NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/Dobbs.Oct4/index.html

There have been a few people here who think the US economy is doing great. I'm not one of them in fact the economy has been doing so well my wife has to find a full time job (been trying for 9 months She does creative work management and is a graphic designer).

Points that Dobbs has raised and has affected me:

More Americans than ever are living in poverty, living without health care, paying more for housing and for the costs of our public education. And real wages are falling.

The Bay area has some expensive property. I managed to get into an unnoticed area before the prices jumped. My father-in-law and my mother have both commented, if they were starting out now, there is no way in hell they could afford a home. He is an electrician and she is a registered nurse.

Public education? I was rather surprised when my daughter entered kindergarten that we had to "donate" many supplies to the school and they are continuously fund raising. Which of course it's suggested we help out.

A couple parents and I are going to talk to the teacher and see if she needs stuff.

One parent told me her other kids teacher was grateful to get a boxes of tissue for her and the children.

Some teachers(in other schools) even have to use their own money on stuff.

Real median earnings of full-time working males fell nearly 2 percent last year, according to the Census Bureau, while the real wages of working women fell by 1.3 percent. Despite that, real median household income did manage to rise slightly last year, though that small gain was the first increase in household income since 1999.

For me just on simple numbers was the fact that we had 2 raises out of the last 4 years and the reason given was the economy. Raises were limited to most at COLA. If you made a certain amount, you didn't get any.

So what has been keeping our middle class afloat in the face of rapidly rising costs? American families have been living on, as well as in, their homes. More than one-third of homeowners are spending more than 30 percent of their income on the cost of housing, a level that pushes the edge of affordability. Nationwide median home values from 2000-2005 jumped 32 percent, and homeowners have been pulling equity out of their houses in order to keep up with escalating tuition bills, health care costs and energy costs.

I can attest to having to take equity out for a couple reasons.

Two of our friends lost their homes when the husband was laid off due to job exportation. Both are working again at a 40% salary loss. Both live in flats(which are not cheap here $1400-1600 in bad neighborhoods).

Interesting note: I heard the company founder(worth about 150 million) bitching that his 6 million bid on a house was rejected.

But not everyone is so lucky. The number of Americans without health coverage rose by 1.3 million last year, up to 46.6 million, according to the Census Bureau. What's worse, more than one in 10 American children are now uninsured. Fewer employers than ever are providing health care to their employees and those who are still lucky enough to receive employer-provided coverage are paying a much larger share: The Kaiser family foundation says the cost of family health insurance, in fact, is up 87 percent since 2000.


My insurance has been the fastest growing expense yet. And companies around here are reducing coverage and offloading more costs to their employees.

The same holds true at the pharmacy. Prices for the most popular brand-name prescription drugs this year rose substantially higher than the annual inflation rate, as has been the case every year this decade. The AARP concluded prices for the top 193 drugs climbed 6.3 percent over the last 12 months ending in June 2006, while inflation went up 3.8 percent. Generic drugs, however, rose 0.4 percent over that period of time.


I am a little lucky in that I only have allergy meds. I used to take Prescription Clariden. Then the shrub gave that f'd up bill to make it and others over the counter. Before it cost me $30 for an effect drug that gave me a 30 day supply. After the bill, it became ineffective(the dosage dropped to were it didn't do anything for me) and it cost $20 for a 12 day supply.

My allergist and I fought a f'd up war to switch my prescription to Allegra. The f'n insurance company said use the over the counter and I had to wait 90 days for them to "see that it didn't work"


The costs of higher education are also hurting middle-class families like never before. In this increasingly credentialed society, the total cost of tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public colleges and universities has ballooned 44 percent over the past four years. And the proportion of family income it takes to pay for college is growing for families everywhere. The biggest jump, according to the National Center for Higher Education, is in Ohio, where college costs now take 42 percent of the average family budget, up from 28 percent in the early 1990s.


I saw the costs of the local state university and they have significantly gone up. Just on tuition alone. I didn't see the basic costs(books, lab fees) but I think they have jumped as well.

Our dependency on foreign oil is also hamstringing working men and women. Gasoline prices are back on the decline (for now), but many Americans this summer were shelling out double what they used to pay to drive their cars. And gas prices now, while lower than at their peak in August, are still about 60 percent higher than in January 2001.


Gas ate away at my free cash. I have to drive 45 miles a day for work. Mass trans is too far away to make it effective or it changes to irregular hours which does not work for my irregular schedule.

It was costing $36 to fill a Saturn!

Otherwise, there will be 250 million casualties in what has become nothing less than class warfare.

I am a casualty.

I find it interesting that the Republicans like to "Oh you are just trying to cause class warfare" argument.

Oh well.

Ok apologists; it's your rurn.

it's a good thing you have food to eat, a place to live and health insurance, you are doing better than a lot of people.

it's a good thing you have food to eat, a place to live and health insurance, you are doing better than a lot of people.

For now. Wages for my work are significantly less. If I lost the job, I would probably loose the house.

For now. Wages for my work are significantly less. If I lost the job, I would probably loose the house.

maybe you should work on changing the way you spend your money and building up an emergency fund.

sorry if that sounds harsh but I see more often than not my financial planning clients are in way over their head for basically no reason.

Are you a casualty of the class war?

Absolutely not. I have no class. :)

When I was growing up, it was possible to raise a kid on a working-class income. Nowdays, you're lucky if you can move out of your parent's basement with a middle-class income. :(

maybe you should work on changing the way you spend your money and building up an emergency fund.

sorry if that sounds harsh but I see more often than not my financial planning clients are in way over their head for basically no reason.

Way ahead of you dahlin.

We don't eat out much anymore. We don't go to the movies much anymore. Clothing is replaced when it's pretty well dead. We don't do family trips anymore(well last year but her mom paid for it). I don't even carry cash anymore.

The day to days just kill us now. This area can't afford not having both parents work anymore.

http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00012/08/24/12884280_l.gif

Way ahead of you dahlin.

We don't eat out much anymore. We don't go to the movies much anymore. Clothing is replaced when it's pretty well dead. We don't do family trips anymore(well last year but her mom paid for it). I don't even carry cash anymore.

The day to days just kill us now. This area can't afford not having both parents work anymore.

well, you know what they say, finances are all about income v. outgo

if you have your outgo under control, then you gotta up that income. ;) (easier said than done I know)

Absolutely not. I have no class. :)

Class is overrated.

Eh, now that there's two kids in college (one of them admittedly being a student who's funding is primarily academic scholarship based) and a third close to the university time, my mom finally had to pick up a job, But that's because expected yearly outgo on education is gonna be like a combined 30k for the next six years.

And obviously my family is so rich that we don't need any more than a $100 a quarter in financial aid. :rolleyes:

Scarcity strikes again.

AS a college student, it looks like I have a good chance of getting caught in the rising tuition net. My grants will probably fall away as the funding that supports them dissapears, and general tuition, subsidized as it is, has been rising every year already. It's looking like it will be harder and take longer to pay them off.

Masters and serfs, that's what they want it to be. To be the slaves of the corporate elite, No fair just the Flat Broke, the Very poor, the Poor and the Super Rich. That's the goal of the current Government.

Poor people are easier to control, and easier for the corporations to make a profit on. And all that matters is the $$$$$$$$$$.

Masters and serfs, that's what they want it to be. To be the slaves of the corporate elite, No fair just the Flat Broke, the Very poor, the Poor and the Super Rich. That's the goal of the current Government.

Poor people are easier to control, and easier for the corporations to make a profit on. And all that matters is the $$$$$$$$$$.

you really believe that?

you really believe that?
I do believe that they would like to elminate the middle class.
It seems they've been trying since FDR.
I don't really have the belief that the poor are easier to control.
But I do believe that the only thing the government cares about is how happy those who bribe them feel.

