I think focusing on income disparity or income growth over time is missing the point. I personally would rather be making 100k today than 100k in the 1950s. Hell, I think you'd be better off making 50k today than 100k in 1950s.
Many people in the lower or lower-middle class don't feel that they are really that bad off, despite what charlatans go on about. Sure, everyone complains that they don't make enough money or they work too hard, but that's not unique to any particular socio-economic class.
As Andy Warhol said:
"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it. "
Andy Warhol's quote is misleading by using only a single example.
How about luxury cars? Multi-million dollar homes? Lobster and steak at a 5-star restaurant? $200,000 dresses? $14,000 jewelry? Affording a personal makeup artist?
Is the average consumer drinking some Henri Jayer or Domaine? No. They aren't drinking $5,000-$15,000 wine.
On another note - I had no idea there was a bottle of wine worth more than my car. That's a little depressing.
I personally think all those things are overrated and more of status symbols. Think about technology, design, ideas, entertainment, coca-cola formula etc. Those are infinitely reproducible and are catered to the masses. On the subway I see all walks of life with the best cell phone(s) money can buy which is kind of great when you think about it. It's funny when companies like Vertu try to make cell "premium" technology items that are obviously inferior to your standard Samsung phone despite the little bit of leather and concierge service. But they get away with it and charge up to 12k for their phone. But I honestly don't think I'm missing out.
Also, I can't express how much satisfaction I get from beautifully made TV series. World class entertainment all for about $10 a month to HBO or Netflix.
> On the subway I see all walks of life with the best cell phone(s) money can buy which is kind of great when you think about it.
Is it great, or is it simply a case of poor financial management and/or contract incentives placed by bullying cell phone companies like Verizon to lock people into paralyzing contracts?
I am skeptical that a $600 iPhone is affordable to the masses when you factor in the insanely expensive cell phones plans that they're attached to in order to make the up-front costs seem affordable at the time of purchase.
Well the $600 is the retail price. It's $200 for most plans but you pay the remaining $400 over 2 years in the form of higher "on-contract" prices. $600 is a bargain considering that this is a super-computer from a few decades. Besides, I can't think of another consumer product that plays a more integral part of modern life (keeping in touch with friends, banking, entertainment, work, etc). Of course there are lower cost alternatives that are probably equally as functional
$600 is a third or a quarter of what a PC setup cost my dad 20ish years ago, and that didn't even have internet. And that's not even counting inflation.
I've had the opportunity to taste from a $500 bottle of wine. It it not substantially better than a $30 bottle. Same with a $150 steak vs. a $50 steak at a good restaurant.
I've had the opportunity to drive a luxury model car - and I can say it is definitely better than my junker. Having a large mansion is definitely better than a shared 1-bedroom apartment for an entire family.
Your argument about taste is missing my point: luxury brands and luxury class products only available to the rich exist and are different than a Coke.
Think of it like having a Coke or having a $4,000 Coke that tastes more or less the same. The argument was that it was the same product and that if you go to the store and buy a Coke, you're drinking the same Coke that Taylor Swift drinks when she goes to McDonalds, where she eats the same McDonalds you eat.
But if she buys a $14,000 bottle of wine - regardless if you think 2 buck Chuck tastes exactly like that bottle of wine - it is not the same. It's a different product. One marketed as more luxurious. Something outside of your reach.
A watch is a watch is a watch. Unless you have a Rolex.
A fancy watch that is better than the one the bum on the street is using that also appreciates in value rather than becoming worthless. (A Coke isn't a Coke in this case.)
This ebay discussion article points out the difference between a Rolex and a $20 Timex. Skip over prestige: quality and investment matter more in this case.
2. Quality... Well, my phone is my watch. Moot point. I'm not buying and discarding $20 Timex's every year. Not to mention this says you could keep the watch and your children could inherit and it would be worth more and it totally will still be a thing, just like beanie babies, right? What could go wrong?
3. Investment? There are plenty of other investment vehicles with a lower barrier of entry and less risk. Anything that is collectible can be called an investment, using this as a reason to buy a luxury watch is not very compelling.
Luxury items are just that... luxury items.
EDIT: Also that article is about buying pre-owned watches which means a serious investment in time and energy in finding a good quality watch from an individual who is willing to sell it at a low(ish) price. This makes the whole thing more of a hobby than anything else...
2. Do you bring your phone out during lengthy business meetings? I still see that as rude, even if all you are doing is checking the time. Checking a wristwatch is far more acceptable and subtle in that scenario. Perhaps you aren't in lengthy business meetings or perhaps your work environment is a bit more forgiving at looking at your phone during a meeting.
3. Beanie babies were a 90's fad based on thin air and speculation. Watches and other antiques with years of history backing up their ability to maintain and increase in value is a different kind of investment. Luxury items are luxury items. They tend to maintain or increase in value based on that merit alone. Beanie Babies aren't luxury items, thus are worthless only a few years after the collection fad died out.
It's written to answer why one would buy a pre-owned luxury watch but the reasons apply to new items as well.
All I'm saying is that a luxury watch doesn't bring anything fundamentally new to the table. There's no reason anyone would look at the Rolex on your wrist and be jealous of anything other than the status it implies. It's not like a starving person watching someone eat.
You seem to be missing the argument that a Coke is not a Coke when someone cannot afford the Coke and has to buy Shasta.
I'm not arguing in defense of luxury brands. I live an incredibly frugal lifestyle. But the argument that a Coke is a Coke does not hold up when you move outside of commodity goods and enter the realm of luxury goods.
Luxury goods are the counter example to a Coke being a Coke. The argument that a Coke is a Coke is that you are drinking the same Coke as the President of the United States of America. Even if you're just some bum off the streets.
That argument fails to hold for any luxury brand item. The bottle of wine you hold in your hand is not the same bottle of wine that the multi-billionaire is holding in theirs. The inequality and "spending money for spending moneys' sake" is explicitly encoded into the practice of selling "prestige"/luxury items. These items are designed to separate the wealthy and the poor. Coke isn't designed that way: it's a confirmation bias. Selecting data that supports a given claim while ignoring all data that counters the claim.
I make no argument as to whether luxury goods are a good or bad thing. Only that it is naive to think that income inequality is not widespread or a "problem" because "everyone drinks the same Coke". That is simply not true in many other markets and regarding many other goods: many of which are entirely designed and priced to be outside of the commonmans' income level.
>"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it. "
The richest consumers do not buy the same things as the poorest in many markets. Sure, they drink the same Coke. They don't drink the same wine. They don't buy the same cars. They don't buy Section 8 Houses. They don't buy single-ply toilet paper. They don't buy their generic no-name brand clothes at Walmart. They aren't flying coach.
The difference between all of those markets and Coke is there isn't a luxury brand soda. So of course the rich will drink the same Coke as the poor.
Hosted some guests the other night and made steak. They were amazed by how well it tasted. I took that as a compliment, because they regularly eat luxurious and expensive food (they work high up in the Cruise Line Industry.) Was asked what I put in the steak to make it taste so good.
I've had the same thing (although not with people so experienced with the stuff as you). It's kind of funny how badly people want to season their steaks when it just doesn't need it.
"How do you make that?" "Salt, cook one side, cook the other side, serve."
Yeah. Dry-brined the meat for 1 hour with kosher salt and then washed the steaks right before grilling. Seared both sides for a minute a piece, then cooked rest over low temperature. It was surprisingly good, even to me.
It is known that 90% or so of the price of luxury foodstuffs is the story attached to it; if you'd say "I butchered a prime cow myself in Argentina and dry-aged it in my secret room for 31 days" or something like that, it would've sounded more impressive.
But that's just the thing; most people are far too grounded to buy into that stuff. Or they couldn't afford it. I think there's more to food than just the food, and the story around it can influence one's experience of it.
I totally agree with you, but poor people aren't drinking $30 bottles of wine or eating $50 steaks. At least not the poor people I know. They'd drink <$5 bottles of wine and they would eat whatever steak was on sale at the grocery store for a few dollars a pound.
i beg to differ. whether or not it's worth $500 is another matter entirely, and totally subjective, but a bottle of cristal champagne tastes a hell of a lot better than a middling $30 bottle of bubbly you can buy at the supermarket. and fwiw, a bottle of cristal (or any $500 restaurant bottle) doesn't cost nearly that much if you buy it yourself. the real price is like $150-$250.
same goes for the steak. the last expensive steak i had was $120 menu price, a grass-fed wagyu-style aged tomahawk ribeye - it was significantly better tasting than a $50 'good restaurant' steak which is just a standard usda prime or lesser steal marked up by 2x.
a bottle of cristal or a high end aged steak - these things are unquestionably better than their downmarket alternatives - but where this value spectrum goes off the rails is when you get into the really expensive stuff, the stuff that only very rich people are competing to buy.
Similarly a gargantuan mansion only compels you to fill it with furnishings, it doesn't directly improve your quality of life... maybe it's just me personally but as long as I have enough space to live comfortably (subjective, of course) I don't see the appeal of having more space.
Furthermore, luxury cars don't particularly offer you anything but a status symbol... even if you can go 0 to 100 in under 5 seconds it won't matter in city driving.
The only thing that IS worth mentioning is affordable healthcare and education which have extremely high costs and equally huge impacts on QoL-- which is why there is so much conversation about those facets of life. No one cares that you could spend $200,000 on a dress.
That being said, as a Canadian, I don't really have to worry too much about the healthcare part and our tuition fees are generally much cheaper as well. The only compelling reason I have to aim for a "higher class" lifestyle is simply because I wouldn't be fulfilled working a "low class" job.
So if you're content working a mindless job and living in slightly sub-par conditions then there's no real reason to "rise up".
Please remember that prices are usually set based on what people are willing to pay. The original cost for the object is rarely reflected in the price. Especially for premium items.
Find me someone willing to pay $15,000 for a bottle of wine, and I will provide a bottle of wine they can buy for $15,000. I make no guarantees that it's not $3 Chuck.
These things are about the prestige of being able to spend so much money. It's a different class of economics.
Dopamine is dopamine. Why is moving your hedonic treadmill here or there "better"? Some want to move the rich guy's "backward" to "save the planet". Some want to move the poor girl's "forward" to "grow the economy". There is no bottle of wine worth more than your car, there are people for whom money is cheaper than you who will trade more money for a bottle of wine than you will for a car.
>There is no bottle of wine worth more than your car, there are people for whom money is cheaper than you who will trade more money for a bottle of wine than you will for a car.
Economically speaking, "this item is worth $x and won't be sold for less than $x", there is wine worth more than my car. That statement is an economic fact.
I'm not going to sit here and argue over the semantics of the word "worth". For someone to try and twist the context of my speech in such a way is being intellectually dishonest and they know it. Worth as in cost not personal value.
No. Prices are not economic fact. They are opinions. Prices in markets are in constant fluctuation. The price of gas is in part geographically determined. Wine and vehicles are the same way. Every price is relative to who is selling, who is buying, their moods, the setting, their histories... if one changes their opinion of a wine, its price probably changes. No one can say ever that "this will never sell for less than $X" with certainty. A luxury car may be donated, or given away. Some may even pay to have one taken off their hands. This may offer opportunities for arbitrage but the concept of worth independent of price must always be kept in view or the viewer is in an economic cave.
I don't think the issue is material comfort as much as it is worsening conditions and insecurity around employment.
A 1950s employee wasn't subjected to credit or other background checks to get hired, zero-hour contracts weren't around, and neither was the culture of working 60+ hours a week just to keep up appearances.
