Pfft... you work in fast food?

[Lyndon]

While Bill gates might be personally quite generous as Billionaires go. I would hardly consider Microsoft corporation a force for good in the world, so that kind of drains his image in my mind.

 

[Kapalika]

Hmm...ok. I ask primarily to work out where I sit in your eyes. I am one of those middle class folks, I guess. Not top 2% though, so maybe I'm excused.
My family was strictly working class (but not poor...just very basic, single income, blue collar) I worked as a storeman and served pies at the footy to pay my way through uni. The teaching degree I ended up with made for decent pay, but I left and went into private industry.

It isn't the amount of money you make that determines how I view you in that aspect of character, it's your attitude towards that money and what you do with it. I would like to make a lot of money, six+ figures if I could but I know what I would be doing with it and it wouldn't be sitting in a bank but go towards a communal goal I have on my bucket list. I have no use and see no use in a million dollar house, or in a really expensive car, or in anything that doesn't make me healthy or happy.

People get it wrong but having nice things doesn't make you happy; it can be fun but the novelty and enjoyment you get from very nice things wears off over time. That's why a lot of well off people get so bored and depressed. They could have all everyone would ever want and so burn out due to lack of purpose or meaning.

Though interestingly, poverty also leads to a lot of depression. I think really it's extremes of wealth or lack of that is unhealthy, not having wealth.

It strikes me as strange to complain about the rich and their attitude to the poor. I would say that the gap between low and high wages is societally unhealthy, even moreso in America than here.

It makes since if you hear the political rhetoric of the right-wing and GOP to be concerned about this attitude. The class divide became very apparent in the mainstream with Occupy Wallstreet but really there are many movements and always were. Sanders is just a return to liberalism after a center-right democratic party contrasting a far-right GOP. This stands too with the economic policies.

Movements like The Coffee Party and The Other 98% are examples of some of those movements.

'Worth' and 'Deserve' are interesting words for you to use.

???

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It isn't the amount of money you make that determines how I view you in that aspect of character, it's your attitude towards that money and what you do with it. I would like to make a lot of money, six+ figures if I could but I know what I would be doing with it and it wouldn't be sitting in a bank but go towards a communal goal I have on my bucket list. I have no use and see no use in a million dollar house, or in a really expensive car, or in anything that doesn't make me healthy or happy.

Judging people based on action is okay. Stereotyping a group seems to be the same issue the OP complained about though. I don't see how stereotyping the rich for stereotyping the poor doesn't strike people as ironic. People are people, and near as I can tell the amount of money someone holds doesn't speak to their worth.

People get it wrong but having nice things doesn't make you happy; it can be fun but the novelty and enjoyment you get from very nice things wears off over time. That's why a lot of well off people get so bored and depressed. They could have all everyone would ever want and so burn out due to lack of purpose or meaning.

Though interestingly, poverty also leads to a lot of depression. I think really it's extremes of wealth or lack of that is unhealthy, not having wealth.

Wealth provides choice and power to some degree in our society. Extreme powerlessness, or the apathy and entitlement bought on by 'silver spoon' births may both be mentally unhealthy. However, I would suggest it is not wealth, per se, that is an issue, but lack of aspirational goals. That isn't a 'rich person's' issue any more than poor people are 'lazy'.

???

You quoted the least informative sentence of my paragraph, but I'll reword.
The OP states that people's worth can't be judged by their lack of money. I agree. I'd extrapolate this to say their worth can't be judged by a healthy bank account either. Money doesn't denote worth.

As for 'deserving' I merely illustrated why I am paid considerably more now than 15 years ago. I am the same person and I have the same 'worth', but in a practical sense I 'deserve' more money.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

>Gains millions off of the backs of slaves who will continue to have alarmingly terrible existences

Ultimately, who doesn't profit off or reap the benefits of that somewhere down along the lines?

 

[suncowiam]

>Is Bill Gates
>Gains millions off of the backs of slaves who will continue to have alarmingly terrible existences
>Donates a disproportionate amount to make up for it
>Public worships me for being such a good and intelligent person

Some of those "slaves" became millionaires. Folks with first degree contact with him during the DOS and first several windows era probably rode his coattail to some success.

Why is it when there's a conversation on income inequality, someone always make a comparison to slavery. Sorry, but I find that mocking and belittling to the real destructive impact of slavery. It trivializes what real slaves had to endure during their forced labor.

 

[Kapalika]

Judging people based on action is okay. Stereotyping a group seems to be the same issue the OP complained about though. I don't see how stereotyping the rich for stereotyping the poor doesn't strike people as ironic. People are people, and near as I can tell the amount of money someone holds doesn't speak to their worth.

It isn't stereotyping when you see what very prominent rich politicians and business men have said on the news, in speeches and in their own statements and even make it part of their platforms. And when you hear people you know who are very well off also echo these sentiments.

Then it's a trend. One that's been established for a very long time in American politics. It's actually a talking point of conservatives, and not just the crazy radio shows like Glenn Beck but I've heard everyday Republicans say this to my face or complain about it in public. A lot. So even non-rich echo these exact same sentiments because they are talking points and positions of conservatives in America.

Yes, it's really that bad in America.

That isn't a 'rich person's' issue any more than poor people are 'lazy'.

I would hope it would be hard pressed to find someone equating lack of aspiration while having everything you could ever want with lack of aspiration because of crushed hope and having little of what you need to survive.

You quoted the least informative sentence of my paragraph, but I'll reword.
The OP states that people's worth can't be judged by their lack of money. I agree. I'd extrapolate this to say their worth can't be judged by a healthy bank account either. Money doesn't denote worth.

As for 'deserving' I merely illustrated why I am paid considerably more now than 15 years ago. I am the same person and I have the same 'worth', but in a practical sense I 'deserve' more money.

Unfortunately many believe that everyone gets what they are worth/deserve and don't necessarily distinguish the terms. There's a historical quote about this to this effect but I can't seem to find it.

 

[BSM1]

Well most rich guys HAVE NEVER worked washing dishes at Denney's, so yes, some of their work seems rather easy by comparison.

And you know this how?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It isn't stereotyping when you see what very prominent rich politicians and business men have said on the news, in speeches and in their own statements and even make it part of their platforms. And when you hear people you know who are very well off also echo these sentiments.

Actually, applying what some are saying as a group judgement is the very definition of a stereotype.

Then it's a trend. One that's been established for a very long time in American politics.

For it to be a trend, you would need to be able to establish a growth in this attitude amongst the rich. Good luck with that. Whilst (as I've already said) considerations such as distribution of wealth are clearly trending in the wrong direction, establishing some general trend that the rich today think less of the poor today than the rich in the past have seems...well...difficult. That's not to say it's wrong necessarily, but how the heck can one tell? Negative judgement of the poor isn't a new thing. Pauper's prisons weren't as fun as they sound.

It's actually a talking point of conservatives, and not just the crazy radio shows like Glenn Beck but I've heard everyday Republicans say this to my face or complain about it in public. A lot. So even non-rich echo these exact same sentiments because they are talking points and positions of conservatives in America.

Yes, it's really that bad in America.

You're even suggesting that the problematic attitude is echoed by the non-rich. So we're moving from the rich having an attitude against the poor due to their wealth, to a more general anti-poor attitude due to conservative views. At best you're conflating wealth with conservatism. There is some correlation, but...dunno...seems like you're stretching to fit a narrative you're already convinced about.

I would hope it would be hard pressed to find someone equating lack of aspiration while having everything you could ever want with lack of aspiration because of crushed hope and having little of what you need to survive.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not for a second suggesting that a wealthy spoiled brat kid who trundles through life on mummy and daddy's money and ends up with a drug habit and depression due to a lack of aspirational goals is deserving of sympathy. And I have a massive amount of sympathy for people born into destitution who spend their lives fighting with little hope of true improvement in their situation.

That said, it in no way allows me to suggest that the poor are deserving, and only in their situation due to 'the system' and the rich are arrogant. It's stereotyping on too grand a scale. Particular situations are much more informative and interesting.

Unfortunately many believe that everyone gets what they are worth/deserve and don't necessarily distinguish the terms. There's a historical quote about this to this effect but I can't seem to find it.

Phhht...don't ever worry what 'many' believe. Considered opinions are worth considering, discard the rest. That is my point, though. Broad stereotyping helps nothing, and is in fact the very issue the OP has problems with (when the rich look down on the poor).

For me, it's obvious that people don't get 'what they deserve' in any direct fashion. But any form of pure socialism would also have this problem. It also fits into the 'pipe-dream' category, since it rarely seems to include any thought about how society transitions from current state to some sort of Louis Blanc-style resource sharing.

Personally, I see social mobility, and the associated measurable trends around it, as far more important areas to invest effort into. Any steps to improve this are welcome. I tend to focus on education access and it's role (because of my professional background) but there are obviously a myriad of different areas encompassed in this.

My assumption is that social mobility in the USA has declined, but that's an outsiders view, and based mostly on focus on a few small areas, rather than any informed overall view.

Anyways, a few articles I perused on the issue, which I've added here in case you're interested. To re-iterate, I'm an outsider, so whilst I'm broadly American-literate, it's obviously a skewed view.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...obile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured
http://www.economist.com/node/15908469
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/the..._mobility_is_beyond_ordinary_peoples_control/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/

 

[Astravalon]

Most days, I wish every food, retail, and convenience store/gas station worker would go on a national strike. Let us see just how much things don't get done, how many lives are disrupted, because the American economic "untouchables" told everyone to flip their own damn burger.

^This. It would be chaos.

These places are what keep society from having to do such
things as hunt / gather / grow their own food and make
their own clothing. I doubt that many of those questioning
the value of those jobs would make it through the week in
the kind of survivalist atmosphere that a strike like that
would cause. If it weren't for such allegedly "lowly" lines
of work, no one would have the time to do that which has
made them (from a materialistic standpoint) so successful.
They'd be too busy just trying to get by.


-

 

[Shadow Wolf]

^This. It would be chaos.

These places are what keep society from having to do such
things as hunt / gather / grow their own food and make
their own clothing. I doubt that many of those questioning
the value of those jobs would make it through the week in
the kind of survivalist atmosphere that a strike like that
would cause. If it weren't for such allegedly "lowly" lines
of work, no one would have the time to do that which has
made them (from a materialistic standpoint) so successful.
They'd be too busy just trying to get by.

I know it would be total chaos. That's why I want to see it happen. Even just one day without these "lowly" workers would be a huge inconvenience on most people. Do it for a week, and hopefully people would start to realize just how important they really are in upholding our current model and standards.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Years ago, almost all the wives in Iceland went on strike...

 

[Politesse]

It is perhaps normal for cultures worldwide to attach certain status and prestige to certain fields of employ, as well as certain taboo and denigration to others.

In my country, the stories we tell to people are "you need to get a job that pays a lot of money and has prestige." It is a powerful cultural mythology, that sweeps my countryfolk up from young age. They aspire to be things like doctors, veterinarians, engineers, and other supposedly prestigious, money-making careers. There is another story we tell to people that goes alongside the one above: "if you don't get a prestigious job that makes a lot of money, you are a lesser person and your education was a waste." We don't just tell people to aspire for particular positions of prestige, we tell them they are failures if they don't have those supposedly powerful and worthy types of jobs. The manager of a big box store? We stare down our noses at it. The person running the sales floor? We stare down our noses at them even harder.

Why do we do this?

I find it quite bothersome. What about you?

'Cause if it isn't a mark of shame to work in those jobs, it raises some awkward questions about why we don't bother to pay a fair wage the people who do.

 

[Lyndon]

And you know this how?

So you're claiming there's a possibility most rich people have worked as a dishwasher at Denney's, do you know how ridiculous that sounds!!