Class warfare is a myth of the left, so no.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/Dobbs.Oct4/index.html

There have been a few people here who think the US economy is doing great. I'm not one of them in fact the economy has been doing so well my wife has to find a full time job (been trying for 9 months She does creative work management and is a graphic designer).
I fail to see anything wrong with a grown women holding a full time job.
More Americans than ever are living in poverty, living without health care, paying more for housing and for the costs of our public education. And real wages are falling.
Huh. What? More so than in the Gilded Age? Yeah, right. Conditions are far from ideal, but that's no reason to get weepy about an unreal past. That's what conservatives do.
Public education? I was rather surprised when my daughter entered kindergarten that we had to "donate" many supplies to the school and they are continuously fund raising. Which of course it's suggested we help out.

A couple parents and I are going to talk to the teacher and see if she needs stuff.

One parent told me her other kids teacher was grateful to get a boxes of tissue for her and the children.

Some teachers(in other schools) even have to use their own money on stuff.
That’s fucked up. All the money going into private schools should be transferred to public schools ASAP.
For me just on simple numbers was the fact that we had 2 raises out of the last 4 years and the reason given was the economy. Raises were limited to most at COLA. If you made a certain amount, you didn't get any.
What's wrong with that? Two raises in four years? Sounds pretty good to me.

My insurance has been the fastest growing expense yet. And companies around here are reducing coverage and offloading more costs to their employees.
Another good point. The government needs to provide insurance to everyone. However, I think it’s something you could certainly stand to wait your turn for.
It was costing $36 to fill a Saturn!
Doesn't sound too bad.
I am a casualty.
No. You really aren't.
I find it interesting that the Republicans like to "Oh you are just trying to cause class warfare" argument.
I’m no Republican, and I certainly don’t want to see any kind of war. There are many reasons for reform, the avoidance of class warfare among them. Your self-entitlement isn't.

Absolutely not. I have no class. :)
What do you mean by that? You are a 1st class clown!! :D

Yeah, I'm a casualty. Not a death, mind you, but a casualty. What's the saying--I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent. Black Forrest--you spoke truth in your OP. Anyone who's denying it either has skin in the game or is just plain ignorant.

I do believe that they would like to elminate the middle class.
It seems they've been trying since FDR.
I don't really have the belief that the poor are easier to control.
But I do believe that the only thing the government cares about is how happy those who bribe them feel.
What?
FDR was one of the poor of this nation’s greatest benefactors. As a man, he was a deceitful, lying, power-hungry son of a bitch, but as a leader, he was brilliant. He is probably the number one reason that Socialism never took off in the United States, despite some of the first socialist experiments being practiced here.

What?
FDR was one of the poor of this nation’s greatest benefactors. As a man, he was a deceitful, lying, power-hungry son of a bitch, but as a leader, he was brilliant. He is probably the number one reason that Socialism never took off in the United States, despite some of the first socialist experiments being practiced here.I might be wrong, but I think The Lone Alliance meant to say "since FDR left office." If that's what he/she meant then he/she's right. If it's not, then yeah, you just pwned him.

Class warfare is a myth of the left

?

Neither in the literal sense (peasants hanging lords, workers revolting against capitalists) nor in the looser sense (struggle between rich and poor) is it a myth, and that observation about human society is hardly confined to the left.

?

Neither in the literal sense (peasants hanging lords, workers revolting against capitalists) nor in the looser sense (struggle between rich and poor) is it a myth, and that observation about human society is hardly confined to the left.Warren Buffett, one of the richest men on earth, says it's a class war (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/index.html), and that his class is winning.
BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.

DOBBS: Exactly. Your class, as you put it, is winning on estate taxes, which I know you are opposed to. I don't know how your son Howard feels about that. I know you are opposed to it.

What?
FDR was one of the poor of this nation’s greatest benefactors. As a man, he was a deceitful, lying, power-hungry son of a bitch, but as a leader, he was brilliant. He is probably the number one reason that Socialism never took off in the United States, despite some of the first socialist experiments being practiced here.

I might be wrong, but I think The Lone Alliance meant to say "since FDR left office." If that's what he/she meant then he/she's right. If it's not, then yeah, you just pwned him.
Yeah I meant after he left office
Giving the nation the ability to survive through a time when money was basicly worthless wasn't an easy task, but he helped to form the modern Middle Class and set up programs that help the lower income group.

Big change from today in which it seems the rich need all the government help they can get. (Sacarsm)

Here's a tip: Mining.

Especially in Australia. They're so desperate for people right now that they pay 70k+ jobs to plumbers. It's because China buys so many minerals and raw materials.

Class warfare is a myth of the left, so no.

Hahahhahh hahhahahhah ahahahhahhh really, come over here to the UK and see what the class system does.

Yeah, I'm a casualty. Not a death, mind you, but a casualty. What's the saying--I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent. Black Forrest--you spoke truth in your OP. Anyone who's denying it either has skin in the game or is just plain ignorant.

I am neither but I still don't buy into this whole "class" thing in the US....

you got a third catagory?

snip
Ok apologists; it's your rurn.
but..but..but...what about your tax cuts?!!!
They saved middle-America, surely?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/Dobbs.Oct4/index.html

wow, it sounds like Thatcherism (1980s Britain) all over again...
this is why conservatives are bad news

wow, it sounds like Thatcherism (1980s Britain) all over again...
this is why conservatives are bad news

Urrghhh can you actuyly type that word without spiting?

Urrghhh can you actuyly type that word without spiting blood?

no...
(fixed for accuracy ;))

I do not understand some Americans' irrational belief that there is not a class system in their country. Of course there is, human societies will always stratify themselves based on perceived worth.

Forget Christianity, the American religion is Meritocracy, the unquestioning belief that anyone can achieve whatever they want if only they work hard, the belief that anyone can one day become President...

Pure B/S. America has one of the most rigid class systems in the Industrialised World, a system that makes the social ladder unclimbable because certain people refuse to believe that there is even a ladder!

People are now discovering that inequality exists and that they have to work to improve their lot...

Big fucking whoop. :rolleyes:

My parents went through a state of relative poverty, and they asked no one for help - they endured what they had to, and revived their finances. Today's youth is pathetic. So addicted to government. Like big babies who can't grow up...

I am not rich myself, yet I intend to be. If I am not well off now, I will make myself rich. If I fail, too bad. I am not going to start ordering people to hand their cash over to me. Granted, the US' model of Capitalism is far removed from the system's truer instances, and this should be fixed.

People are now discovering that inequality exists and that they have to work to improve their lot...

Big fucking whoop. :rolleyes:

My parents went through a state of relative poverty, and they asked no one for help - they endured what they had to, and revived their finances. Today's youth is pathetic. So addicted to government. Like big babies who can't grow up...

I am not rich myself, yet I intend to be. If I am not well off now, I will make myself rich. If I fail, too bad. I am not going to start ordering people to hand their cash over to me.

the timeless vitriol of the conservative.... :rolleyes:

the point of this outrage is that government policy and actions shouldn't be aiding the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. inequality does exist, and whether it should or not is debatable, but that the government should - intentionally or no - encourage the rich-poor divide to widen is not debatable. it is wrong.

the timeless vitriol of the conservative.... :rolleyes:
I will undermine any forms of thought aimed at subverting Capitalism. This includes most "Conservatives," of course.

the point of this outrage is that government policy and actions shouldn't be aiding the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. inequality does exist, and whether it should or not is debatable, but that the government should - intentionally or no - encourage the rich-poor divide to widen is not debatable. it is wrong.
And I acknowledged this in my post. It should be clear that I am against all government intervention that actually hampers the free-market. This should, however, wake individuals up and make them more suspicious of government action and more likely to support individualism, rather than simply calling for another variant of the same kind of Fascist - the Democrat variant.

I will undermine any forms of thought aimed at subverting Capitalism. This includes most "Conservatives," of course.


And I acknowledged this in my post. It should be clear that I am against all government intervention that actually hampers the free-market. This should, however, wake individuals up and make them more suspicious of government action and more likely to support individualism, rather than simply calling for another variant of the same kind of Fascist.

Yep, because free market worked so well in the past. And because it hasn't led to class societies before....

