We all know that you're not typical. Among those who work for a living how would you recommend differentiating those who have moved up the income ladder versus those who have moved down?Originally Posted by bae
We all know that you're not typical. Among those who work for a living how would you recommend differentiating those who have moved up the income ladder versus those who have moved down?
I run into this problem quite frequently when working with our local affordable housing groups - people who have net worths, but problematic income.
YMOYL encouraged us to think about more than just "income" as a useful measure...
By all means, if you want to define "classes" by income, have at it, but you'll miss out on some important things...
But anyone -- literally anyone and everyone -- could do what bae did and does!
I suspect he'd suggest that everyone just do what he did/does!
There are ways that people deal with money that are middle class style as compared to chronically low income/poor style. You can see some cultures that also are more comfortable with different ways of dealing with money. Of course this is a GROSS simplefying of it all. There are people who regardless of the income will save when they get a little more than they need to spend right then, look for longer lasting value in purchases, and look for opportunities to earn more with the understanding it is often a longer process than winning some money. Then there are groups of people who don't ever save, no matter how much or how little they have, tend to buy for a quick fix and look at income and earning more short term. That is how I would explain economic class.
Now the rest of it, language, clothing, how you decorate a house, educational level, activities and hobbies, etc. is another part of social class. It can be related or not related to money however some of it seems to get into racial territory. I will admit that I am not comfortable with everyone, it has a lot to do with these factors more than current income or race, and I get my assumptions tested all the time. When I moved into a traditionally black neighborhood I had a lot of assumptions, met a few vegans, some health food nuts, a lovely transgender man. Okay time to admit my own stuff!
Well,sure it is, but income is the easiest to measure. And by "class" any one of these studies means "income class." The cuktural thngs that define class arent covered in these studies.
Assuming for the moment that the whole concept of class isn't meaningless, why not just divide your net worth by your estimated life expectancy for a number roughly comparable to W2/1099 income?
Just because everybody can't be rich doesn't mean nobody should be rich.
Just because so many live in poverty does not mean that they should (so a few can be ultra wealthy).
You seem to be assuming that one person's poverty is a result of another person's wealth. I don't see it as a simplistic zero-sum game. If bae were to scuttle his fleet of yachts tomorrow, it wouldn't improve the situation of the poor in South Sudan.
I'm going to side with LDAHL in this one. I don't think wealth is a zero-sum game. I'm not against individuals being wealthy. I'm not even against individuals being EXTREMELY wealthy. I'm against an economic system without the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the highest percentage of the population have equal say in how the government is run and an equal opportunity for success. This requires a more even distribution of wealth that what we have now.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote