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.
And of course there is a chicken and egg question to ask about people who live in poverty. I would argue that a lot of poor people I know, including myself when I was living it, struggle to resist impulses and have many impulses to struggle with. When I lived in scarcity, I was in a constant state of want. When I got a buck or two, I had a harder time making the right choice in what to do with it. But when I achieved relative prosperity? Now I rarely want anything. I never feel like eating out, it always seems like a waste of money. I can go to a store and not want to buy much.
This may also be partly a function of maturation (nice way of saying "getting older"). My wife and I regard ourselves as out of the acquisitive phase of our lives, relatively speaking ... very much like you, we aren't really tempted by many of the luxuries we could afford ... they seem like a waste. We never had to navigate actual poverty (though both of us were definitely lower middle class at times early on, and neither of us had -- or expected -- help from our relatively prosperous parents). But even so we tended to be more vulnerable to the constant messages society sent us to be acquisitive, than we are now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
That's before we even get to the fact that no one truly at society's "top" tier has much cause to want those most wealthy and successful to outnumber the poor. Exploitation of the relatively poor masses is the single most effective way to get and stay wealthy. If you are a rancher, you do not want fewer cattle and more ranchers around. That makes no sense. And this rule applies no matter if you've got a capitalist society or some kind of empire, monarchy, dictatorship, and I don't know that there's ever been a large scale society, even one that tried to embrace the ideals of communism, that did not end up this kind of pyramid shaped business with a prosperous and powerful few and masses who labor to support them. (I would LOVE if anyone could show me an example of any large scale social model that was anything else!)
There's no perfect system I've heard of that would prevent the accumulation / concentration of wealth in the wealthy. I don't know that it exists. However there are pretty good systems that we haven't really yet fully achieved and maintained long enough to see it through. I think that capitalism + effective regulation + good tax policy can compensate for the incentives the wealthy have to accumulate more than they personally need, to abuse the environment and workers, etc. We did a better job of this in the post-WW2 era, where the marginal tax rates were well into the 90s above a certain income level, unions were at the height of there powers, etc. (although we didn't in that era, really even perceive an environmental problem). And those were prosperous times. But we allowed the wealthy to erode those imposed limitations and responsibilities until we have the situation that exists today. Some European and Scandinavian countries held out longer but their systems are faltering and under assault too. We didn't hold the line there.
And the thing is, if the current trends away from democracy and toward authoritarian regimes continues (and it's a very dramatic trend over the past 20 years, and accelerating), there will be a likely protracted period of human suffering and misery and I don't know that these lessons will be perceived, much less retained, on the other side of that (assuming we even GET to the other side). As Franklin said after the Constitution was adopted, "you have a democracy -- if you can keep it". And that is the perpetual problem.
I had a disturbing experience not long ago. My son (22) has been diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder. For those who don't know, this means a schizophrenic component AND an "affective" component such as depression and/or anxiety. In his case, he does not hallucinate voices or things that are not there, but if off his meds and especially if he's taking the wrong ones or self medicating with drugs, he'll be intensely paranoid, delusional and fearful. To a point where he cannot speak or act normally. He is not a violent person, I've never felt in any danger from him.
Well, he unfortunately was involved with a girl who was a hardcore alcoholic and user of all kinds of harder drugs like LSD and meth. These kids were living out of her car for a bit, and she was driving around under the influence of all this crap. She would hit him, quite often. She'd start fights in public, she would put herself in danger. In one of these altercations when my son was trying to restrain her from running off into the road and beating on him and acting wild, the police were called and when they arrived, it was their understanding that HE had been seen hitting HER. They took her home, but he ended up (after a couple of hospital stays) in jail overnight before we bonded him out. No one was hurt, and no one wanted to press any charges, but in Colorado it's a mandatory arrest and charge for anything DV related. Good policy but...well, it does not allow much room for some of the complications that can arise between messy people.
I watched the video feed of the bond hearing. My kid looked like a deer in the headlights. But there were a whole series of offenders who came before him who also said they had schizo-affective disorder, and most of them were up on pretty serious charges, some of them repeat offenders, most really rough looking, some acting visibly erratic. I did not see where the claim of this mental illness helped anyone's bond case any. But I was really struck at how different these other people seemed, from my kid...who never seemed THAT bad at his worst, and who when on his meds and not on other things seems normal, even charming. Sweet and well mannered.