Yep, because free market worked so well in the past. And because it hasn't led to class societies before....
I don't accept the doctrine of substantive equality, and I have no problem with inequality; I am in fact pro-aristocracy. As long as a safety net exists to keep people out of destitution and a healthy middle class exists, there is no problem. Besides, at least in a free-market system one can rise to the top from the bottom (or vice-versa) - in most rigidly classed societies this was never so.

Care to give examples of where the system hasn't worked (due to its own properties, and not external reasons) or where it has been outclassed by an alternative system (again, with no external aid)?

As long as a safety net exists to keep people out of destitution...
a welfare state?

Besides, at least in a free-market system one can rise to the top from the bottom (or vice-versa)

nonsense (well bottom -> top anyway)
read this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hard-Work-Life-Low-pay-Britain/dp/0747564159/sr=8-1/qid=1160054603/ref=pd_ka_1/202-6786892-4100627?ie=UTF8&s=books)

a welfare state?
No.

nonsense (well bottom -> top anyway)
read this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hard-Work-Life-Low-pay-Britain/dp/0747564159/sr=8-1/qid=1160054603/ref=pd_ka_1/202-6786892-4100627?ie=UTF8&s=books)
I'll give it a read - I doubt it'll make a difference though. For every book like this, there is one claiming the exact opposite. People can rise to wealth out of nothing. Denying this is denying real phenomena.

I don't accept the doctrine of substantive equality, and I have no problem with inequality; I am in fact pro-aristocracy. As long as a safety net exists to keep people out of destitution and a healthy middle class exists, there is no problem. Besides, at least in a free-market system one can rise to the top from the bottom (or vice-versa) - in most rigidly classed societies this was never so.

Germany had a free market economy in the late 19th century. Socially and economically, it created a fourth class in a previously 3-classed society, the working class. There was no way of rising from the bottom to the top, hard work was barely enough to keep you alive if you were unlucky enough to be born to the fourth - and lowest - class. The rigid system only started to become permeable once social laws were established, taking certain rights away from the first and second class, and providing a level of protection to the fourth class (child labour laws, health care, labour laws, unions ect.)

I won't argue against capitalism, as there is no viable better option around at the moment, but I will argue against a completely free market. Governments have the duty to make sure that the class divide won't gap too far, by providing social safety nets and securities. Struggling middle classes are never ever a good sign for the general economy of a country, no matter how proud people are about their hard work.

No.


I'll give it a read - I doubt it'll make a difference though. For every book like this, there is one claiming the exact opposite. People can rise to wealth out of nothing. Denying this is denying real phenomena.

Nobody's denying that. What we are arguing is the fact that they can do so more easily in a free market society than in one where the market is regulated (not controled, regulated) and where there are social laws facilitating the rise.

Germany had a free market economy in the late 19th century. Socially and economically, it created a fourth class in a previously 3-classed society, the working class. There was no way of rising from the bottom to the top, hard work was barely enough to keep you alive if you were unlucky enough to be born to the fourth - and lowest - class. The rigid system only started to become permeable once social laws were established, taking certain rights away from the first and second class, and providing a level of protection to the fourth class (child labour laws, health care, labour laws, unions ect.)
In this case you are simply referring to the abolition of old class privileges and the establishment of certain doctrines compatible with the free-market. This happened in France too - the bourgeoisie effectively destroyed the Ancien Regime; the failure to adapt to capitalism was catastrophic for it. Of course, the end result was completely cyclical, due to Napoleon.

I won't argue against capitalism, as there is no viable better option around at the moment, but I will argue against a completely free market. Governments have the duty to make sure that the class divide won't gap too far, by providing social safety nets and securities. Struggling middle classes are never ever a good sign for the general economy of a country, no matter how proud people are about their hard work.
Then you haven't really come to any form of disagreement with me. As I said, I support a safety net - but not in the form of the welfare state.

Nobody's denying that. What we are arguing is the fact that they can do so more easily in a free market society than in one where the market is regulated (not controled, regulated) and where there are social laws facilitating the rise.
I am not a market anarchist (even though I like the idea) - therefore, I do support necessary regulation to keep the market free and create a safety net. It is more than this that I oppose.

I am not a market anarchist (even though I like the idea) - therefore, I do support necessary regulation to keep the market free and create a safety net. It is more than this that I oppose.

Well, maybe you ought to clarify what exactly it is that you oppose?

What do you mean by that? You are a 1st class clown!! :D

I'm in a class all by myself. :cool:

Well, maybe you ought to clarify what exactly it is that you oppose?
Making the jump from mere provision to help the misfortunate stand on their own two feet to egalitarianism. I have no problem with a (minarchist) state providing free healthcare, education and pecuniary aid to the needy, so long as it does it efficiently, encouraging them to find work, and allows the free-market to flourish in these areas alongside its own provision. I therefore support direct cash aid. I go against excessively high taxation, all forms of egalitarianism, governmental monopolies and cradle-to-grave style welfare.

In this case you are simply referring to the abolition of old class privileges and the establishment of certain doctrines compatible with the free-market. This happened in France too - the bourgeoisie effectively destroyed the Ancien Regime; the failure to adapt to capitalism was catastrophic for it. Of course, the end result was completely cyclical, due to Napoleon.

No, I'm talking about the industrial revolution, a time when a little investment could make you a very rich man indeed on the back of your workers. If you weren't a worker, of course, because in that case you simply couldn't make investments due to your financial situation. It was textbook free market : High availabilty of labour made labour cheap. There were no regulations in place to make sure people didn't starve despite being in full employment, as that would be government interference with the market.


Then you haven't really come to any form of disagreement with me. As I said, I support a safety net - but not in the form of the welfare state.

A safety net would (or should, in theory) only apply to those who find themselves without work. It should not be necessary for people who are working full time, but this is becoming more and more the norm, not only in the US, but also in some European countries. Governments need to regulate the market, there's no way around that.

Making the jump from mere provision to help the misfortunate stand on their own two feet to egalitarianism. I have no problem with a (minarchist) state providing free healthcare, education and pecuniary aid to the needy, so long as it does it efficiently, encouraging them to find work, and allows the free-market to flourish in these areas alongside its own provision. I therefore support direct cash aid. I go against excessively high taxation, all forms of egalitarianism, governmental monopolies and cradle-to-grave style welfare.

Well, we largely agree on that, then. However, I also see it as important that the governments make sure the free market doesn't spin out of control again, creating wages that are simply too low to live on.

No, I'm talking about the industrial revolution, a time when a little investment could make you a very rich man indeed on the back of your workers. If you weren't a worker, of course, because in that case you simply couldn't make investments due to your financial situation. It was textbook free market : High availabilty of labour made labour cheap. There were no regulations in place to make sure people didn't starve despite being in full employment, as that would be government interference with the market.
An industrialising (or developing) country isn't necessarily one with the right conditions for a highly free-market, though. The market is making the jump from capital goods to consumer goods, so this intermediate stage needs some regulation, as the sacrifice in goods is a cause of discomfort. It's funny that we work in reverse logic - less regulation when a nation develops, more when it actually is ready for less.

A safety net would (or should, in theory) only apply to those who find themselves without work. It should not be necessary for people who are working full time, but this is becoming more and more the norm, not only in the US, but also in some European countries. Governments need to regulate the market, there's no way around that.
As long as they are committed to keeping the market genuinely free, yes (crony Capitalism -or corporatism- is a deviant form of the system, and not a free-market in any sense). This is why I am unsure of anarchocapitalism - I don't think it could regulate itself adequately, so to speak. I think we've come to an agreement on this already though.

An industrialising (or developing) country isn't necessarily one with the right conditions for a free-market, though. The market is making the jump from capital goods to consumer goods, so this intermediate stage needs some regulation, as the sacrifice in goods is a cause of discomfort. It's funny that we work in reverse logic - less regulation when a nation develops, more when it actually is ready for less.

True, but I think even a developed market will still need some regulation by a neutral force, such as a government or other controling instance. It can easily spiral out of control at any time.


