Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the declasse' dept.

America divided – this concept increasingly graces political discourse in the U.S., pitting left against right, conservative thought against the liberal agenda. But for decades, Americans have been rearranging along another divide, one just as stark if not far more significant – a chasm once bridged by a flourishing middle class.

Peter Temin, Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT, believes the ongoing death of “middle America” has sparked the emergence of two countries within one, the hallmark of developing nations. In his new book, The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy, Temin paints a bleak picture where one country has a bounty of resources and power, and the other toils day after day with minimal access to the long-coveted American dream.

In his view, the United States is shifting toward an economic and political makeup more similar to developing nations than the wealthy, economically stable nation it has long been. Temin applied W. Arthur Lewis’s economic model – designed to understand the workings of developing countries – to the United States in an effort to document how inequality has grown in America.

The 2017 World Economic Forum had the answer: "The people who have not benefited from globalization need to try harder to emulate those who have succeeded," and, "'People have to take more ownership of upgrading themselves on a continuous basis.'"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:29PM (13 children)

    That's up to the individual to decide. You don't get to set their life goals for them any more than they do for you.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:58PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:58PM (#514287)

    Isn't it up to you to decide for them?
    Weren't you implying just before that the billions of dollars Scandinavian countries could earn wasn't high enough for them?

    Which is silly anyway, since for a few paltry millions they could buy US citizenship trivially, and your 'cap' goes away.
    Must be some reason they don't, but I just can't put my finger on it...

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:36PM (1 child)

      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:36PM (#514306) Journal

      They COULD buy US citizenship, but they're probably wondering if that would be an intelligent idea, when all the rich Americans are buying hideaway fortresses in New Zealand, lol.

      No, the US is fucked and the rich are planning their get-away for when they're done sending it all to hell and reaping their riches, lol.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:59PM (#515111)

        Please, rich people often spend money on shit they don't need or won't even use. Remember Steve Job's $100 Million Yacht that was finished after he died? I'm sure based on that you would deduce that "The Rich know there is another biblical flood coming! Just look at all the boats they are buying! We the plebs are fucked!"

        For every retreat bought in New Zealand there are no doubt 3 overpriced penthouses bought in Dubai.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:30PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:30PM (#514351)

    Just because you have life goals doesn't mean we should let you fulfill all of them. If your goals are mutually exclusive with the happiness of millions of your peers, then your goals are morally flawed and I would have no problem with forcing you to relinquish them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:23PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:23PM (#514440)

      I won't be happy until you are dead.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:48AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:48AM (#514714)

        How unfortunate for you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:54AM (#515228)

          It is, but inshallah we will prevail, and you the kaffir will yield or die.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:31PM (#514352)

    As much as I like the whole "you get to do what you want"-thing, if you've got a billion more in the bank than most people, I think that's enough. Then anything more is just for shits and giggles and so that others won't have it.
    If you have a personality that says "I've got so many resources that I will never have any issues" and then follow it up with "but I want even more", then you're not a very nice human being. Then it's just because you want to fuck over others and be able to point at said fucking-over to your other billionaire friends to show how much better you are than them.

    I think at that point, it is no longer up to the individual to decide. Clearly society has provided enough to said individual and society gets to decide something for you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:13PM (#514435)

      I tend to think of it as they have a lot more to lose. Maybe a high tax rate ain't so bad to keep the status quo intact.

      I would go with an income tax up to 99% above certain incomes. A person earning that much money is benefiting very heavily from society (infrastructure, police, a civil society). If it's a problem, take it up with whoever pays you - are you not worth the 99% headwind the employer has to take on to get you those extra few $mill? Sure you are, go negotiate champ.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:33PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:33PM (#514355)

    I agree with your first sentence. It is not for an INDIVIDUAL to decide. Not even the rich individual himself though. Despite the West's recent fascination with individual freedom, society put limits on what is for the individual to decide. I think it is easy to argue that this is a (morally) good thing (as good usually is about more than the needs of a single individual). Hence, it is acceptable for me for a society to limit the riches of an individual. Our society is run by a government, and, though this certainly has failings, it is only logical that thus the government gets to decide that it can tax you, and could easily put a limit to your personal wealth.

    Arguing from another angle, it could easily be claimed that even although you as individual have worked hard to acquire your wealth, you could not have achieved this without the framework that society provided to you. Thus society has some standing to demand things back from you.

    Now, some have argued that rich people are good for society as they will stimulate its growth and thus in turn make more people prosper. The FA seems to cast some doubt on this hypothesis.

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:51AM (1 child)

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:51AM (#514604)

      zuckerberg didn't build that inertnet ! ! !

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:22AM (#515216)

        That was Al Gore.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:59AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:59AM (#514703) Journal

      Despite the West's recent fascination with individual freedom, society put limits on what is for the individual to decide. I think it is easy to argue that this is a (morally) good thing (as good usually is about more than the needs of a single individual).

      That "recent fascination" is centuries old and has resulted in great human progress. Let us note over the millennia that society has put plenty of limits on what is for the individual to decide. These have invariably led to immense human suffering such as widespread slavery for most of those millennia, endless tyranny, and death on a scale that can only be understood with numbers. Sure, you could go ahead and argue it is morally good to do this, but you'd be ignoring an awful lot of moral evil.

      Hence, it is acceptable for me for a society to limit the riches of an individual. Our society is run by a government, and, though this certainly has failings, it is only logical that thus the government gets to decide that it can tax you, and could easily put a limit to your personal wealth.

      Except when it's not logical. Government decisions aren't better than anyone else's decisions. Instead, we find that they are often by a wide margin the worst decisions ever made.

      Arguing from another angle, it could easily be claimed that even although you as individual have worked hard to acquire your wealth, you could not have achieved this without the framework that society provided to you. Thus society has some standing to demand things back from you.

      Individuals helped create that framework. It is only fair that they be allowed to benefit from such "frameworks" particularly since that is the whole point of these frameworks. And it is a waste of resources to make decisions for an individual capable of making their own decisions.

      Now, some have argued that rich people are good for society as they will stimulate its growth and thus in turn make more people prosper. The FA seems to cast some doubt on this hypothesis.

      So is there a reason you think that? Or should we go on and argue other things that can be argued? Perhaps the Moon is made of green cheese? It can be argued, so why not do that. Perhaps the Moon Nazis are mice? It can be argued. And they're enslaving feline space Jews for an invasion of Venus? It can be argued after all. What is arguable is a far broader category that what makes sense.

      What I've noticed with such talk is that there is a universal disdain for what the loss of freedom entails. You never care what taxes are spent on, you merely assume that it'll be beneficial despite ample evidence to the contrary throughout the world and history. Similarly, there is an assumption that wealth inequality is bad without ever bothering to mention what level of wealth inequality is good.

      This is idiotic. You should at least think and reason through your desires before foisting them off on the rest of us.