Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Poor/Middle Class People Shouldn't Complain

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 02:55 PM
Original message
Poor/Middle Class People Shouldn't Complain
The subject line is based on an argument presented to me by a conservative/libertarian on another political website in response to my point that the economic policies he promotes are (generally speaking) returning us to the gilded age in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

Here are his words:

"Here is a little comparison between a robber baron and a member of today's screwed middle class. It's no contest. We're richer than the richest man a hundred years ago."

And he included this link to prove his point: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/a_zerosum_wealt.html

I skimmed the attached blog post and it's a ridiculous argument, obviously. For one thing, a lot of people can't even afford the house on the right, and if they can, they can't afford health insurance and or gas, not to mention *time* raising their kids (because they spend so much of their time working). While it's interesting to consider improvements in quality of life relative to earlier points in history, that argument can only extend so far.

What are your thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Rich people, greed, gloating over often ill-gotten gains?
Bring 'em on!



Hey, it worked for the French!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. They may also be upset that their government is in the hands of degenerate traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. If the poor hadn't "complained" 100 years ago there would BE no middle class today
And tell your friend to choke on it too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Friend?
A regular conservative/libertarian poster who makes incredibly selfish points? Yes.

My friend? No!

He really boiled my blood today when he tried to argue that (paraphrase) even a waitress should be able to scrape up $60 a month to pay for insurance (therefore we don't need universal health care).

He added that the only reason *I* promote it is because I want someone else to pay for my medical expenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Who can get medical insurance for $60/month?
If the employer is not helping the waitress out, it's going to be more like $600/month.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Right
I brought up the fact that this waitress might have a kid (and or kids) and be a single mom. That and the fact that if she actually *uses* the insurance she'll be paying way more (copays, etc.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's basically saying that the poor deserve an 1890 standard of living
Of course the standard of living has improved in the past 117 years. Technology naturally improves economies naturally grow and our standard of living naturally goes up. What this person is essentially saying is that only the rich deserve to benefit from this increased standard of living. They should be denied modern conveniences like health care, because people did just fine without them in 1890.

Essentially, the standard of living in 1890 was perfectly acceptable and society shouldn't be working to better that standard of living, only the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. If your friend reads...
there is an excellent book "The Rich and the Super-Rich" available for "free" down-load from the Soil and Health library, because of it's copyright expiration. Perhaps you would like to pass along the link. Nothing more needs to be said.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html

THE RICH AND THE SUPER-RICH
A Study in the Power of Money Today

BY FERDINAND LUNDBERG
Lyle Stuart, Inc. • New York
THE RICH AND THE SUPER-RICH. Copyright 1968 by Ferdinand Lundberg.
One
THE ELECT AND
THE DAMNED
Most Americans--citizens of the wealthiest, most powerful and most ideal-swathed country in the world--by a very wide margin own nothing more than their household goods, a few glittering gadgets such as automobiles and television sets (usually purchased on the installment plan, many at second hand) and the clothes on their backs. A horde if not a majority of Americans live in shacks, cabins, hovels, shanties, hand-me-down Victorian eyesores, rickety tenements and flaky apartment buildings--as the newspapers from time to time chortle that new Russian apartment-house construction is falling apart. (Conditions abroad, in the standard American view, are everywhere far worse than anywhere in the United States. The French, for example, could learn much about cooking from the Automat and Howard Johnson.)

At the same time, a relative handful of Americans are extravagantly endowed, like princes in the Arabian Nights tales. Their agents deafen a baffled world with a never-ceasing chant about the occult merits of private-property ownership (good for everything that ails man and thoroughly familiar to the rest of the world, not invented in the United States), and the vaulting puissance of the American owners.

It would be difficult in the 1960's for a large majority of Americans to show fewer significant possessions if the country had long labored under a grasping dictatorship. How has this process been contrived of stripping threadbare most of the populace, which once at least owned small patches of virgin land? To this fascinating if off-color question we shall give some attention later.

Statements such as the foregoing on the rare occasions when they are ventured (although strictly true and by no means new)1 are bound to be challenged by the alert propaganda watchdogs of the established order. These proprgandists, when hard pressed, offer an incantation about a mythical high American standard of living which on inspection turns out to be no more than a standard of gross consumption. The statements must, therefore--particularly in this age of burgeoning one-sided affluence--be monumentally and precisely documented and redocumented. Not that this will deter the watchdogs, who have limitless resources of casuistry and dialectic to fall back upon as well as an endless supply of white paper from denuded forests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. This country is already a hellhole of criminal genocide,
the government should turn a blind eye to whatever it takes to get ahead, as long as it's from someone in a higher tax bracket. This country is ready to break apart because of the rich fuckers wringing every last increasingly worthless penny from their slaves, workers/consumers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. He's comparing 2 different time periods
Just take the 2 houses for example. One house was built to last hundreds of years, the other to last 50 to 75. If the owner of the large house had had access to the inventions of the modern day, he would have had them in spades. If the owner of the large house had a broken leg, he would have had been able to stay in bed and still have money to pay his bills, the guy in the little house, would not.

The guy in the big house had luxury, beyond anything that his contemporaries could dream of, the guy in the little house does not. The guy in the big house would never have to sleep in a cold bed in the middle of winter, it would have been warmed with a bed warmer, whether of the human kind or coals in the pan kind. He would have been covered with the warmest of feather ticks, which sat on silk sheets. The guy in the little house may not be able to pay his heating bill.

It is a ridiculous argument, and only used when people are afraid that their taxes are going to be raised so some poor child can have breakfast at a public school. They are selfish bastards, and deserve to rot in hell. Either that or they are too stupid and should never reproduce.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. The link to 'prove his point' is completely bogus! What you need to compare is the amount of money
it would take today to build and maintain the house destroyed in 1906. It would be in the tens of millions of dollars. Then add the cost of having 6 or 7 servants to support with today's dollars (and just to be fair, make sure the servants are all American citizens and the 'employer' is withholding SS and paying their health insurance).
Compare what Mark Hopkins income would be today and I'd bet you'd see the same disparagement between the 'railroad millionaire' of the late eighteenth century and the 'middle class' of the time as we have between the CEO's and middle class today. In fact, I'd guess the gap may be greater today than back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's the dumbest fucking argument ever!
Edited on Mon Dec-10-07 03:46 PM by NewJeffCT
it's like saying that Hannibal wasn't a great general because he didn't utilize the Carthaginian air force, or that the British could have won the American revolution if they had nuked Boston. Alexander wasn't a great conqueror because the bronze armor his soldiers wore couldn't withstand shots from an AK-47.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here's how much Mark Hopkins' wealth would have been in 2006 dollars: $29.5 billion!
He's number 45 on America's historically wealthy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthy_historical_figures_2006

The list of the most wealthy historical figures is based on research done around the world by Forbes magazine in 2006 and other sources of information. This list is based on the historical characters of which where in either the Industrial age, Information Age or no age at all and are solely based on their net worth accumulated by inheritance or personal earnings. The ranking process is done by the percentage of the total GDP of which is of the nation they live in the estimated net worth of these people is calculated into inflation adjusted 2006 dollars, from when historical figures were at the peak of their net worth. In order to be inflation adjusted for 2006 dollars, the bearer of wealth at time of death or at highest point must be at least 17 years ago. Please note that these are the figures for 2006, for the 2007 adjusted list go to List of the Most Wealthy Historical Figures 2007. <1> <2> <3> <4> <5>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. His view is "I got mine. Forget you"
Poor guy, he doesn't realize that being greedy isn't good for character and can build up a lot of bad karma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I told him pretty much the same thing
with slightly more harsh language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC