I was using an Eminem lyric moe. It's playful dismissiveness of some story about indoor plumbing during the Eisenhower administration....
...Being "poor" in the United States also isn't like being "poor" in Sudan and being poor in the 1950's wasn't like being poor in the 1300s either. If we set the bar low enough we're all fabulously wealthy. But let's be honest, we're not comparing apples to apples at that point. Your definition of wealth that equates 16 Rolls Royces to one ten-year old Ford Taurus is reductive to the point of meaninglessness.
...One that could be solved by curing perceptions if I read your post correctly. If we all just realized how well off we are compared to rural farmers half a century ago then we could unite hands and have a great big sing-a-long.
Where you and I sharply disagree is on the idea that the perception of that inequality is the key driver. Much of your post is devoted to the idea that functional equality is actually quite high....
LOL, so is the fact that it's merely an Eminem quote going to make me feel better? Or just
really old?
And I wasn't making a comparison between the United States and third world poverty, so there's no reason to bring up Sudan or the 1300's or anything else. I was comparing the life styles of those living near the median income level 50 years ago with those living near the median income level today. My opinion is that that even though the lower end has not kept up in measurements of income/wealth over the last 50 years, they haven't lost as much in functional living standards.
And kicky, perhaps I misinterpreted your initial post, but it seems you brought up the idea of perceptions in the first place, and that you thought part of the issue with the OWS crowd is the "perception" that hard work will not pay off for them any longer the way they think it paid off for past generations. You even called it a myth, didn't you?
And I apologize for getting the discussion off-track a bit on the "slant" of PBS coverage of OWS. Somewhere along the way I may have misread a post or two, but I thought someone made a post critical of the PBS coverage. My "slanted left" comment was made as much to make fun of those who accuse PBS of having a left-leaning bias as anything.
...A lot of people are horrible money managers with their income and are in a ton of personal debt because of wanting and buying silly crap they couldn't afford, living it up while pursuing worthless degrees at overpriced schools, or otherwise wasting it...
...middle class people who bought vacations, gadgets, cars and a house they couldn't really afford than they are by the filthy rich who figured out a way to profit off middle class greed. The so called "nations wealth" is built on personal debt...
Couldn't this logic be used in the reverse way as well?
Why have 12 Rolls Royce when you could get just as much enjoyment out of a 10 year old Ford Taurus?
I think we could use this logic of... "Don't complain, things were worse x amount of years ago in x country" to justify just about anything in life...
while I'm not sure I'd express it the same way, I do think there was a certain seduction in acquiring material goods, the latest electronics, a newly remodeled kitchen with granite countertops and what-not, fueled by easy credit. And really, if the **** hadn't hit the fan with Lehman Brothers etc, I'm not sure there'd even be something called Occupy Wall Street for us to be discussing.
So what?
The exact same could have been said about the Tea Party for a good year or two.
This is why I find it immensely comical that so many proud supporters of the Tea Party on this board are already calling the OWS movement a failure. If we had a DeLorean that could take us back in time once we hit 88 MPH, we'd quickly find that the Tea Party had the exact same problems with organization, winning support, clarifying their message, etc at this stage.
Give this OWS some time...
One difference I think is that the Tea Party movement was more pro-active, while as far as I can tell, the OWS movement is more reactive. The Tea Partiers started by advocating changes for the future - - less government debt, less government spending, smaller government all around. As I understand it, the OWS movement started more to protest the bailouts of the banks and the large bonuses paid to executives that had already taken place.
Also, the Tea Party was around and active for nearly 2 years before the 2010 elections took place. Seems to me they first got organized early in 2009, plenty of time to get their acts together enough to have some influence over the 2010 elections. Let's see where OWS is in another 8 months. Though since they don't seem to be proposed any solutions as far as I can tell, I can't see them getting too far as currently comprised.