I see the rise in income inequality primarily as a reflection of the power dynamic between the wealthly and those that work for a living. The lower quintiles are getting the screws put down on them, and they're just taking it.
"A 1950s employee wasn't subjected to credit or other background checks to get hired, zero-hour contracts weren't around, and neither was the culture of working 60+ hours a week just to keep up appearances."
1950s employees were subject to skin color and gender tests to a much, much greater degree than today.
Further, family structure, church attendance, sexuality ... all of these were fairly stringent tests at that time.
Oh totally, I'm not defending the 1950s, and I'm certainly not defending the social values of that time.
But it seems like the sort of employment insecurity that was heaped on the non straight-male-WASPs has been extended to cover more people rather than eliminated as it should have been.
I'd frame that as a one-time transition from the 1960s to the 1980s, but things have been getting progressively worse for wage-earners from the 1990s onward as well.
A lot of people, including myself and I'm guessing you, would much rather be in 2015 than 1950 almost regardless of money, because we really like things like computers. To be poor today, or super rich in 1950? That's a really tough call, what with no internet access or game consoles. What good is being rich if you can't use that money to play GTA V on an unreasonably gigantic TV? What good is leisure time if I can't use it to hack on computers?
Lots of other people don't care nearly so much about those things. They might see the ability to access health care and higher education without going into bankruptcy to be more important. Health care technology is a lot better today, but access is not so good, and that was especially so before the recent reforms. If you make $50,000 a year in 2015 and break your leg there's a decent chance that you'll end up deep in debt because of it, which was not the case in 1950.
Would you rather have gadgets or a pension? Improved stroke treatment, or job security? Techies tend to value gadgets a lot and job security little, since getting a new job is usually pretty easy. A lot of other people would value it the other way.
I'm sure you're right that a lot of people on the poorer end of things don't feel all that bad off. The question is, why don't they? They've been getting shafted for decades, with zero or negative wage growth even while their employers figure out ways to make them ever more productive, so why don't they care?
The reason income inequality is a humongous problem is because it directly leads to inequality in power and influence. Rich people can lobby politicians much more effectively and use their wealth to get policies enacted that benefit them, usually at the expense of the poor. They can also manipulate the masses by subverting mass communication channels and convince people that their being rich benefits everyone (e.g. "trickle-down economics" and the general worship of and rhetoric around "job creators").
I know people that make $20k per year. Their rental house is full of old PCs, hand-me-down phones, and board games they got by splitting the price with others.
They're still better off than people making $20k in 1955.
People making $20k in 1955 probably weren't really risking utter financial collapse if they didn't get their next paycheck the way people who only make $20k are today.
Andy Warhol was a system fucker, not a sociologist. That's a clever comment, but it does not frame this picture in any way.
I think you aren't quite aware of what American poverty is, nor the message this article is trying to propagate.
It's not someone making 50k that is suffering, its someone making 12k and trying to support more than just themselves. They are making this income working multiple, minimum wage jobs and they have no recourse. It's a single mother with 3 kids who can't parent them because she works 14 hours a day. The kids grow up fatherless. Their role models are selling them sex, drugs and murder. Video games are their passion, not learning or educational development. This cycle repeats itself over generations.
The poor have some semblance of a roof, cheap fast food and entertainment and that is enough to make them complacent. To them, demanding better education, other options than minimum wage jobs, health care, or other social safety-net benefits aren't even arguments they can fathom to make.
It seems like I say this every time we have this thread, but anyway here goes:
The problem here is not that massive, nearly record-setting levels of wealth disparity are unfair, or even that people are unhappy. If everyone, or nearly everyone, is materially taken care of, it can be difficult to talk about fairness or happiness. What we're losing out on isn't fairness but self-determination - a democracy can't survive long if a fraction of a percent of the population controls half the wealth. Wealth may not literally equal power, but there is an exchange rate there and it stays pretty stable over time. If a concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power, that will undermine a democracy which can only work if power is relatively more diffuse. We may be finding out the hard way that capitalism and democracy are not compatible, and if they aren't then so far capitalism appears to be winning.
