to buy the latest toys to play with, TV', appliances etc, pensions available from employment, able to have some $ to invest for the future when working days were over by those who wanted to take that route , buy less toys, saved more, , ...over all, the comfortable were still here getting more comfortable by the day, and all of a sudden a middle group, also was doing well and expanding as never before. over all, times were good.

What has changed? For so many reasons that have been discussed here, middle class is going down, less and less are able to so qualify.

The comfortable, still there and according to information, graphs showing it's true, growing more comfortable then ever before, and yet those who were middle class, or brought up in that lifestyle , suddenly or not so suddenly, finding them selves as they grow up, no longer there or abkle to be there.

No longer to better what their folks were able to accomplish , something very new, and not yet willing to admit, that class, the middle, is going to be a smaller segment of the population.

Possible in the scheme of things, the reality of and what is the normal way of things, that large spurt after the war was a exception not the rule, so as they realized this, they , ones who thought with hard work, some breaks would guarantee a middle class life style, are not happy, they are angry, they strike out in a ways to show their anger and frustrations.

Personally, I was lucky, through no great skills or exceptional doings .

I was able to be a part of that middle class. It is and was a neat thing, and I feel for those who are in the same position I was in at those ages but are not going to be able to have that middle class life style.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< What has changed? >>>

...our standards?

...because seriously, with TV educating the masses that middle class blue collar workers can afford suburban homes, SUVs, plasma screen TVs, full fridges and drinking only half your can of beer before you open a new one, then, when the pendulum swings, we don't want to adjust our lifesyles... because "teacher TV" says this is what it's supposed to be...

...consumption levels often kill our chances at wealth acquistion... and expectation levels often kill our ability or willingness to adapt...

...all ships rise and fall on the same tide... we just like complaining that his ship is bigger than mine...



ETA: ...turning the channel won't help...

[deziloooooo]

been there..I am not asking for the majority to reach the 'comfortable " level...but to not have a middle class life style..with what my definition of it is, others can have their own, and I also have changed and now consider to reach that level , there should or probably will be be two working members of the household, not one as was the case after the second WW, even if one is part time, but to be at that level is not TV living dreaming.
A home, a fridge with food in it, even those condiments I am a sucker for, {a male thing, never met a condiment I didn't love, with the female shaking her head in disgust} a can of cold brew, and Hi def TV's are so damn cheap today as are computers, and it seems the SUV's are not selling as they did, {I agree , to buy a auto for $40,000 up? Mashoogana}.
To think that should not be atainable...as I said, I feel for those who won't be able to reach those standards, I don't think it's something that should be so unattainable for US citizens, yet it seems it will be,

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< I don't think it's something that should be so unattainable for US citizens, yet it seems it will be, >>>

...then let's look at the why and how of that... to redistribute wealth for some lofty "let's be equal" goal is unAmerican... and so we should not be surprised with the haves dig in and reply, "get your own!"

...and while I think the TV is teaching a skewed version of middle class living, and dislike that, they still have the free speech right to entertain us in that manner... what I don't support is liberal policy that wants to mandate equal resources to all... and I can't help but wonder if liberal Hollywood has helped to dumb-down the masses and create a false hope that could serve as marching orders with the shtf...




...but like you, I'm still thinking about this cr@p as I stare at my ceiling fan...



ETA: btw, imo, watching NFL on TV is decidely upper class... ;D

[deziloooooo]

Mar 4, 2011 14:30:01 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< I don't think it's something that should be so unattainable for US citizens, yet it seems it will be, >>>

...then let's look at the why and how of that... to redistribute wealth for some lofty "let's be equal" goal is unAmerican... and so we should not be surprised with the haves dig in and reply, "get your own!"

...and while I think the TV is teaching a skewed version of middle class living, and dislike that, they still have the free speech right to entertain us in that manner... what I don't support is liberal policy that wants to mandate equal resources to all... and I can't help but wonder if liberal Hollywood has helped to dumb-down the masses and create a false hope that could serve as marching orders with the shtf...