As long as they are committed to keeping the market genuinely free, yes (crony Capitalism -or corporatism- is a deviant form of the system, and not a free-market in any sense). This is why I am unsure of anarchocapitalism - I don't think it could regulate itself adequately, so to speak. I think we've come to an agreement on this already though.

True as well, but phenomena like coporatism have a tendency to develop naturally from and unregulated market. I'm not for monopolies or controls in any way, but I do think that well-enforced regulations are vital.

Yep, doesn't look like we could debate much here :D

I am neither but I still don't buy into this whole "class" thing in the US....

you got a third catagory?

Nope. Sorry, Smunkeeville. Issues of class surround us every freaking day here in the US, and to deny it is to deny reality.

Nobody's denying that. What we are arguing is the fact that they can do so more easily in a free market society than in one where the market is regulated (not controled, regulated) and where there are social laws facilitating the rise.

quite right (even if i think you're missing a "not" or "can't" there)
the government should facilitate freer movement of social and economic class. not restrict it. free market economics restricts this movement as there would be no regulation to stop the rich using their money to stay rich, and the poor staying poor. typically called a 'glass cieling' for the poor. hell, the UK had pretty much a free market economy for a couple of centuries (although it wasn't capitalism as we know it today, of course)... how do you think the aristocracy are still wealthy today after centuries? its easy for the rich to stay rich, but hard for the poor to become rich in a free market economy. with regulation, the government can facilitate this socioeconomic change (beginning with state education, for example)

the government should not be allowing the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer (in real terms), to bring this back on topic.

Me? I'm not a casualty of the class war, although I have to admit that my college education is primarily being funded by the scholarship I won. Maybe we would have more affordable college if we created more merit/need based scholarships...if you're poor and you meet certain GPA and other criteria, you should get to go to college. No one with the will and the grades to get a higher education should be unable to or should be forced to take on an unmanageable debt load due to the financial situation of their parents.

And, I get to walk everywhere on and off campus, which means no car and no gas consumption...fuck you, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela!

If we want to remove our dependence on foreign oil, we have to drive less and consume what we have more efficiently. Of course, we also need alternatives but only conservation and changed buying habits can have an immediate impact. It makes no sense to bitch about gas prices or foreign oil when 54% of the US car market is light trucks and SUVs. Unfortunately, most people don't care and can afford higher prices; of course, what that means is the people who can't afford higher prices are screwed and are priced out of the market.

Wages are starting to pick up again and poverty has started to decline again; unfortunately, if you look at each recession since 1973 they have gotten milder and milder but they take longer and longer to recover from. For example, it took nearly 5 years for poverty to fall back to its 1990 level following the 1991 recession. Disposable income is strong, but wages are still stagnant in real terms since 2001. Hopefully, the falling commodity prices will reduce inflation and boost incomes, but there's no guarantee of that. The main bright spots are the debt-to-income ratio and the amount of money held in banks; those are both signs that the consumer is saving more money and they are paying down debt accumulated in the past.

And, I get to walk everywhere on and off campus, which means no car and no gas consumption...fuck you, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela!

Of course...Let's blame our economic disadvantages on someone else. Well, it's not really a problem, ignorant people around here in Venezuela also blames the USA for our economic crisis, so I guess it's like the reflection on a mirror.

Of course...Let's blame our economic disadvantages on someone else. Well, it's not really a problem, ignorant people around here in Venezuela also blames the USA for our economic crisis, so I guess it's like the reflection on a mirror.

Oh, I don't blame them for high gas prices; I know full well why they are high and it has nothing to do with market manipulation or malevolence on the part of Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

I blame their president for being a jackass who allies himself with countries like Iran and who cracks down on civil rights while he runs the oil industry in to the ground. And I blame Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism and providing money for the organizations who killed nearly 3000 of my fellow citizens on 9/11.

I guess then the iraqis are right being mad at you for killing thousands and thousands of their people? Why then you call them, (the local, not foreign Al-Quaeda freaks), "insurgents" and "terrorists"?

Just following your logic.

I guess then the iraqis are right being mad at you for killing thousands and thousands of their people? Why then you call them, (the local, not foreign Al-Quaeda freaks), "insurgents" and "terrorists"?

Shit yeah! We went in there, removed their government, and then failed to provide their people with the kind of basic protection and services they deserve. Tens of thousands dead is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Shit yeah! We went in there, removed their government, and then failed to provide their people with the kind of basic protection and services they deserve. Tens of thousands dead is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Good. I'm happy to be arguing with someone here that at least show some consistency :D

Good. I'm happy to be arguing with someone here that at least show some consistency :D

I'm pretty universal when it comes to people doing something wrong. When you harm innocent people or allow them to be harmed, you deserve condemnation no matter who you are or where you're from.

The right blames the left for trying to start class warfare, but they're just trying to wake people up. Class warfare is already here.

Only by managing to get into subsidized housing was I able to afford the internet. But since I'm disabled, I can get subsidized housing more easily than most other people. Half of this town recieves some type of government assistance. They can't make it otherwise. Crappy jobs around here won't feed a family.
The half that don't recieve any assistance are really screwed. Too many people make not enough to live on but too much to qualify for assistance.

People who don't believe we have a class war going on right now have apparently never had to live in the real world.

with regulation, the government can facilitate this socioeconomic change (beginning with state education, for example)
Free-market economics does not preclude such aid though, not even in its extreme forms, such as minarchism (well, most forms). In fact many advocates of the system believe in a safety net to keep the market on track. The only free-marketeers who believe in the abolition of such aid are those who adhere to the ultra-minimal minarchism and anarchocapitalism, and they have their reasons (not convincing enough for me though). Oh, and of course social darwinists and anarcho-primitivists. :)

the government should not be allowing the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer (in real terms), to bring this back on topic.
Let me put it this way: it should not be aiding the process.

Nope. Sorry, Smunkeeville. Issues of class surround us every freaking day here in the US, and to deny it is to deny reality.

the myth of american classlessness is a really weird sort of thing. the existence of class and its effects on a whole range of life-possibilities is just so obvious that its hard to even imagine where the idea comes from. weirder still is how the myth itself is largely held by members of a particular class - the elite are under no delusion of where they stand, for example.

For now. Wages for my work are significantly less. If I lost the job, I would probably loose the house.
So you don't own the house outright?

One of the problems you're facing is the high price of real estate in the bay area. Why are you in the bay area?

While a lot of people say capitalism harms all but the super-rich, you must consider that during the 19th century the standard of living for everyone drastically improved. The population exploded (which is hard to do if there is nobody that can afford food), and life improved for everyone.

Simply look at the standard of living of the average poor person in the US. While you are bitching about how horrible it is to be poor in the US, the poorest here have a much higher standard of living than in most places in the world.

The problem of widening disparity between the rich and poor, and the reduction of the middle-class is one of government regulation. The middle-class is being squeezed because of rising costs, much of which is caused by the explosion of cost in medicade and medicare. Health care is insanely expensive due to great distortions caused by government regulation, tax structures (corporations offering benefits get that as a tax write-off but private individuals do not – though the proper solution is the remove the write-off for companies, not add further tax regulation), and the need for tort reform. With rational litigious environment (it is ridiculous to expect doctors to magically heal everything instantly and sue them if they don’t), removal of market distortions caused by invasive bureaucracy, and opening up the health system to market forces the cost of health care will drastically fall. Why do you think health costs differ drastically even between adjacent jurisdiction?

This is simply one area where government distortions hurt the middle-class. When someone who is poor goes into the hospital, they pay nothing. When someone middle-class goes into the hospital, they pay massively inflated prices (which are a large cause of bankruptcy) which, if they are lucky, will only reduce them down to a low economic class.

Remove government distortions and you will see rational costs of living.

When you cut subsidies and tariff-barriers of food, you cut the cost. When you cut regulations restricting of housing, you cut the cost. When you have a low cost of living, it doesn’t matter so much that you are making little – with a high cost of living small differences in income make a huge difference.