Most people would agree living today would be better than the 1950s. We have 60 years of social progress and 60 years of technological advancement.
Economic inequality isn't inherently bad, per se. But in America, it is usually a signifier for two things: the effects of poverty and corruption.
Yes, the rich and poor both drink Coca-Cola. But the poor get put into worse prisons, have access to worse lawyers, have juries that tend to be more biased against them, have worse schools, live in neighborhoods with higher crime rates and more corrupt police forces, have less access to healthcare, etc.
The rich, on the other the other hand, have access to lobbyists to use the government to their whim. Remember the poorly constructed bailout?
Of course you'd rather live in the present than in the past; you grew up in contemporary times and are accustomed to them. Everything else is foreign and thus intimidating. The fellow who grew up in the 1950s might symmetrically prefer their time to ours, again having been inculcated with the mindset of their own era; things like computers, cellphones, and the Internet which are indispensable to you may not mean quite as much to them. Such things may not be enough to cause them to overlook changes in the landscape of income inequality, career security, etc. So the mere fact that you, a native of the 2010s, prefer them to the 1950s doesn't make any strong point on its own.
How do you kow bko didn't grow up in the 50's? My parents did, and they sure as shit don't want to go back. I grew up in the 80's, before Internet and the access to knowledge it gives me, and before cell phones and the freedom of communication they give me. Guess which time period I find more to my liking.
You are right; I don't know bko was not around in the 1950s. I should clarify, however, that comparing adult life in the 2010s and adult life in the 1950s is different from comparing adult life in the 2010s and child life in the 1950s. It is possible, but unlikely, that bko was thinking about income and career stresses and managing a family and so on both in the 1950s and in the 2010s, in such a way as would allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's not that I want to say life in the 1950s was actually better; I just take issue with the soundness of this kind of argument to dismiss concerns about trends in income inequality, etc. My general point is something along the lines of what Matt Bruenig expounds on here: http://www.demos.org/blog/6/16/15/people-arent-better-income...
But nowadays you have much easier access to 80s music than you did in the 80s. Not to mention a lot of 80s-style music made after the 80s (like Synthwave).
I can understand why you'd say that as we have access to unimaginable technological wealth that couldn't be purchased at any price in 1950, but I think you might be seriously underestimating the lifestyle that a $100k salary would have allowed you at the time.
I would encourage anyone who hasn't read The Second Machine Age to check out the discussion of this topic. It is true, as you say, that a relatively poor person and a billionaire can both have the same iPhone. The contrary side of that is when it comes to paying for something like education. The cost of education is increasing very rapidly and student loans can be crippling. That is not great for society, let alone those stuck with the debt.
You and I drink a Coke that was $3.99 for a 12-pack.
The richest consumers drink a $7 Coke out of the minibar. Or they drink a $10 kale smoothie because Coke isn't the healthiest thing you can put in your body.
Perhaps this should be understood as "You already know, or have been/will be convinced by the rest of this article, that in the current world, life for the bottom quintile of Americans is not great. To give some sense of perspective on just how many people suffer from the problems currently afflicting the bottom quintile, that's a full 64 million people whose lives are not great."?
I agree. As posted here, out of context, it sounds silly. But in context:
"For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013. According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
It's strange wording. It would be a lot smoother stated like, "According to the Census Bureau, there are currently 320 million Americans, which means that 64 million live in the bottom quintile." They ultimately mean the same, but one version takes a lot more effort to decode.
Applause for your cherry picked quote to make yourself seem insightful.
The author, in the sentence before, pointed out: "For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013"
He then calculates the concrete number to convey to the reader that for 64 million americans life has gotten harder.
But hey, you earned some internet points so thanks for the contribution.
Let's rephrase this question: Why do people remain on the roadways during traffic jams? Why don't people drive off the road and use the shoulder to get around stopped traffic?
Why don't people with off-road equipped vehicles just drive thru others' yards to get around traffic blockages?
Why don't we treat automobile traffic and congested roadways as damage and route around it?
I've gotten a lot of hell for saying this but the poor don't rise up because the floor in the United States is typically not starvation. Social services are not to help the poor, they are there to make sure the floor in the US is high enough that the poor don't rise up against everyone else.
I think the poor don't rise up because they don't have time. When they aren't working/taking care of children they are probably relaxing. Ironically, poor people value their leisure time much more than rich people I would argue.
>>Ironically, poor people value their leisure time much more than rich people I would argue.
That's because people tend to value things that are scarce and hard to get. Leisure time is something rich people have in abundance, since the vast majority of their wealth comes from land, properties and stocks, and they don't really have to work to maintain any of it (other people do it for them).
Whereas if you're poor and are working three different jobs to make ends meet, then you are going to appreciate those 2 hours on Sunday that you get to spend with your family.
Agreed. I would also add to your analysis by talking more about what I have witnessed firsthand hanging out places like development projects with subsidized rent.
I have found that if you are a low income worker, you likely don't have the time/energy to build skills necessary for getting a "real" job.
Furthermore, many low income jobs are during evening hours/don't let you interact with people that you could leverage to get a real job. As a result of this everybody you know and are friends with work low income jobs, leaving little hope for personal networking into a higher-paying "real" job.
Considering all of this, I have witnessed many situations in which people are dishwashers working just enough hours to qualify for subsidized housing/foodstamps/other gov cash. These people oftentimes smoke pot/hang out all the time and their life is actually pretty nice, save fancy vacations and other frivolous luxuries.
I am not saying this is good or bad, but I just wanted to shed light on the fact that there are many poor people with plenty of highly-valued leisure time. These people have no intention of getting a higher paying job because it is much easier having 15k of w2 income washing dishes 30 hours a week with some cash-labor work on the side + gov benefits.
MANY of these "poor" people bring in 1-2k/month selling pot and other things on the side as well. It is EXTREMELY common.
Kind of rambling but I find "poor" people economics very interesting.
"Rising up" individually causes harm to oneself with no benefit to anyone. Rising up with others requires organization. Joining an organization that is planning to rise up when it hasn't already reached a certain size/certainty of actually carrying through with its mission carries many of the same risks as rising up individually, so no-one does that, either.
And that's putting aside the efficacy of even a popular and well-attended revolt that's the end goal of this—for the sake of argument let's say it might actually have some meaningful effect, if not actually manage to topple a significant portion of the power structure. Even assuming it's a good idea and all the poor want to revolt, it's still unlikely that they will.
Collective action and coordination issues are everywhere. They're fundamentally why we have governments, and why unions aren't usually very effective without mandatory membership.
I'm surprised this is so heavily downvoted, as this was my first thought too upon reading the headline. Hell, that would be my first answer to that question in any society in any time period in history.
"If a million people stand up and rebel together, only then do you accomplish anything."
Even that might not be enough. The government would force the courts closed declaring martial law, then the national guard would construct prisoner detention facilities from tents and barbed wire to house the million rebels, then try them for treason with military tribunals.
I think you would need about 25 million rebels to make it work.
Ah yes. That completely makes sense. I have been thinking this separately already. Thank you for explaining it though. I appreciate it. More to the point I agree with you.
Take Kim Jong Un. He holds considerable power, yet he is probably not particularly physically strong. Of course, he could use a firearm, but even then, he would be fairly easy to stop. However, he has body guard. Besides loyalty, a good reason for these body guards to obey his orders is that otherwise they will be arrested and executed. The people carrying out the arrest will also act on the same incentives.
In the end, there is nothing intrinsically powerful about Kim, there just happens to be a complex meta-stable equilibrium of incentives which gives him considerable power.
Glad to help. And just to follow up real quickly, a "collective action problem" is the standard term in game theory for a situation which fits this kind of scenario, where everyone is better off if they all act together, but any individual acting alone is worse off than if he never acted at all.