...but like you, I'm still thinking about this cr@p as I stare at my ceiling fan...



ETA: btw, imo, watching NFL on TV is decidely upper class... ;D

I got to admit..for some reason, and I do love sports, the NFL, the NBA..go on strike.. go the beach and all is well. Now Baseball, strike, no games of my Marlins on TV during the season.. Think I got em all.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< love sports >>>

...'cuz we're classy? ;D

[Deleted]

"When are the welfare rats going to start supporting the system that supports them?"

Oprah, Demi Moore, Elvis, Tim Blixseth, Obama, Dennis Archer, Angela Bassett, Hilary Swank, JK Rowlins, Jim Carrey, Philip Zimbardo...

Just a quick list of some 'welfare rats' who have been giving back for a while to support the system that supported them... those are names you should recognize... they are representative of the MANY, MANY who grow up on welfare and do not make it a generational thing... the majority of people who use those programs...

And by system, i am not refering just to welfare... i mean the whole system, which i gave some details to earlier, but which is so vast, it would take forever to list all of the ways in which you depend upon..

[ameiko]

Mar 4, 2011 11:14:03 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 4, 2011 9:04:06 GMT -5 oped said:

"Most rich people are such because they create that wealth!"

Independently in a vaccuum?

Of course not. They created wealth using the exact same system is available for every single citizen of this great country. The point was, most rich people are such because they create that wealth. Your rant does not invalidate that point since "the system" is not exclusively for the wealthy.

And a thousand more things.... no one in America makes their wealth in a vacuum... they do it because our SYSTEM supports them... and they in tern, need to support the system...

When are the welfare rats going to start supporting the system that supports them?

They could at least send thank you cards.....

Beat me to the punch! Cool!

[ameiko]

Mar 4, 2011 13:41:02 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< What has changed? >>>

...our standards?

...because seriously, with TV educating the masses that middle class blue collar workers can afford suburban homes, SUVs, plasma screen TVs, full fridges and drinking only half your can of beer before you open a new one, then, when the pendulum swings, we don't want to adjust our lifesyles... because "teacher TV" says this is what it's supposed to be...

...consumption levels often kill our chances at wealth acquistion... and expectation levels often kill our ability or willingness to adapt...

...all ships rise and fall on the same tide... we just like complaining that his ship is bigger than mine...



ETA: ...turning the channel won't help...

What has also changed is, due to several societal changes, you see a greater shift towards requiring two wage earners to support what one wage earner could. Interesting as well that as this has happened, we have seen a rise in the single parent household and naturally you will see a drop in living standards. Obvious, really.

Interesting that this has led to many families, especially single mothers, demanding services from the government that the family once provided for themselves.

Hmm... someone thought up a good plan. Too bad that it was inflicted on the American people.

[vonnie6200]

Mar 4, 2011 19:42:10 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

What has also changed is, due to several societal changes, you see a greater shift towards requiring two wage earners to support what one wage earner could. Interesting as well that as this has happened, we have seen a rise in the single parent household and naturally you will see a drop in living standards. Obvious, really.

Interesting that this has led to many families, especially single mothers, demanding services from the government that the family once provided for themselves.

Hmm... someone thought up a good plan. Too bad that it was inflicted on the American people.

I think a lot of that depends on the lifestyle that people choose to attain. I suspect the majority of one-income family's in the '50s had a 1300 square foot house, no TV, one car, etc. If many folks today wanted to live like that they could on one income as well - but the majority want two or more cars, a 2,000 square foot home, and a TV in every room. Which for the average worker takes two incomes to attain.

<<< What has changed? >>>

...our standards?


And our expectations!

[hello fromWarsaw]

The greatest generation's rich realized they owed the counry for their good fortune- now the Reaganista rich are greedy amoral bastids who just want more and don't mind buying off politicians to do it...

[EVT1]

Mar 4, 2011 19:42:10 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

I think a lot of that depends on the lifestyle that people choose to attain. I suspect the majority of one-income family's in the '50s had a 1300 square foot house, no TV, one car, etc. If many folks today wanted to live like that they could on one income as well - but the majority want two or more cars, a 2,000 square foot home, and a TV in every room. Which for the average worker takes two incomes to attain.

I don't buy it- wages never kept up and the dual income became the norm-then when that wasn't enough credit stepped in. The person working the same job my dad had (utility company) today cannot afford the exact same house he bought- not to mention they now have to pay for healthcare and retirement where my dad did not- he has a pension. Everything went up but the pay.

[Opti]

So Michael Moore has wacky ideas about wealth distribution and the thread title purports it as thoughts of the far left left. Pleez buy a clue. I think Michael Moore sometimes does a great service but he also has a fair amount of wacky moments. I really doubt many people believe this except for maybe thieves.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...if your wages are stagnant, and your prices go up, why not adjust your consumption?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Or do you think it is a coincidence that debt is being made more attractive ... ... Lately they are not even trying to hide it. >>>

...sounds like the consumer credit craze of the last couple decades... when you're not willing to adjust consumption, and cannot increase income, you borrow to fund your habit... the feds are just doing the same thing on a national scale... imo...




<<< the crafty rich >>>

...do you mean crafty in a negative sense? why?


ETA: I think I should edit out my "imo" above... I think the feds are doing the same thing as consumer credit crazies did and I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of opinion anymore...

[henryclay]

The easiest lesson ever learned was on how to spend money. The hardest lesson ever learned was on how not to.
I read that somewhere. Seems to have some truth in it.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Mar 5, 2011 11:16:42 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

To a degree Henry, and you'll never see me preaching riotous living. In fact, I consistently advocate dumping debt, including so-called, "Good debt" as frequently as possible so as to maintain autonomy and control over one's own life.

However, cutting only goes so far. At some point you have to make money too.

We can easily say to someone, "Why can't you live in a smaller home or have a studio instead of a one-bedroom."

We cannot so easily say, "Skip the cancer treatment. Those $600/month health insurance premiums skip those too. And while you are at it, live in an abandoned tunnel in Grand Central and eat rats.

At some point, we have to wake up to what we have done to our industrial base and the lives of so many of our citizens.

Bankers are no longer responsible, sober people. Rather, they have been croupiers at the roulette wheel at best, loan sharks at worst.

Insurance people who were trained to evaluate risk with a gimlet eye are behind some of the biggest burst derivatives bubbles in history. AIG anyone?

How upset the financial folks become when I tell them to do their jobs and put the depositors and policy holders above their own big, fat bonuses.

We better wake up while we still have a nation with a stable political system and a modicum of safety for our citizens.

...sounds like a fairly solid argument from the right... okay... you have me thinking...

[ameiko]

Mar 4, 2011 19:42:10 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

What has also changed is, due to several societal changes, you see a greater shift towards requiring two wage earners to support what one wage earner could. Interesting as well that as this has happened, we have seen a rise in the single parent household and naturally you will see a drop in living standards. Obvious, really.

Interesting that this has led to many families, especially single mothers, demanding services from the government that the family once provided for themselves.

Hmm... someone thought up a good plan. Too bad that it was inflicted on the American people.

I think a lot of that depends on the lifestyle that people choose to attain. I suspect the majority of one-income family's in the '50s had a 1300 square foot house, no TV, one car, etc. If many folks today wanted to live like that they could on one income as well - but the majority want two or more cars, a 2,000 square foot home, and a TV in every room. Which for the average worker takes two incomes to attain.

While I believe that you make some good points, I do not believe that one is incompatiable with the other. While there are many who seek to live a class above their income level, there are also many who live modestly and may still not make it, in part because of the increase in housing and education costs as outlined in an excellent book: "The Income Trap."

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< While I believe that you make some good points, I do not believe that one is incompatiable with the other. While there are many who seek to live a class above their income level, there are also many who live modestly and may still not make it, in part because of the increase in housing and education costs as outlined in an excellent book: "The Income Trap." >>>

...compatible in what way?

[ameiko]

Mar 5, 2011 5:38:36 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

The workers today are even losing the paid up homes pop left them.

