The elephant in the room is that most impoverished people in the US are white but the social narrative is that this is only an issue for minorities.
The elephant in the room is that most impoverished people in the US are white but the social narrative is that this is only an issue for minorities.
FYI, you've got this backwards and its a very meaningful difference: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...
The mean is significantly higher than the median because it is pulled up by the ultra wealthy.
If median wealth for majority families was that high I would be very confused how most families in the US could NOT handle and unexpected $500 bill.
~188k Is more inline with what I'd expect the median home equity to be for families, so that makes more sense.
Hence we come back to the OP's point - it's hard to get broad public support for both racial and class issues simultaneously... regardless of how interconnected the problems and possible solutions may be.
Poverty is a policy choice. The cruelty is the point. 20% of children on the wealthiest country in the history of the planet do not know where or when they'll get their next meal and that is entirely socially constructed.
Americans weren't joking when they said better dead than red. I wish they felt that statement in their bones the way they do in their heads.
No, we aren't.
Resource remain finite, and less than human desires, which is the definition of scarcity.
> Poverty is a policy choice.
Yes, but it's a choice because the desperation in the working class produces conditions that enable the elite class to get more of the goods and services they want; the particular distribution of the pain of scarcity may be artificial, but it is designed to deal with real scarcity—people have desires for goods and services, and the tradeoff for maximizing them is other people must be deprived. If we were post-scarcity, the desires of one group would not need sacrifice by another to satisfy. The existence of such a tradeoff defines scarcity.