 

[suncowiam]

So you're claiming there's a possibility most rich people have worked as a dishwasher at Denney's, do you know how ridiculous that sounds!!

So much irony here. You're doing the same exact thing as the OP suggested.

Here, this should help explain the concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

What is it? You support stereotype due to income or not?

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, and you're supporting slave labour in China, I thought you fled a communist country???

 

[suncowiam]

Yeah, and you're supporting slave labour in China, I thought you fled a communist country???

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So much irony here. You're doing the same exact thing as the OP suggested.

Of course it doesn't apply to everyone, but there are a lot more rich kids who never worked such jobs than there are middle class and poor kids that have.

 

[suncowiam]

Of course it doesn't apply to everyone, but there are a lot more rich kids who never worked such jobs than there are middle class and poor kids that have.

Let me just say, I don't know what rich kids do or how they're brought up. I would only be assuming if I made a suggestion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let me just say, I don't know what rich kids do or how they're brought up. I would only be assuming if I made a suggestion.

I've actually known quiet a few. There are usually even different topics that are discussed between the wealthy and the poor. I've not known anyone who is Forbes rich, but I do know an entire family who wealthy enough that to those of a lower economic class there is no real difference between what they have a few more million pilled on top. The kids, most of the grand kids, and most of the great grand kids didn't work such jobs, and they road on the coattails of the family patron and matron.
And, pretty much, the only difference between those that have a world of wealth and those that are middle class or poor the lesser-well off ones got caught. They still drink, they still smoke pot, they still make all the "bad decisions," they just have to money to afford them on more than on occasion and for better quality.
Now, you compare that to my dad's family, with he himself having dropped out of high school to help financially support his family, and it's a completely different world and pretty much everybody except my dad is very poor (he and my immediate family got out when he got a job at Chrysler). There are still those "same mistake," but there is also much more real crime, more smoking, and more problems.
It's actually pretty interesting, because I have seen both ends. I've dined in both a castle and trailor parks. Certainly many wealthy people do work those sorts of jobs, but rich kids working them is like rich kids being sent off to war. Some do, but some of them also having mommy and daddy pulling bribes and strings so they don't have to go.

 

[suncowiam]

I've actually known quiet a few. There are usually even different topics that are discussed between the wealthy and the poor. I've not known anyone who is Forbes rich, but I do know an entire family who wealthy enough that to those of a lower economic class there is no real difference between what they have a few more million pilled on top. The kids, most of the grand kids, and most of the great grand kids didn't work such jobs, and they road on the coattails of the family patron and matron.
And, pretty much, the only difference between those that have a world of wealth and those that are middle class or poor the lesser-well off ones got caught. They still drink, they still smoke pot, they still make all the "bad decisions," they just have to money to afford them on more than on occasion and for better quality.
Now, you compare that to my dad's family, with he himself having dropped out of high school to help financially support his family, and it's a completely different world and pretty much everybody except my dad is very poor (he and my immediate family got out when he got a job at Chrysler). There are still those "same mistake," but there is also much more real crime, more smoking, and more problems.
It's actually pretty interesting, because I have seen both ends. I've dined in both a castle and trailor parks. Certainly many wealthy people do work those sorts of jobs, but rich kids working them is like rich kids being sent off to war. Some do, but some of them also having mommy and daddy pulling bribes and strings so they don't have to go.

Don't you think there's a little stereotyping with this? =)

Plus, as parents, we do things for our kids so that they won't have to face certain situations that we face. I mean, I wouldn't fault these rich parents for not forcing them into jobs that are meaningless to them. Some might do, just probably as a lesson but they have absolutely no need for an additional income. Maybe these rich kids are participating in extra-curricular academics like music or sports as their opportunity cost substitutes versus trying to earn more wage? I don't know?

I can tell you that I would not force my own kids through what I endured as a refugee. I still want them to learn important lessons in life, but given our current situation, they can forego many things I had to go through and just jump to other lessons.

Is that fair? I don't know. It's just so arbitrary, IMO.