If workers are losing paid-off homes that they inherited, that sounds like a money management problem and not a politics problem.

It reminds me though about the ignorant movie Michael Moore made called "Capitalism." In one sentence he talked about his dad working at a spark plug factory and how good life was that they could buy a new car every year. Then the next sentence was how the bank repossesed their home they had lived in for 40 years and how tough life is. OK, well if a bank repossesed your home after 40 years, you may want to think about paying it off in 30 years. And then try not taking out another mortgage to fund your new car every year habit. When you consider the fact that I have never owned a new car, I find it hard to find sympathy (and open up my pocketbook) to fund buying new cars for somebody so terrible at managing their money. He needs to go play his violin elsewhere, because I'm not buying into it like the liberal rubes who beleive his garbage.

Excellent point. Why was the house not paid off after 40 years, especially given that the average mortgage is 20-30 years at that time?

Buying a new car every year? Wow! I wonder if it was paraphrased a bit since I have a hard time believing that the average worker would buy a new car every year. Then again, Detroit was built on the assumption that people would get new ones every three years via planned obscelence. As a result, Japan and others were able to come in with more reliable cars and ate their lunch.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< I know it is an argument from someone who is seeing this country losing its values and turning on its own. >>>

...understood... and you are not alone...

[ameiko]

Mar 5, 2011 12:41:13 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< While I believe that you make some good points, I do not believe that one is incompatiable with the other. While there are many who seek to live a class above their income level, there are also many who live modestly and may still not make it, in part because of the increase in housing and education costs as outlined in an excellent book: "The Income Trap." >>>

...compatible in what way?

Do you attempt to tell us that only ONE theory explains everything? That something MUST have a single cause?

I simply stated that one reason why things seem to be tougher is that more and more, the "good life" or a middle class lifestyle relies on two income. If so, as we see more single parent households, these households will experience greater financial strife since only a few jobs pay enough to one person to match the level of your average two incomes.

A reply was that our expectations had changed: larger homes, two cars, etc...

I think that is a valid idea but that both this idea does not invalidate my conjecture. Instead, both are likely causes of the same overall issue: that the middle class seems to be out of reach.

If we define middle class at a higher level, then yes it may require two incomes because we want more stuff. However there still exist homes and apartments that are not larger and many people living in cities do not have cars; thus the bigger house/more stuff is not adequate by itself.

Growth in housing and education prices have exceeded both inflation and wages increases. Even if you toss out the larger homes, you still see that starter homes and apartments are more expensive that before. The "Two Income Trap" has some interesting takes on why that has happened as well as noting that the "higher standards" arguement has some legs but it not as valid as one thinks.

[ameiko]

Mar 5, 2011 12:42:29 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< I know it is an argument from someone who is seeing this country losing its values and turning on its own. >>>

...understood... and you are not alone...

Just as Michael Moore turns on his nation and speaks highly of foreign enemies like Cuba and Venezuela?

[ameiko]

Mar 4, 2011 15:37:55 GMT -5 oped said:

"When are the welfare rats going to start supporting the system that supports them?"

Oprah, Demi Moore, Elvis, Tim Blixseth, Obama, Dennis Archer, Angela Bassett, Hilary Swank, JK Rowlins, Jim Carrey, Philip Zimbardo...

Just a quick list of some 'welfare rats' who have been giving back for a while to support the system that supported them... those are names you should recognize... they are representative of the MANY, MANY who grow up on welfare and do not make it a generational thing... the majority of people who use those programs...

And by system, i am not refering just to welfare... i mean the whole system, which i gave some details to earlier, but which is so vast, it would take forever to list all of the ways in which you depend upon..

There are many who DO make it a generational thing, hence the explosion of money spent on welfare and the like as well as a surge in illegitament births especially in the black community.

Pointing out some who have not stayed in the welfare community does not invalidate the indisputable evidence that welfare dependency has soared and continues to breed new members of that class. If you don't believe that, cut the welfare checks tommorow and then witness the riots that would occur.