I really thought about what made this difference. My son has always had a certain amount of family support, although it has been stretched pretty thin in recent years and he's made some bad choices that have led to bad situations. But we've always tried to be there for him. I dunno, I think that if I could choose a perfect place for him to be, it would be one that is not unduly cruel, but one with a pretty strict structure and routine. Rules to follow and no option to not comply with them. I just wish that there were such a place that was not set up to be a form of punishment.
Thank you for sharing that story.
I was thinking of the admonition people would get back when I was a kid living in west-central New York State -- a warning that you might end up in "Willard". Willard was a mental hospital in our area that must have been just horrible. And one of our neighbors -- Bob -- had been there for a 'nervous breakdown'. It was sad how, after he was released, Bob was virtually shunned, and while he was certainly odd, he was almost certainly harmless.
This may also be partly a function of maturation (nice way of saying "getting older"). My wife and I regard ourselves as out of the acquisitive phase of our lives, relatively speaking ... very much like you, we aren't really tempted by many of the luxuries we could afford ... they seem like a waste. We never had to navigate actual poverty (though both of us were definitely lower middle class at times early on, and neither of us had -- or expected -- help from our relatively prosperous parents). But even so we tended to be more vulnerable to the constant messages society sent us to be acquisitive, than we are now.
Not just getting older, though. My Mom has spent her entire life in this state of crisis and scarcity. It has usually involved babies and/or pets that she could not well afford to care for, and decisions that most would find strange and hard to understand about where she did put her time and money. She is 65. Like I can't imagine her being able to retain and grow wealth, or even be out of debt. I don't see it happening.
Quote:
There's no perfect system I've heard of that would prevent the accumulation / concentration of wealth in the wealthy. I don't know that it exists. However there are pretty good systems that we haven't really yet fully achieved and maintained long enough to see it through. I think that capitalism + effective regulation + good tax policy can compensate for the incentives the wealthy have to accumulate more than they personally need, to abuse the environment and workers, etc. We did a better job of this in the post-WW2 era, where the marginal tax rates were well into the 90s above a certain income level, unions were at the height of there powers, etc. (although we didn't in that era, really even perceive an environmental problem). And those were prosperous times. But we allowed the wealthy to erode those imposed limitations and responsibilities until we have the situation that exists today. Some European and Scandinavian countries held out longer but their systems are faltering and under assault too. We didn't hold the line there.
And the thing is, if the current trends away from democracy and toward authoritarian regimes continues (and it's a very dramatic trend over the past 20 years, and accelerating), there will be a likely protracted period of human suffering and misery and I don't know that these lessons will be perceived, much less retained, on the other side of that (assuming we even GET to the other side). As Franklin said after the Constitution was adopted, "you have a democracy -- if you can keep it". And that is the perpetual problem.
I agree with this. That's why I feel like if we can only maintain this delicate framework we've got here, we might have a chance. But the government has got to serve the people, the masses, the most vulnerable, not just the richest. It has to serve as a check, to keep a balance. And that's hard, because if you are someone who wants to get into it for the right reasons, to serve the people, you will be attacked by the unscrupulous who want to rule and not represent, who want the power for their own sakes. It's a fairly punishing job and a hell of an uphill battle, I think.
I think there is definitely more mental illness going on. For example, I have noticed that almost daily now, murder suicides are in the news. These used to be a rarity and made front page news. Now they're commonplace. Often it's fathers, sometimes mothers, sometimes a child, taking out a whole family. It's definitely a sign of the times and the erosion of the lines between right and wrong. Behind this, everywhere are the signs of evil influences and a coming apart of the veil of civility and once strong moral codes. The adage that we are upside down in a world where evil is promoted as good, and goodness as evil, is not too far off.
But beyond the crazies, I find most people these days to just be extremely shallow. It's like they don't want to think about anything below the surface. Ever. Distractions are welcomed, hard truths are shunned.
Talk about the weather, sports, some stupid TV show, TiKtok craze, or other mundane thing and they are fine. Try to engage them in talking about the things that are seriously going on and that will impact our lives soon if we don't start paying attention to them, and they zone out, or look confused. You can tell fairly quickly that you've penetrated their little "bubble" world. It's frustrating and a little frightening. It's also exhausting when you are not one for meaningless chit-chat.
I guest that's why forums like this are good places for connecting with others who are at least thinking about some of the things that matter, and can debate and talk about them.
People were a lot more active starting in childhood, both at home and at work. Its not smoking. We also ate out less and when we did the portions were smaller.
Piggybacking off the above: 'Researchers say 100 years ago, people got five times more exercise every day, just in the course of daily living.' That's 100 years ago as of 2010, but I doubt American exercise habits have changed meaningfully in the past fourteen years
You're kidding me. You chat up a stranger, lead with politics(literally the most dividing subject on earth), and you are SURPRISED when people lash out at you?
You're kidding me. You chat up a stranger, lead with politics(literally the most dividing subject on earth), and you are SURPRISED when people lash out at you?
Did I get that right?
Yes and no? I didn't get the impression that his sample size of social encounters was 1. I sympathize with the premise of the OP, for what it's worth, even if it's slightly hyperbolic.
I think, in general, people don't know how to communicate.
Communication includes listening AND speaking. Many can speak, few can listen.
When they do listen, their lack of comprehension leads them straight to anger. Rather than thinking about what you're saying, or asking you to restate your position, they choose anger/rage over thoughtful reflection.
Their lack of listening skills means that on the rare occasion they do consume news, they don't have the critical thinking skills to process the validity of the information they're being fed.
Two normal /rational people can discuss sensitive topics all day long without rancor or rage. The fact that some topics are "too sensitive for the dinner table" is a sad reflection on our society
This is the problem. People no longer know how to communicate.
Sometimes, I'll say something, general courtesies, and the other has a blank look on their face, and appears to have no idea how to respond to that. 'How are you? That color looks great on you.'
Them: ....
Me: ....
Them: (mouth hanging open, confused look on face, fear in eyes) ....
I walk away after that.
It was not always this way. Some people out there still know how to communicate, but the numbers are dwindling. It's not an age thing, either. All ages have people who know how to communicate, easily, and have a good sense of humor. All ages have people who have that vacant look behind their eyes.
The first time I saw that look, (I'd read about those types of looks but had never seen one in the wild), it was disturbing to the point that I've never forgotten it. Absolutely nothing going on in that head of theirs, and that is creepy as hell.
I long ago stopped trying unless I had to talk because of my job. Dealing with people is exhausting enough as it is.
I've lived in at least half the states in the US, and while there were differences in culture and ethnic backgrounds, people seemed to be about the same wherever you went. By that I mean, if you happened to strike up a conversation on public transit, or on the plane/train, or in a restaurant, people seemed OK mentally. Invariably, you had something in common w/ them. But for the last few years, the vast majority of people I talk to are half crazy. So this is not a local thing, it seems to be a trend.
Sometimes I wonder if I went to sleep and woke up on another planet. You can't talk politics w/ people because very weird stuff happens. Now that's a tricky subject anyway, but that's just one example. Nowadays, 2 or 3 minutes into a conversation w/ these folks I either start agreeing w/ them in the hope that will let them wind down, or I do the fake phone call thing just so I can bow out gracefully, if not honestly. People have certainly changed physically. Just look at youtube videos of bands in the 60's 80's. Everyone looks like they should gain about 30 lbs, but I think this was the normal back in the day. Now, a lot of people look poofed up. Maybe its due to the growth hormones we ingest when we eat factory farmed livestock?
Has it always been like this? It seems I would have noticed if it was. But my experiences say there are a lot of people running around that appear normal, but you quickly see they're off in another zone.
No doubt that the average person is heavier now than 40 or 50 years ago, but that's inconsistent with "looked like they should gain about 30 pounds" back then. No, that previous appearance actually reflected a healthy weight. The gaining of 30 pounds has caused the "poofed up" look.
In addition to more sedentary lifestyles contributing to the piling on of extra bodyfat, more Americans are lifting weights these days, many of them wanting to "bulk up" for some reason. Guys mostly, to look more macho I guess. They add muscle plus a bit of fat, also contributing to the average person's weight going up.
I rarely talk to strangers in public, but my impressions don't match with yours. People are mostly normal and nice. I'm surprised that "closet crazies" would expose themselves to you so quickly in such conversations. Don't most people keep their own pet conspiracy theories to themselves, or share only with close friends and relatives?
Open crazies, well I would imagine you can spot them and look to avoid engaging with these people.
Bringing up politics with strangers makes me think the answer to your thread title question is: "It's just you." I'd ask them about where they're from, maybe their pets, kids, favorite activities.
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.
I'd ask them about where they're from, maybe their pets, kids, favorite activities.