Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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. "
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.
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.
In which case you have a rather fancy watch, but a watch nonetheless.
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.
http://www.ebay.com/gds/WHY-SHOULD-I-BUY-A-HIGH-END-WATCH-LI...
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.
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.
"Salt."
"How do you make that?" "Salt, cook one side, cook the other side, serve."
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.
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.
I have found that quality scales much further with price when the consumable is raw fish.
Which is to say, I have not yet hit a value ceiling on how much I pay for very, very good sashimi.
And believe me, I've tried.
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.
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.
On the other hand, when it comes to healthcare, well...
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".
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.
A $12 bottle of wine circa 2015 is (almost) universally better than any wine at any price in 1950. That's well understood and not controversial.
Cleanliness, quality control and production practices that even a home vintner would take for granted were virtually nonexistent at that time.
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.
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...
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.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/12/com...
They're still better off than people making $20k in 1955.
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.
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.
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 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.
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").
Do you have a source to back up such a sweeping generalization?
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?
You're seriously going to argue you'd rather get paid 10 times less? Because you can buy cokes like celebrities?
What is this nonsense? This sounds like the Fox News "poors shouldn't complain because they have phones and fridges" argument.
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.
Sorry but I fail to see the significance of the same soda drink compared to these.
I'd much prefer if education was the same for everybody, and they drink different soda.
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?
Given that there are 320 million Americans and 320/5 is 64, yeah, that statement is mathematically true...
> In other news at least half the population lives below the median income.
"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."
Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement.
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.
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?
source: hanging out with broke artists for years
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.
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.
All political power, even that of a dictator with an army of henchmen is held as the result of a game theoretical equilibrium.
If you stand up and rebel individually, all you accomplish is getting thrown in jail.
If a million people stand up and rebel one after another, all they accomplish is getting thrown in jail.
If a million people stand up and rebel together, only then do you accomplish anything.
Getting a million people to rebel together is really hard, because each one is fearful of running into one of the first two situations instead.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
The ivory tower is a strange place.
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.
Edit: For example Paul Fussell, a rich kid with anglophilia, rose up and fought in WWII.