The answer is not more welfare, more regulation, more ‘assistance’ programs – the solution is opening up the markets to drop the cost of living.

While a lot of people say capitalism harms all but the super-rich, you must consider that during the 19th century the standard of living for everyone drastically improved. The population exploded (which is hard to do if there is nobody that can afford food), and life improved for everyone.

is that a result of elite ownership of the means of production or technological innovation and increased access to sanitation and healthcare?

While a lot of people say capitalism harms all but the super-rich...
There are relatively few who say that capitalism itself is the problem--they exist, but they're few in number. It's unregulated capitalism that harms all but the super-rich, and we've seen that happen more than once, in more than one place.

is that a result of elite ownership of the means of production or technological innovation and increased access to sanitation and healthcare?
One might argue that the innovation wouldn't have occurred without the profit motive driving it.

One might argue that the innovation wouldn't have occurred without the profit motive driving it.

even if that were the case, how does profit motive require elite ownership of the MofP? i thought the standard argument was that humans are inherently motivated that way?

One might argue that the innovation wouldn't have occurred without the profit motive driving it.One might argue that, but one would be arguing from a weak position. There may be a correlation between the two, but that's a long way from a causal connection.

Hahahhahh hahhahahhah ahahahhahhh really, come over here to the UK and see what the class system does.
The Economist had an article about class in the UK recently. Turns out that people are reasonably upwardly mobile...but most don't think they are if they are asked. They still identify with classes that aren't really theirs anymore.

Just thought I'd throw that in, seems sorta relevant.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7289005

The Economist had an article about class in the UK recently. Turns out that people are reasonably upwardly mobile...but most don't think they are if they are asked. They still identify with classes that aren't really theirs anymore.

Just thought I'd throw that in, seems sorta relevant.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7289005

Which almost makes the the mirror image of the US, where we believe we have social mobility and we really don't.

Which almost makes the the mirror image of the US, where we believe we have social mobility and we really don't.

Not so much. 56% percent of all people in the US consider themselves members of the working class, not some vaunted definition of the "middle class." Many americans are very cynical about the "American Dream" anymore.

Which almost makes the the mirror image of the US, where we believe we have social mobility and we really don't.
Pretty much, yeah. Which says to me that "class" and "class warfare" is first and foremost a culture-type thing and that these notions don't necessarily have anything to do with the economic situation as such.

even if that were the case, how does profit motive require elite ownership of the MofP? i thought the standard argument was that humans are inherently motivated that way?
One might argue that, but one would be arguing from a weak position. There may be a correlation between the two, but that's a long way from a causal connection.
People are lazy. They'll do what they have to to get what they want, and nothing more.

People are lazy. They'll do what they have to to get what they want, and nothing more.
That doesn't necessarily translate into laziness, because people who want a lot (or want it all) certainly aren't lazy in their attempts to get it all. Personally, I think it's a matter of setting priorities. Is it more important to me to be able to buy a Porche or to have summers off? The time is more valuable to me, so I take a pay cut in order to have it. Doesn't mean I'm lazy or that I don't work hard.

That doesn't necessarily translate into laziness, because people who want a lot (or want it all) certainly aren't lazy in their attempts to get it all. Personally, I think it's a matter of setting priorities. Is it more important to me to be able to buy a Porche or to have summers off? The time is more valuable to me, so I take a pay cut in order to have it. Doesn't mean I'm lazy or that I don't work hard.
What if you didn't have to take that pay cut? Would you give back your summers, or would you keep your benefit and just pay out less to get it?

I don't understand why people object when I assert we're all lazy. Being a "hard worker" isn't a virtue.

Pretty much, yeah. Which says to me that "class" and "class warfare" is first and foremost a culture-type thing and that these notions don't necessarily have anything to do with the economic situation as such.
You can be destitute in the UK, and still belong to the upper class - the characterisation has become meaningless, as have the notions of class and class warfare. To me, what is now relevant is economic situations of individuals and social mobility. Some may refer to this as class, but the rigidity implicit in this term is what makes me dislike it. Ambition to rise upwards in a society is necessary, so it's best if individuals are actually aware of their position in society than that they live under a delusion that "class" in a looser sense is non-existent. Rather than fighting a class one should seek to join it. I am naturally opposed to artificially created barriers in the form of corporatism etc.

I don't understand why people object when I assert we're all lazy. Being a "hard worker" isn't a virtue.
If I am going to hire you, you bloody well better be sure it is. That, and honesty.

You can be destitute in the UK, and still belong to the upper class - the characterisation has become meaningless, as have the notions of class and class warfare. To me, what is now relevant is economic situations of individuals. Some may refer to this as class, but the rigidity implicit in this term is what makes me dislike it. Ambition to rise upwards in a society is necessary, so it's best if individuals are actually aware of their position in society than that they live under a delusion that "class" in a looser sense is non-existent.

Of course anyone can become destitute. But if your from the upper class, you have a greater chance of getting favorable bankruptcy, can rebound much more easily, and won't get thrown out in the street nearly as often. The level of upward mobility in any modern society is very low. 90% percent of all people will retire in the same social strata that they were born in.

Of course anyone can become destitute. But if your from the upper class, you have a greater chance of getting favorable bankruptcy, can rebound much more easily, and won't get thrown out in the street nearly as often.
These people are seen as the trash of the upper classes - even if they do rebound, they are not in any high position.

The level of upward mobility in any modern society is very low. 90% percent of all people will retire in the same social strata that they were born in.
It would be dangerous if it were considerably higher though - otherwise certain jobs would be left unfilled. A degree of social mobility is always good, but not to the extent that everyone can become rich (or poor). And, even if one rises from lower middle class to upper middle class, I still see that as good (middle class is typically seen as a monolithic social stratum, even though it has its subdivisions). It takes considerable willpower and ambition to rise up usually - and the undertaking of risks - not everyone is willing to do this. It's a gamble, with high risk and often high rewards. Naturally, if it is through government aid that social mobility is weakened, this must cease.

It would be dangerous if it were considerably higher though - otherwise certain jobs would be left unfilled. A degree of social mobility is always good, but not to the extent that everyone can become rich (or poor). And, even if one rises from lower middle class to upper middle class, I still see that as good (middle class is typically seen as a monolithic social stratum, even though it has its subdivisions). It takes considerable willpower and ambition to rise up usually - and the undertaking of risks - not everyone is willing to do this. It's a gamble, with high risk and often high rewards. Naturally, if it is through government aid that social mobility is weakened, this must cease.

By considerable willpower and ambition, you mean the ability to overcome your basic human ethics and begin treating people like pawns to advance your position? More often then not, advancement comes through a willingness to harm others.

By considerable willpower and ambition, you mean the ability to overcome your basic human ethics and begin treating people like pawns to advance your position? More often then not, advancement comes through a willingness to harm others.
This is not what I had in mind at all. Of course, this is a way of advancement. What comes around goes around though, and if you harm others there is a good chance you will live to pay the price. I mean the ambition necessary to want to move upward and the willpower to not be deterred by obstacles that may arise in your path. Inevitably, given that societies are complex structures based on interaction, this will involve some using of people, and you will be used as well. The mark of a decent person is how they use others, not whether or not they do. There is nothing inherently "unethical" about it.

90% percent of all people will retire in the same social strata that they were born in.
But, and this is very, very, very important, that is not because "the system" makes it so!

In our modern capitalism, whether in France or in the US, you will not be refused a good job because of the wealth your parents have or have not. You will, in general, be judged according to your skill, perhaps the connections you have, and a little bit by the pure whim of the person doing the employing. You could argue that particularly good connections are hard to come by if you're from a "lower class" background, but I don't think you can seriously argue that that would keep a capable person down.

The reason so many people follow in their parents' footsteps economically is not because the system says so - it is due to the relative lack of imagination of those parents. We don't live in a perfect meritocracy, but in general, if you do a good job and have the right attitude (both in school and afterwards) you won't end up poor. If the parents don't instill in their kids the idea that they can be anyone, if they don't provide the right opportunities (eg I learned to read when I was like four or five years old - in nature books about apothecary skinks - and I'd put a lot of my later academic success down to that), then it shouldn't surprise anyone if the kids live largely the same sort of life.