I think the more pertinent question is: Why don't the poor vote? Voting rates in the US are highly correlated with income levels. Apart from blocking obvious attempts to disenfranchise the poor (such as unnecessary voter ID requirements), one solution might be to make the election day a national holiday.
But many of the places the poor work (retail, restaurants, etc) are open all year round. It's mostly office workers who get a three day weekend to celebrate George Washington's birth.
Because those who fret over the poor never likely were that poor themselves. You would be surprised at the contentment you can have when you make very little as long as the basics are there, a roof, water, food, and TV. Been there done that.
Seen it too in my professional life when I was doing work for a rent a cop place. I remember the amazement at the low pay that we paid a good many guards; being responsible for payroll programming it was a never ending struggle to make sure you had it all correct. Still the majority of them I met in my working career there were just fine, some thought it funny they could get paid to sit in a booth all day let alone be given a uniform.
The media needs truly mad people, politicians need them, and regardless of how well both segments try to create them they cannot even make people mad or storming the walls even with calls of racism.
Some of this has to do with the fact that people want to fix things and not burn it all down to do so. We have matured past that point, namely because even the poor have a lot to lose now. Old days if you were poor you might not have much more than what you were wearing so where was the value in that, today you might have a home, a nice phone, even a ratty car, but they are yours!
As for OWS, the reason it died out so fast DESPITE the "intense" media interest was because it was fake, unlike the Tea Party which in many areas is still as active as day one, OWS was manufactured, made for media, and not some ground swell of people who truly wanted to change things and put effort towards that.
"This is a world in which the neoliberal ethic of intense possessive individualism and financial opportunism has become the template for human personality socialisation. This is a world that has become increasingly characterised by a hedonistic culture of consumerist excess. It has destroyed the myth (though not the ideology) that the nuclear family is the solid sociological foundation for capitalism and embraces, however tardily and incompletely, multiculturalism, women’s rights and equality of sexual preference. The impact is increasing individualistic isolation, anxiety, short-termism and neurosis in the midst of one of the greatest material urban achievements ever constructed in human history." --David Harvey
Ah the poor, yes, I forgot about that monolithic entity. Individualism you say? All these poors want to be individuals? Well that doesn't make them very individual now does it?
an epic science book which attempts to grapple with some of these questions.
from the Wikipedia page:
"Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies. These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment."
It's my view that ^ is generally what is at play with regard to the lower and middle classes in the United States.
Why don't the rich rise up? It's not like they can't notice injustice too. Unless they are all evil. Is that the tl;dr? Man that's really stupid, because its really poor thinking, poor thinking that encourages more poverty.
Edit: For example Paul Fussell, a rich kid with anglophilia, rose up and fought in WWII.
It's almost as if the rich have other means at their disposal of effecting change in their interests, whether those interests be in the pursuit of justice or otherwise.
What? Where is he inciting people to get out onto the streets? He doesn't. He's asking a valid question, that a lot of people including economists are asking.
The poor and middle class are getting crushed. It hasn't quite hit the demographics that read HN, but it'll eventually happen.
You're reading more into the question than can be supported by the wording of the question or by the article itself.
The assumption is that conditions were once such that popular movements or uprisings of the poorer classes were relatively more frequent in the past than in recent years. The article explores in perfectly sober terms how these conditions may have changed.
You may have ideological leanings that predispose you to find the discussion inherently inflammatory, but there are plenty of reasonable people who do not see it that way.
Just asking a question is an excellent way to discuss. "Just asking a question," as in actually stating that phrase once somebody takes your question as the discussion it was intended to be, is weaseling.
I don't imagine Socrates ever responded to someone who argued back that, "I'm just asking a question."
Many people in the lower or lower-middle class don't feel that they are really that bad off, despite what charlatans go on about. Sure, everyone complains that they don't make enough money or they work too hard, but that's not unique to any particular socio-economic class.
As Andy Warhol said:
"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it. "