Inequality

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18640
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Jul 2019, 22:29

Hey, listen, it was too highbrow for my fourth and sixth grade educated father and mother! I didn't get to be a snob until way later. But, yeah, Reader's Digest and TV Guide were the magazines most dependably found in the homes of my working class neighbors. National Geographic and its whole [cough, cough] "membership" deal was for decades the place photographers got hard or, as the case may be, wet thinking about working for long after Life and Look and the Saturday Evening Post had gone the way of the dodo. Plus, of course, NG provided my generation with its first soft porn photos of tits, albeit in the unabashedly racist context of "educational" photos of tribal women.

I don't really know what demographic niche Town & Country supposedly fits, but I can't imagine people who actually have both a town home and a country home, as my wife's parents did, subscribing to the likes of it. I'm still frankly amazed on those rare occasions when I walk into a Barnes & Nobel and see the long magazine rack still there and think it's like law books in an attorney's office: they're just there for show, right?

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15902
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Inequality

Post by dhex » 09 Jul 2019, 22:33

Rd is all over cbd now.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26360
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Inequality

Post by Warren » 09 Jul 2019, 22:37

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Jul 2019, 22:29
I'm still frankly amazed on those rare occasions when I walk into a Barnes & Nobel and see the long magazine rack still there and think it's like law books in an attorney's office: they're just there for show, right?
C'mon DAR, everybody knows West’s Volumes of Bound Cases Vol 21-23 are hollowed out to stash, gun, whisky, and the photographs you blackmail judges with.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18640
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Jul 2019, 22:54

Warren wrote:
09 Jul 2019, 22:37
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Jul 2019, 22:29
I'm still frankly amazed on those rare occasions when I walk into a Barnes & Nobel and see the long magazine rack still there and think it's like law books in an attorney's office: they're just there for show, right?
C'mon DAR, everybody knows West’s Volumes of Bound Cases Vol 21-23 are hollowed out to stash, gun, whisky, and the photographs you blackmail judges with.
Ha! Pre-Westlaw, some case reporters and U.S. and state codes were all but indispensable in even a solo practice, and they were expensive as hell. Not only the bound volumes, themselves, but the update services, too. And the Shepard's Citations, and maybe a decent legal encyclopedia or at least one or two treatises on whatever sort of law you practiced. One huge benefit of large firm practice was that you didn't have to run down to the closest publicly available law library every time you had even the most routine research to do. Nowadays? A good deal of the law is available online even without having to pay a specialized subscription service and you can buy those dead-tree books by the yard at used book stores, estate sales, etc. And yet, oddly enough, they're still all but indispensable to reassure clients that you actually are a lawyer who went to law school and everything.

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 1213
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Inequality

Post by dead_elvis » 10 Jul 2019, 08:50

thoreau wrote:
09 Jul 2019, 22:12
My grandparents--college-educated FDR Democrats and middle-class professionals (a salesman and a nurse)--subscribed to it and I read it all the time as a kid.
I inherited my grandmother’s stash; what stands out in my memory is that it was the first place I saw anything more than a headline about Carlos the Jackal or the Baader–Meinhof Group and Japanese Red Army. WHY DIDNT THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA COVER THIS
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15721
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Inequality

Post by Aresen » 10 Jul 2019, 10:28

dead_elvis wrote:
10 Jul 2019, 08:50
...Carlos the Jackal or the Baader–Meinhof Group and Japanese Red Army. WHY DIDNT THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA COVER THIS
Odd you should mention those people. It is precisely because I do remember the hysteria that went on about them that I don't get terribly excited about Antifa or the Proud Boys nowadays.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3032
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: Inequality

Post by Number 6 » 10 Jul 2019, 18:43

Warren wrote:
09 Jul 2019, 22:25
My grandmother subscribed to their book club. That's were I was introduced to great classics like A Tale of a City, The Ordinary Case of Dr. Jekyll, and Little Woman.
Well played, sir. Quite well played.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13914
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Inequality

Post by Kolohe » 10 Jul 2019, 20:54

Andrew wrote:
09 Jul 2019, 14:08
The Aspirational 14%.
To be quite honest, *these* are the people that actually run the world.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9596
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Inequality

Post by nicole » 13 Jul 2019, 17:38

I figure this is as good a place as any to link to a longish blog post about Christ Arnade’s new book, Dignity: https://theparadoxproject .org/2019/07/12/affirming-dignity/

I have a lot of issues with the front vs. back row framing itself, and my disagreements with the post go further than that. But people seem pretty compelled by this stuff.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15902
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Inequality

Post by dhex » 13 Jul 2019, 19:26

"He never writes like an anthropologist studying people with a cold distance, yet he manages to give us their stories, in their own words, without judgment."

He managed to describe sociology and sociolinguistics. So much for the front row.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6583
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Inequality

Post by Dangerman » 13 Jul 2019, 20:01

In contrast to us, there is the “back row.” The thing about the back row isn’t that they are dumb (although we constantly tell them they are and many of them believe us). It’s that the back-row doesn’t value the adulation of the teacher, doesn’t idolize education, materialism, and career like the front row does. Maybe the back row didn’t grow up respecting the rules or didn’t have the background to succeed. Maybe they didn’t make all the right choices in the first two decades of life or maybe they fell into addiction and never escaped it. Maybe they find value in their community that the front row simply does not and decide not to relocate to a place with better economic prospects because it would mean leaving their friends, family and church behind.
This is going the long way through some patronizing bullshit in order to say 'these people have values which fulfilled them without having to move to a coastal metro area and set up a shitty weblog with a tan on grey scheme which is as default and unoriginal as my life and opinions'.

MayBe ThEY FiNd VaLuE In thEIR ComMunity ThAT The FroNT ROw doES nOt

DidN"T haVE ThE BAckGRouND tO SucEEd

motherfucker do you think this article is the work of a successful person?

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15902
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Inequality

Post by dhex » 13 Jul 2019, 20:10

I'm going to start calling guidos "Joey Backrow"
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12275
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Inequality

Post by Ellie » 15 Jul 2019, 17:47

Now people having more money than other people is VIOLENCE. *pinches bridge of nose*
Attachments
classism.jpg
classism.jpg (69.19 KiB) Viewed 118 times
"He's just an idiot elected by idiots." - Pham

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15721
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Inequality

Post by Aresen » 15 Jul 2019, 18:02

That argument can be difficult for libertarians to counter because, through most of history, that is how the rich got rich: By stealing stuff from the poor. The situation is made worse because those who are already rich have the initial capital to get a capitalist society going and tend to remain on top.

There is more social mobility in a capitalist society, but that sure as hell does not mean that wealth always flows to the smartest, most able, and most productive.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7592
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 15 Jul 2019, 19:01

Aresen wrote:
15 Jul 2019, 18:02
That argument can be difficult for libertarians to counter because, through most of history, that is how the rich got rich: By stealing stuff from the poor.
It's still how a fair number of them do it.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23869
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 15 Jul 2019, 23:12

It's not that hard to counter in 2019. A vast, overwhelming majority of transactions that occur are voluntary. It's about 80%/20% of US millionaires who are first generation wealthy vs those who inherited. If "classism" is violence, so is the hypothetical alternative.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18640
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 16 Jul 2019, 00:15

Sadly, there's no reasonable term for people whose wealth exceeds $1 million yet vastly falls short of even $10 million, let alone a billion, but the notion that someone with net assets of a million dollars being somehow fabulously wealthy hasn't been true for decades. Hell, that's not even the price of most decent houses in D.C., let alone NYC or San Francisco.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15721
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Inequality

Post by Aresen » 16 Jul 2019, 01:12

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 00:15
Sadly, there's no reasonable term for people whose wealth exceeds $1 million yet vastly falls short of even $10 million, let alone a billion, but the notion that someone with net assets of a million dollars being somehow fabulously wealthy hasn't been true for decades. Hell, that's not even the price of most decent houses in D.C., let alone NYC or San Francisco.
If we're talking about relative wealth and poverty, then we're always in the situation where there is a tiny minority that is wealthy - call them the 1% - compared to the general population. And there is always going to be a larger group, but still a minority, that is 'desperately poor.' (Even in Sweden, 11% of the people are 'relatively poor.')

However, if we are talking in absolute terms, the vast majority of the people living in the USA 100 years ago would qualify as 'desperately poor' in today's terms. And anyone with $1 million net worth today lives at a standard that would be 'wealthy' in terms of 100 years ago.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18640
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 16 Jul 2019, 01:28

Aresen wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 01:12
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 00:15
Sadly, there's no reasonable term for people whose wealth exceeds $1 million yet vastly falls short of even $10 million, let alone a billion, but the notion that someone with net assets of a million dollars being somehow fabulously wealthy hasn't been true for decades. Hell, that's not even the price of most decent houses in D.C., let alone NYC or San Francisco.
If we're talking about relative wealth and poverty, then we're always in the situation where there is a tiny minority that is wealthy - call them the 1% - compared to the general population. And there is always going to be a larger group, but still a minority, that is 'desperately poor.' (Even in Sweden, 11% of the people are 'relatively poor.')

However, if we are talking in absolute terms, the vast majority of the people living in the USA 100 years ago would qualify as 'desperately poor' in today's terms. And anyone with $1 million net worth today lives at a standard that would be 'wealthy' in terms of 100 years ago.
Yes, but my calendar reads 2019, not 1919.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17869
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Inequality

Post by Hugh Akston » 16 Jul 2019, 01:31

Aresen wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 01:12
However, if we are talking in absolute terms, the vast majority of the people living in the USA 100 years ago would qualify as 'desperately poor' in today's terms. And anyone with $1 million net worth today lives at a standard that would be 'wealthy' in terms of 100 years ago.
Those aren't absolute terms. You are literally relating one set of terms to another set of terms. There is no set of conditions under which wealth is meaningful concept in absolute terms because everything about wealth is relative.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18640
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 16 Jul 2019, 01:48

Hugh Akston wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 01:31
Aresen wrote:
16 Jul 2019, 01:12
However, if we are talking in absolute terms, the vast majority of the people living in the USA 100 years ago would qualify as 'desperately poor' in today's terms. And anyone with $1 million net worth today lives at a standard that would be 'wealthy' in terms of 100 years ago.
Those aren't absolute terms. You are literally relating one set of terms to another set of terms. There is no set of conditions under which wealth is meaningful concept in absolute terms because everything about wealth is relative.
Not my point. When I was a kid there was a TV show called "The Millionaire." An enormously wealthy man, John Beresford Tipton, Jr., would 'randomly' give someone a million dollars ("tax free") and then we'd watch how that life-changing windfall would work out, as often as not causing more problems than good, but to say of someone in 1959 that he was a millionaire was to say he could afford a mansion, servants, pretty much anything he wanted that money could buy. Okay, so even then that wasn't entirely true but it was close enough to true that the word meant something; wealth beyond what any normal person can ever get his hands on, even if he were a doctor or lawyer.

Today, a mid-level bureaucrat makes over $100k a year. Sure, that's not discretionary money, but anyone earning over $100 a year can easily put away and invest enough money to have a million dollars well before reaching retirement age. Nor is it enough money to just "safely invest" and live comfortably for the rest of one's life. It beats not having a million dollars by a long shot, but it isn't serious wealth. It's like calling someone in the 50s a $10,000aire or whatever the number is. The connotation is way out of sync with the denotation of how much wealth that sum actually represents in 2019. That's my point.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24380
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 16 Jul 2019, 06:32

Dangerman wrote:
13 Jul 2019, 20:01
In contrast to us, there is the “back row.” The thing about the back row isn’t that they are dumb (although we constantly tell them they are and many of them believe us). It’s that the back-row doesn’t value the adulation of the teacher, doesn’t idolize education, materialism, and career like the front row does. Maybe the back row didn’t grow up respecting the rules or didn’t have the background to succeed. Maybe they didn’t make all the right choices in the first two decades of life or maybe they fell into addiction and never escaped it. Maybe they find value in their community that the front row simply does not and decide not to relocate to a place with better economic prospects because it would mean leaving their friends, family and church behind.
This is going the long way through some patronizing bullshit in order to say 'these people have values which fulfilled them without having to move to a coastal metro area and set up a shitty weblog with a tan on grey scheme which is as default and unoriginal as my life and opinions'.

MayBe ThEY FiNd VaLuE In thEIR ComMunity ThAT The FroNT ROw doES nOt

DidN"T haVE ThE BAckGRouND tO SucEEd

motherfucker do you think this article is the work of a successful person?
So they don't want to act white? [ducks]
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9596
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Inequality

Post by nicole » 16 Jul 2019, 06:53

I'm just still confused about the idea of school as a place where "front-row kids" get to set the tone as opposed to being another social institution where "back-row kids" dominate the situation. In my experience, the back-row kids actually sat in front and spent the whole time "disrupting" the class, scare quotes because if that's the main activity is it really disruptive?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23869
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL » 16 Jul 2019, 07:10

Just for color, median US household net worth is like $68k. Top quintile is like $630k.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24380
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Inequality

Post by Mo » 16 Jul 2019, 07:26

JasonL wrote:Just for color, median US household net worth is like $68k. Top quintile is like $630k.
That top quintile seems very high.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests