Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure it's class envy; it's vilifying the rich. I don't think these protesters want to be the CEO of Bain Capital and are angry that they can't; I think they want to be able to eek out a middle class living working a job that used to afford you one in their parents or grandparents' era.
It's not hard to be empathetic of this view; the quality of life my grandfather was able to provide to his family as a truck driver far exceeds what would be available today. Meanwhile the richest are earning staggering amounts of money. However, I don't blame the "1%" or the government for this change, and I'm not particularly angry.
I'm hoping the movement will get the ball rolling on a few populist causes, most notably a slightly less regressive tax structure (I also think Obama would be wise to adopt Romney's idea of dropping capital gains taxes on those with under $200k of annual income). Quite frankly, many democrats are sort of clueless to what a lot of left-leaning folks like myself are looking for. They have no choice but to listen to Occupy (just as GOP was influenced by TEA), so if there's a few things that get done as a result, great.
I'm not sure it's class envy; it's vilifying the rich. I don't think these protesters want to be the CEO of Bain Capital and are angry that they can't; I think they want to be able to eek out a middle class living working a job that used to afford you one in their parents or grandparents' era.
It's not hard to be empathetic of this view; the quality of life my grandfather was able to provide to his family as a truck driver far exceeds what would be available today. Meanwhile the richest are earning staggering amounts of money. However, I don't blame the "1%" or the government for this change, and I'm not particularly angry.
I'm hoping the movement will get the ball rolling on a few populist causes, most notably a slightly less regressive tax structure (I also think Obama would be wise to adopt Romney's idea of dropping capital gains taxes on those with under $200k of annual income). Quite frankly, many democrats are sort of clueless to what a lot of left-leaning folks like myself are looking for. They have no choice but to listen to Occupy (just as GOP was influenced by TEA), so if there's a few things that get done as a result, great.
If people today were content having 1 bathroom in their house, sleeping 2-3 kids to a bedroom, owning one car, eating at home, getting free TV channels from broadcast networks, having one phone for the family, the "middle class" dream would be alive and well.
Take the living conditions I described above, normal for much of the 20th century, and you would be "poor" today.
These folks mean "middle class" to be a bedroom for every member of the family, 2 or 3 bathrooms, minimum. A car for every adult, a cell phone for every household member over the age of 10. Cable or Dish TV (flatscreen, of course.) Oh, did I add eating out, taking vacations, commuting 45 miles to work.....you get the picture.
I call it class envy because that is what I hear, "Those people have too much." "Greedy Pigs" that kind of stuff. Every once and awhile, someone will try to make the connection between wealth concentration and the "death" of the middle class. Some of it has to do with globilization, outsourcing, profit maximization, etc.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that the same people that complain and protest are chosing to put themsleves into debt to buy the gadgets and creature comforts that are making the corporations and 1% rich!
But I do agree on one thing, I doubt any of the those people really want to be a corporate CEO, it is a tough job with TONS of responsibility. If the CEO screws up, the "little guy" losses their job. If the CEO succeeds, they are greedy jerks. Can't win either way.
If people today were content having 1 bathroom in their house, sleeping 2-3 kids to a bedroom, owning one car, eating at home, getting free TV channels from broadcast networks, having one phone for the family, the "middle class" dream would be alive and well.
Take the living conditions I described above, normal for much of the 20th century, and you would be "poor" today.
These folks mean "middle class" to be a bedroom for every member of the family, 2 or 3 bathrooms, minimum. A car for every adult, a cell phone for every household member over the age of 10. Cable or Dish TV (flatscreen, of course.) Oh, did I add eating out, taking vacations, commuting 45 miles to work.....you get the picture.
I call it class envy because that is what I hear, "Those people have too much."
All good points about living within means, etc - and that is how we live, so I know it well - That doesn't describe my grandfather's living situation. They had vacations, color TV, giant cars - all the trappings of 50's life on the GI bill mortgage plan. There was a time when this life was more available to more people, cheaper - you do agree on that, right? There are economic reasons for the change and one need not assign blame to them. But people are emotional, so they do.
I'm not condemning them. I think there are limits to how much money someone should be able to have which should be very high but determining that has issues. Passing down absurd wealth to generation after generation doesn't seem right to me.
I do think that sometimes innovation happens to be lucky or unlucky. Somethings make it and others don't.
Ambition and work ethic are reasons why people get wealthy too, that's why I said "or"
Only if people could find a happy medium.
bye, bye middle class
Wow...I can't even wrap my brain around this concept that you have a right to determine how much money I should have or should be able to pass down to my heirs.
It's my money, not yours and not "society's". Mine. I earned it.
Can you even articulate a cogent reason beyond "doesn't seem right" that can justify the position that you have a moral right to determine how much money I, or anyone, should be able to have?
Yeah...the middle class really has it bad these days.
-Central air
-Cable TV
-Widescreen TVs
-Wireless internet, likely with laptops
-Minimum of 2 cars for the family and likely at least one for one of the kids.
-Cell phone for each member of the family.
-Bedroom likely for each child
-Almost always a master bathroom
-Eat dinner out at a restaurant probably a minimum of two times a week
-iPods for every member of the family, presuming that their phones don't pull double duty
Now let's examine the typical middle class car -
-air conditioning
-power windows
-power steering
-power brakes
-automatic transmission
-tinted windows
-nice stereo, likely with digital music input and perhaps SIRIUS
-strong likelihood of DVD player
-safety features up the wazoo
-upholstered wrap around seats
For us middle class children of the 60s, 70s and 80s......let's compare our standard of creature comforts then to now.
I for one know I am living a MUCH more comfortable life than my parents and grand parents ever could have dream of. By the standards of 20-30 years ago, we are stinking rich.
Whether there are a few very wealthy people making a billion dollars a year is irrelevant to me. I'm doing really well on two very middle class incomes that are actually on the low side for the DC area.
Wow...I can't even wrap my brain around this concept that you have a right to determine how much money I should have or should be able to pass down to my heirs.
Can you even articulate a cogent reason beyond "doesn't seem right" that can justify the position that you have a moral right to determine how much money I, or anyone, should be able to have?
Passing down billions to johnny the XX because of his parents or family history is greedy. Someone earned it, should enjoy it, but there needs to be limits on creating a monarch out of it. Higher taxes will even out society so you balance the playing field. Getting the poor to want to work and make something for themselves will benefit everyone. If you didn't have this then you would have the elite and untouchables, does it sound archaic, yeah, it is.
Money is earned thru society and it plays a big part on wealth. It seems like you don't see this.
I haven't heard anyone say the middle class has it bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Bowman
It's my money, not yours and not "society's". Mine. I earned it.
Passing down billions to johnny the XX because of his parents or family history is greedy. Someone earned it, should enjoy it, but there needs to be limits on creating a monarch out of it. Higher taxes will even out society so you balance the playing field. Getting the poor to want to work and make something for themselves will benefit everyone. If you didn't have this then you would have the elite and untouchables, does it sound archaic, yeah, it is.
Money is earned thru society and it plays a big part on wealth. It seems like you don't see this.
I haven't heard anyone say the middle class has it bad
cry me a river
you sound like a baby.
Money is not earned "thru society." It is earned through innovation and HARD WORK.
He doesn't sound like a baby. You sound like a common thief who thinks the government's job is to make sure everyone has the same amount of money.
Let's follow your logic: I think your apartment or house is too big and half of it should be given to someone less fortunate than you. You don't need all that space, and I say you're being greedy. If you don't agree, that's too bad.
Is this really the society you want to live in? Where the government dictates who makes enough money and has enough stuff? That society isn't America. It's some Orwellian nightmare that you liberals think would be utopia.
Money is not earned "thru society." It is earned through innovation and HARD WORK.
I'm saying society and wealth are connect in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230
He doesn't sound like a baby. You sound like a common thief who thinks the government's job is to make sure everyone has the same amount of money.
Let's follow your logic: I think your apartment or house is too big and half of it should be given to someone less fortunate than you. You don't need all that space, and I say you're being greedy. If you don't agree, that's too bad.
Is this really the society you want to live in? Where the government dictates who makes enough money and has enough stuff? That society isn't America. It's some Orwellian nightmare that you liberals think would be utopia.
The money the rich have is, for the most part, invested overseas in third world countries where there is greater return on investment. (Think Romney and his Cayman Island portfolios.) I have not seen much job creation done at home by the so-called "job-creators." Where has all that money gone that the Bush tax cuts gave to the wealthy over the last ten years?
Nine out of ten economists (and one GOP president) have called the "trickle-down" theory voodoo economics. This country was more prosperous when income tax rates were more progressive, and CEO's made 50 times the average wage of workers and not 500 times.
Now the middle class is shrinking and becoming financially insecure, while kids can't afford college (even community college) without incurring monstrous debt. Kids today are increasing facing a life less full than their parents.
You gotta be really, really dumb to elect in 2012 the same guys that screwed this economy between 2000 and 2008.
Passing down billions to johnny the XX because of his parents or family history is greedy. Someone earned it, should enjoy it, but there needs to be limits on creating a monarch out of it. Higher taxes will even out society so you balance the playing field. Getting the poor to want to work and make something for themselves will benefit everyone. If you didn't have this then you would have the elite and untouchables, does it sound archaic, yeah, it is.
Money is earned thru society and it plays a big part on wealth. It seems like you don't see this.
I haven't heard anyone say the middle class has it bad
cry me a river
you sound like a baby.
You think we don't already have elites? How about the hypocrites that preach your mantra of "economic justice" while simultaneously lining their own pockets like Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Bloomburg, and on and on?
I'll take an honest greedy capitalist who is honest about his motivation before a left-wing opportunist who feels that he has the right to dictate the terms of my life while simultaneously pursuing the exact methodology that they decry.
My wealth is not society's nor are the terms of how I conduct my life within the boundaries of the law. If I earn the money and want to hoard it so that I can pass it down to my heirs, what moral right do you have to seize it for the "public good".
If I'm single and have a three bedroom house, do you have the right to dictate that I downsize?
If I have a generator and the power goes out, do you have the right to demand that I run an extension cord to my neighbors' homes? (which I now do voluntarily, mind you)
If I have 6 months worth of food and for some reason the grocery stores are bare, do you have a right to take that food from me in the name of "justice"?
Your thought process is morally corrupt and indicative of the state of this country where people believe that they have no responsibility for their own welfare and success and that it is the role of the government to guarantee those things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