Education can be had even by poor people. Now, there are some pretty poor public schools out there, but education is not a good like any other. What you get out of it depends to a huge extent on what you put in. One doesn't need to be at a fancy private school to learn at school and get good marks. And with good marks, transfers to better schools, scholarships etc are put within reach. It just takes the right attitude and perspective on things. And attitude and perspective are the stuff that your parents give you...and if they don't break out of their normal routines when they teach you, then you will find it so much more difficult to move up in the world.

*snip*
This is all self-evident, I would think. Good on you for bringing it up though. He seems to have a problem with the will-to-power itself, which is hardly endemic to capitalism, but rather to any real world economic system dealing with - well - humans, and scarcity. It is the driving force behind social mobility - to then attack it (especially given a limited view of it), to me, is rather hypocritical.

This is all self-evident, I would think. Good on you for bringing it up though. He seems to have a problem with the will-to-power itself, which is hardly endemic to capitalism, but rather to any real world economic system dealing with - well - humans, and scarcity. It is the driving force behind social mobility - to then attack it (especially given a limited view of it), to me, is rather hypocritical.

Well, considering the number of people I know who are smart and rather ambitious, and who won't end up anywhere, I believe my point of view is merited, thank-you-very-fucking-much. I'm more likely than not going to be part of the 10% that moves up a notch; i'll send you my academic transcript to prove it if you want.

Well, considering the number of people I know who are smart and rather ambitious, and who won't end up anywhere, I believe my point of view is merited, thank-you-very-fucking-much. I'm more likely than not going to be part of the 10% that moves up a notch; i'll send you my academic transcript to prove it if you want.
How old are you exactly? Oh, and when exactly did you discover that you're clairvoyant? :)

Well, considering the number of people I know who are smart and rather ambitious, and who won't end up anywhere, I believe my point of view is merited, thank-you-very-fucking-much.
:D
Good thing you know all those things already. Indeed, knowing the future is quite useful for any socialist, though it may seriously hurt his or her convictions...

I'm more likely than not going to be part of the 10% that moves up a notch; i'll send you my academic transcript to prove it if you want.
Yep. You, but not all the other people.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484579
Have a look here.

But, and this is very, very, very important, that is not because "the system" makes it so!

yes, it is. the very existence of social strata due to the system. the nature of them most certainly is. the way one can (or can't) move between them is determined by the social rules and relations of the system. therefore the outcomes are created by the system. a different system would result in different outcomes. now, you may approve of the outcomes of the current system, but that is an entirely different matter.

yes, it is. the very existence of social strata due to the system...
Did you read my post?

Social Strata, existent or not, are not the determinants of economic success. Correlation does not imply causation.

If very poor people teach their kids the right values and sufficient self-belief, those kids won't be poor. And that's a fact.

If very poor people teach their kids the right values and sufficient self-belief, those kids won't be poor. And that's a fact.
Sometimes people just have bad luck.

Sometimes people just have bad luck.

there is no such thing as luck.

there is no such thing as luck.
Or rather, what we call luck is the ability to see and make use of random opportunities that come along.

On the other hand, sometimes people just get run over with a car and need medical care for the rest of their lives. In that case, I'd say that even a good attitude might not make you rich. But that can happen to both poor and rich people.

there is no such thing as luck.
In a metaphysical sense, I suppose, but probability certainly exists. Sometimes people get the shorthand of the stick. Sometimes it’s beyond their control.

Or rather, what we call luck is the ability to see and make use of random opportunities that come along.

On the other hand, sometimes people just get run over with a car and need medical care for the rest of their lives. In that case, I'd say that even a good attitude might not make you rich. But that can happen to both poor and rich people.

random things happen to everyone, saying that someone has 'bad luck' or 'good luck' is meaningless, they had random things happen.

Did you read my post?

Social Strata, existent or not, are not the determinants of economic success. Correlation does not imply causation.

If very poor people teach their kids the right values and sufficient self-belief, those kids won't be poor. And that's a fact.

under the rules governing the particular system in question.
allegedly, at least.


different rules, different outcomes. we could easily imagine a system where the rules dictated that ones children would always be in the next strata up from ones self, except for those at the very top, whose children wind up at the very bottom. in fact, there have been systems similar to this (in principle) based on rules governing who gets to marry whom.

we could easily imagine a system where the rules dictated that ones children would always be in the next strata up from ones self, except for those at the very top, whose children wind up at the very bottom.
Not without the use of force by the government, or whatever regulatory agent you're thinking of.

in fact, there have been systems similar to this (in principle) based on rules governing who gets to marry whom.
Any examples in which the richest had to go to the bottom?

Fact of the matter is that if you refrain from introducing some sort of forced concept of social strate, our world is what you get.

What comes around goes around though, and if you harm others there is a good chance you will live to pay the price.

No, there actually isn't, since usually the "using" is done by the powerful against the powerless.

nevitably, given that societies are complex structures based on interaction, this will involve some using of people, and you will be used as well. The mark of a decent person is how they use others, not whether or not they do. There is nothing inherently "unethical" about it.

Yes, there is.

To "use" someone is to violate her human dignity and freedom; it is to deny her autonomy so that she can serve as a tool to your ends. It requires compelling her to submit somehow; that is why it tends to occur in situations of power inequality.

After doing that, to insist that you have treated her decently is not much of a mitigating factor. You may indeed have, but any decent treatment at that point is merely that of a master towards a favored servant, not of equals with mutual respect. It is no compensation for freedom.

if you refrain from introducing some sort of forced concept of social strate

It's called "private property."

If very poor people teach their kids the right values and sufficient self-belief, those kids won't be poor. And that's a fact.

What are "the right values"?

It's called "private property."
Not again...

As you can read in the article I posted this morning, social strata have nothing to do with property these days. It's a mindset, more than anything.

What are "the right values"?
The one that "class" doesn't matter, that one can and should be anything one wants, and that one should be prepared to work hard for it. The one that knowledge and learning are the keys to the world, and that not being the most popular kid in school is a small price to pay for the payoff a good education will bring you.

Not again...

As you can read in the article I posted this morning, social strata have nothing to do with property these days. It's a mindset, more than anything.

That isn't what the article said at all. It pointed it out as a factor, not as the be-all and end-all.

Of course, the article's own focus does not correspond with this argument. In fact the whole point of the article is that some people have risen in the class structure without losing their former mindsets.

The one that "class" doesn't matter, that one can and should be anything one wants, and that one should be prepared to work hard for it.

But, of course, class does. Wealth ownership and access is important to economic security and education, and is tied to one's birth class. The home environment of poor families, thanks to the economic stresses they are subjected to, is considerably worse than that of well-off families, and you are right that this harms poor children. The quantity of hard work one must do is also relative to one's birth class, and to one's natural talent.

The necessity of "work hard" is abominable, but that's a topic for another day.

The one that knowledge and learning are the keys to the world, and that not being the most popular kid in school is a small price to pay for the payoff a good education will bring you.

[i]You may find it a small price to pay, I might find it a small price to pay, but the pursuit of social esteem, for the most part, is part of the human condition, at least in our societies. It is one the goods people should be permitted, and offering them a choice between it and economic security is unfair and immoral.

Of course, the article's own focus does not correspond with this argument. In fact the whole point of the article is that some people have risen in the class structure without losing their former mindsets.
I guess there's two interpretations to the numbers. Either way, "class" today is what people believe they are.

But, of course, class does. Wealth ownership and access is important to economic security and education, and is tied to one's birth class.
Well, what is "class"? If all you mean by it is a politically charged term for economic prosperity, then fine, it can matter, though I stand by my previous statement that your parent's income does not stop you from achieving anything you want. You just have to actually want it and accept the consequences of that wish.