[ameiko]

Mar 4, 2011 21:23:57 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

The greatest generation's rich realized they owed the counry for their good fortune- now the Reaganista rich are greedy amoral bastids who just want more and don't mind buying off politicians to do it...

You realize that the Democrats take tons of money from public interest groups as well, correct? Just check out the near riots in Wisconsin as the unions demand that we soak the middle class taxpayer to pay them beyond that market's value of them.

[ameiko]

Mar 4, 2011 20:04:28 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Plenty of people are getting their jobs annihilated by foreign competition too. An example is an older woman in my neighborhood who works as a school secretary. One day she told me of how she had worked for decades for one company as a bookkeeper making 1000/week. One day, she became ill and after recovering, she went to her job to find the doors closed.

A company that had been in business for years was shuttered due to foreign competition. Attempting to find another job similar to what she had been doing, she was offered a pittance, not even a quarter of what she was making. She was on welfare for two years during which she retrained and is now gainfully employed, but at a fraction of her earlier earnings.

Now I ask you, did the woman who paid exorbitant taxes on the state, city, and federal level for decades become a "welfare rat" when her former employer disappeared?

How about the workers of Swingline Staples in Queens that made about $11.00/hour. The company was acquired by Acco Brands and moved to Mexico, but as the labor costs were too high there, they relocated a second time to China. That tells you something when Mexicans are too highly-paid.

Several questions:

1. Are you stating that the companies should be forced to make companies stay here and employ Americans?

2. What power does the Constituion grant them to do so?

3. What if the American company can not survive because foreign wages are so much lower? (and please do not trot out the tired CEO pay cliche- there are not enough CEO's out there being paid enough such that funnelling their pay to the workers would make a difference.)

4. What are your thoughts on tax laws that, because they would force companies to pay huge taxes on profits they made in other nations, encourage companies to keep that money outside of this nation and instead invest it in creating factories in other nations employing foreign workers?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Mar 5, 2011 12:49:29 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Mar 5, 2011 12:41:13 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< While I believe that you make some good points, I do not believe that one is incompatiable with the other. While there are many who seek to live a class above their income level, there are also many who live modestly and may still not make it, in part because of the increase in housing and education costs as outlined in an excellent book: "The Income Trap." >>>

...compatible in what way?

Do you attempt to tell us that only ONE theory explains everything? That something MUST have a single cause?

I simply stated that one reason why things seem to be tougher is that more and more, the "good life" or a middle class lifestyle relies on two income. If so, as we see more single parent households, these households will experience greater financial strife since only a few jobs pay enough to one person to match the level of your average two incomes.

A reply was that our expectations had changed: larger homes, two cars, etc...

I think that is a valid idea but that both this idea does not invalidate my conjecture. Instead, both are likely causes of the same overall issue: that the middle class seems to be out of reach.

If we define middle class at a higher level, then yes it may require two incomes because we want more stuff. However there still exist homes and apartments that are not larger and many people living in cities do not have cars; thus the bigger house/more stuff is not adequate by itself.

Growth in housing and education prices have exceeded both inflation and wages increases. Even if you toss out the larger homes, you still see that starter homes and apartments are more expensive that before. The "Two Income Trap" has some interesting takes on why that has happened as well as noting that the "higher standards" arguement has some legs but it not as valid as one thinks.

...no... I attempted to ask how you don't believe the two must be incompatible... I was trying to follow your post, not fight it...

[ameiko]

...no... I attempted to ask how you don't believe the two must be incompatible... I was trying to follow your post, not fight it...

Too many negatives...

All I am saying is that one take does not invalidate the others. Your initial post seemed to dismiss my reasoning and I simply stated why one does not dismiss the others but instead that both can contribute to the effect that we are referring to.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...okay... then I would question your response... because how does the family living within their means "contribute" to the overall consumption problem of a community? I can certainly see where the family who lives beyond their means does...

...you say the two are compatible... but how are they?

[Deleted]

ameiko... can you point me towards some data on the 'explosion of money spent on welfare' ? ... I just don't seem to be finding it?