But I don't think that's what class is. It was a term from the 19th century, describing whole sections of society who all live their lifes a certain way, who all had some sort of common interest. That sort of thing just doesn't exist anymore. Grouping people according to income will result in a huge variety of different people, mindsets, lifestyles, the sorts of jobs people do, political orientation, etc etc.

The home environment of poor families, thanks to the economic stresses they are subjected to, is considerably worse than that of well-off families, and you are right that this harms poor children.
No, that's not true. Being poor doesn't make families dysfunctional - being dysfunctional makes families poor.
If people are antisocial, drink, hit their relatives etc, I absolutely and totally refuse to absolve them from the responsibility for their actions. I know we've talked about this yesterday, but I think there is vastly more to a human being than that - people do choose how they react to the world, whether things are going well or not.

The quantity of hard work one must do is also relative to one's birth class, and to one's natural talent.
You reckon? I mean, you could say that someone who just can't deal with rational thinking, can't deal with money and finances is just "untalented" and it would be unfair for that person to not do well in life - but that would be false. Dealing with money and properly planning one's life is a skill that can be learned and trained like any other.

As for the amount of work and class...well, I can't decide what other rich people do with their money. I can guarantee you that I absolutely refuse to make life easy for my kids, should I ever have any.

But that's just the luck of the draw. Some people are born to parents who will give them anything they could want. I wasn't, but I refuse to give in to jealousy, and I refuse to give up on myself.

And that I am able to tell you that I will not be held back by anyone or anything should tell you something about poor people who sit back and are content with not giving a shit.

It is one the goods people should be permitted, and offering them a choice between it and economic security is unfair and immoral.
Then blame the parents who don't teach their kids the right values, don't blame the system.

The system rewards a mindset that I can live with very well. The same mindset has also in the past been proven to lead to progress and advancement as far as technology and overall wealth are concerned. It's not a bad mindset.

What are "the right values"?

obviously, the ones that are rewarded by his system of choice.

Fact of the matter is that if you refrain from introducing some sort of forced concept of social strate, our world is what you get.

bull-fucking-shit

this system and the rules governing it were created, can be and have been modified, and did not fall out of the fucking sky or spring fully-formed out of zeus's forehead.

what you get without "introducing some sort of forced concept of social strata" is an egalitarian band or tribe style society of immediate return foragers.

Well, what is "class"? If all you mean by it is a politically charged term for economic prosperity, then fine, it can matter, though I stand by my previous statement that your parent's income does not stop you from achieving anything you want. You just have to actually want it and accept the consequences of that wish.

But I don't think that's what class is. It was a term from the 19th century, describing whole sections of society who all live their lifes a certain way, who all had some sort of common interest. That sort of thing just doesn't exist anymore. Grouping people according to income will result in a huge variety of different people, mindsets, lifestyles, the sorts of jobs people do, political orientation, etc etc.

No, I mean "class" as in "economic class," and I always do. I have no problem with "class" as in "cultural group," unless the culture is conditioned by horrific economic circumstances.

No, that's not true. Being poor doesn't make families dysfunctional - being dysfunctional makes families poor.

So why is this dysfunction visible widely among the poor, even when poverty is caused by other factors - say, immigration?

It's one of the self-reinforcing features of poverty.

If people are antisocial, drink, hit their relatives etc, I absolutely and totally refuse to absolve them from the responsibility for their actions. I know we've talked about this yesterday, but I think there is vastly more to a human being than that - people do choose how they react to the world, whether things are going well or not.

Not "absolve them of responsibility for their actions," no - absolve them of responsibility for circumstances they could not control that may have influenced their actions.

You reckon? I mean, you could say that someone who just can't deal with rational thinking, can't deal with money and finances is just "untalented" and it would be unfair for that person to not do well in life - but that would be false. Dealing with money and properly planning one's life is a skill that can be learned and trained like any other.

And often along strictly class lines.

That said, there are other aspects of natural talent. I rarely worked as hard in school, even when taking the most difficult classes, as others taking classes I could have slept through did. This is not to my credit, it is not at all merit-worthy, and does not entitle me to a higher economic status.

As for the amount of work and class...well, I can't decide what other rich people do with their money. I can guarantee you that I absolutely refuse to make life easy for my kids, should I ever have any.

I actually don't bedrudge the children of rich parents their privileges. I just think they should be shared by all.

The right to be lazy is part of genuine freedom, and in a free society would not be alienable.

But that's just the luck of the draw. Some people are born to parents who will give them anything they could want. I wasn't, but I refuse to give in to jealousy, and I refuse to give up on myself.

"Jealousy" is not the issue; injustice is.

And that I am able to tell you that I will not be held back by anyone or anything should tell you something about poor people who sit back and are content with not giving a shit.

It should tell me what?

Then blame the parents who don't teach their kids the right values, don't blame the system.

If the system cannot handle actual human behavior, is that not aproblem?

The system rewards a mindset that I can live with very well.

I hate it. It's a mindset that ruins people, that forces them to suppress themselves in order to succeed. It makes the desire for internal goods and the desire for external rewards run contrary to one another. It leads to depraved human relations and despicable oppression and cruelty.

The same mindset has also in the past been proven to lead to progress and advancement as far as technology and overall wealth are concerned. It's not a bad mindset.

Material wealth and technology are very low on my list of priorities. Human needs and human freedom are infinitely more important.

If I am going to hire you, you bloody well better be sure it is. That, and honesty.
But that's crazy. As my employer, you should be concerned with my competence and effectiveness. How much effort I put into the work shouldn't matter as long as I'm getting the job done to your satisfaction.

I currently do a job that I find really simple. I do that because I don't particularly want to work hard all day long. I'm really good at this job, so it requires very little effort from me.

The quantity of hard work one must do is also relative...to one's natural talent.
This is as it should be. It encourages people to do what they're good at.

<...>
Your country is more socialist/statist/whatever now than it has ever been in its history. Why do you blame record levels of poverty on capitalism, whilst calling for more socialism, when the correlation between you getting what you want and the grievances that caused you to want it in the first place is, ignoring general increases in wealth brought about by new technology and (capitalist) free enterprise, so perfect?

go to finland, i hear that they have a labour shortage. and dont forget the high standard of living and socialism.

go to finland, i hear that they have a labour shortage. and dont forget the high standard of living and socialism.
Socialism?

Finland is the 12th most economically free nation on the planet.

this system and the rules governing it were created, can be and have been modified, and did not fall out of the fucking sky or spring fully-formed out of zeus's forehead.
By whom? How? When? Why?

Fact is that no one sat down and thought of a theoretical system like ours and imposed it. It's not like all the other ideological systems, be they state-based or anarchism-based.

It evolved naturally over hundreds of years.

what you get without "introducing some sort of forced concept of social strata" is an egalitarian band or tribe style society of immediate return foragers.
Which would last about three days before it starts reverting back to the sort of society that has developed today.

So why is this dysfunction visible widely among the poor, even when poverty is caused by other factors - say, immigration?

It's one of the self-reinforcing features of poverty.
Fine, it's a vicious cycle. Which is not to say that rich families can't be dysfunctional.

And yet, it is only a contributing factor, it is not a given that poor families have to be dysfunctional. Which means that there is something else in there.

Not "absolve them of responsibility for their actions," no - absolve them of responsibility for circumstances they could not control that may have influenced their actions.
So you would consider giving a violent drunkard less of a punishment because he lost his job? That's ridiculous.
There is plenty of people who lose their jobs and don't end up violent drunkards. Indeed, the majority of people who lose their jobs get on with their life and find new ones, at least in the US.

And often along strictly class lines.
Correlation does not imply causation. It is not a given that poor people have to be unable to understand the basics of finance.

That said, there are other aspects of natural talent. I rarely worked as hard in school, even when taking the most difficult classes, as others taking classes I could have slept through did. This is not to my credit, it is not at all merit-worthy, and does not entitle me to a higher economic status.
That's where your problem is: You don't have a high enough opinion of yourself. You don't think you have the right to a good life, despite clearly being a capable human being. You think you have some sort of responsibility for those who are not as good as you.
Guess what - if you're not going to value yourself, no one else will value you either.

While my family still had it good, and everything was fine, I was quite the socialist. It was when things went downhill, when we suddenly had to think very carefully about what sort of food we buy, when I had to go out and work so we could pay the rent, that I realised that being poor is not a valid excuse. And rewarding people for giving up on themselves is just not right.

I am worth something. I can decide how much I am worth. Everyone can. If people are worthless, it's because they see themselves that way. Poverty is a mental state.

The right to be lazy is part of genuine freedom, and in a free society would not be alienable.
Everyone's got the right to be lazy. But exercising rights comes with consequences.

"Jealousy" is not the issue; injustice is.
In a way, it's two sides of the same coin, isn't it. I mean, we have no idea what real justice is - ultimately what you see to be just is just as arbitrary as jealousy is.

If the system cannot handle actual human behavior, is that not a problem?
It can handle it quite fine. It just shifts the burden of the consequences of one's actions firmly to the individual in question.

I hate it. It's a mindset that ruins people, that forces them to suppress themselves in order to succeed. It makes the desire for internal goods and the desire for external rewards run contrary to one another. It leads to depraved human relations and despicable oppression and cruelty.
"The one that "class" doesn't matter, that one can and should be anything one wants, and that one should be prepared to work hard for it."

What is the alternative? Is it really a good idea to tell people that their fellow man is more important than themselves? That the reason one lives and works is just to serve someone else?

Material wealth and technology are very low on my list of priorities. Human needs and human freedom are infinitely more important.
Which is fine. Everyone has their own priorities.

But insofar as they conflict with reality, you'll have to bear the consequences of not caring for material wealth. You'll be poor in material wealth - and if you really don't care about it, then that wouldn't be a problem.

But I suspect that you do care about material wealth, because almost every human being does.

By whom? How? When? Why?

by people (typically of the elite, but not always).
through the use of violence and political action and subterfuge and the whole host of other methods available to people to get what they want.
over time, starting from various reforms made to earlier systems and their rules.
usually to benefit themselves, though sometimes out of a sense of principle.


Fact is that no one sat down and thought of a theoretical system like ours and imposed it. It's not like all the other ideological systems, be they state-based or anarchism-based.

It evolved naturally over hundreds of years.

same with feudalism. what of it?

Which would last about three days before it starts reverting back to the sort of society that has developed today.

archaeology says you're wrong. if you don't impose a forced concept of social strata on a society, it looks like it'll get along just fine without them indefinitely. to get to our world required numerous different impositions of forced social strata over the course of thousands and thousands of years.

archaeology says you're wrong. if you don't impose a forced concept of social strata on a society, it looks like it'll get along just fine without them indefinitely.
Unless some sort of environmental pressure requires a society to make progress.

Unless some sort of environmental pressure requires a society to make progress.

nope, cause even in that as yet unseen situation, you'd still have the forced imposition of them on people by the would-be elites

nope, cause even in that as yet unseen situation, you'd still have the forced imposition of them on people by the would-be elites
Speaking of archaeology...I watched a documentary a while ago about a group of city states in the southern caucasus area.

They found something quite astonishing - in early times, as trade routes ran through this area and supplied these cities with everything they could want it was a society run by women. Female statues and godesses dominated.

Then, as the trade routes dried up, and life got harder, male gods and male leaders started to become more and more prominent, leading the scientists to assume that males started to take a dominant position. Yet there was no evidence of some sort of violent overthrow - it just happened over time.

Human societies have to react to external pressures by rearranging themselves. It's quite simple.

Fine, it's a vicious cycle. Which is not to say that rich families can't be dysfunctional.

Absolutely they can be, and they have the resources to handle it much better than poor families can.

And yet, it is only a contributing factor, it is not a given that poor families have to be dysfunctional. Which means that there is something else in there.

Why take the risk?

So you would consider giving a violent drunkard less of a punishment because he lost his job? That's ridiculous.
There is plenty of people who lose their jobs and don't end up violent drunkards. Indeed, the majority of people who lose their jobs get on with their life and find new ones, at least in the US.

You are asking a question about moral merit, and then turning it into a question of punishment? All punishment is unjust, and no one deserves it - its only legitimate function is as a deterrent.

Correlation does not imply causation. It is not a given that poor people have to be unable to understand the basics of finance.

No, but access to that kind of knowledge is still strongly tied to class.

That's where your problem is: You don't have a high enough opinion of yourself.

Hah, most people say the opposite. :)

I do actually have quite a high opinion of myself. I just try to avoid conceiving of it in terms of "superior/inferior" - I am good at what I enjoy.

You don't think you have the right to a good life, despite clearly being a capable human being.

Yes, I do. I absolutely think I have the right to a good life. I just don't think I have the right to deny "a good life" to anyone else, and I don't think material comforts are necessarily relevant to living a good life.

You think you have some sort of responsibility for those who are not as good as you.

"Good" and "bad" are only relevant to moral merit, if anything at all. They have nothing to do with competence in academic subjects or the capability to produce economic value in a given society.

Every human being has a responsibility to her fellow. If I will freedom and happiness for myself (and I do), I must will it for all others as well. That does not mean that I must will it for others and not for myself, whatever the Objectivist straw man insists. The former is altruism, the latter is slavishness.

Guess what - if you're not going to value yourself, no one else will value you either.

While my family still had it good, and everything was fine, I was quite the socialist. It was when things went downhill, when we suddenly had to think very carefully about what sort of food we buy, when I had to go out and work so we could pay the rent, that I realised that being poor is not a valid excuse. And rewarding people for giving up on themselves is just not right.

They should not be put into the position in the first place.

I am worth something. I can decide how much I am worth. Everyone can. If people are worthless, it's because they see themselves that way. Poverty is a mental state.

As I said on the other thread, you can imagine what you want, but reality remains reality. It won't get you a decent-paying job.

Everyone's got the right to be lazy. But exercising rights comes with consequences.

And those consequences should not be economic deprivation. It indicates that our society has misplaced its priorities - it has put the maximization of material wealth above the welfare of its members.

In a way, it's two sides of the same coin, isn't it. I mean, we have no idea what real justice is - ultimately what you see to be just is just as arbitrary as jealousy is.

It is not that we have no idea, it is that the concept itself is necessarily subjective. No position is objectively true, but no position is objectively false either.

I really don't care if it's "arbitrary" in some logical sense, all valuation is. What I am concerned about is its moral arbitrariness, and there jealousy qualifies, but justice (tautologically) does not.

It can handle it quite fine. It just shifts the burden of the consequences of one's actions firmly to the individual in question.

No, it doesn't. It shifts the consequences of the parents' actions to the individual in question.

"The one that "class" doesn't matter,

"Class" should be abolished, so that it really does not matter.

that one can and should be anything one wants,

No, "one can and should be anything one wants" within the limits of moral decency.

and that one should be prepared to work hard for it."

Why?

What is the alternative? Is it really a good idea to tell people that their fellow man is more important than themselves? That the reason one lives and works is just to serve someone else?

Again, that is not altruism, that is slavishness.

One is self-love combined with a belief in human equality. I would not want x to happen to me, so my natural empathy and compassion demands that it not happen to others, either.

What you describe involves servility - it makes me evaluate myself as a lower being than others, meant to serve, and only to serve. That is merely the inculculation of obedience.

Which is fine. Everyone has their own priorities.

But insofar as they conflict with reality, you'll have to bear the consequences of not caring for material wealth. You'll be poor in material wealth - and if you really don't care about it, then that wouldn't be a problem.

But I suspect that you do care about material wealth, because almost every human being does.

Every human being cares about a decent existence, yes, but we are not naturally concerned about fancy cars or large houses. The human species went without for tens of thousands of years.

The problem with poverty today is that our societies are defined by their material conditions, and so-called "relative" poverty marginalizes and excludes people. Objective material poverty in a classless society, as long as everyone has her basic needs met, is not all that bad.