Well I kinda agree thuggy. Wouldnt it be great if wealthy people were merely part of the solution (more tax) rather than blamed for being part of the problem?
what does one man’s wealth have to do with another’s poverty? Seeing as the only legitimate routes to wealth are a) creating it, b) earning it c) being given it? Even though c) is undesirable it still does not immediately worsen anyone else’s poverty.
Workers in the paper bag industry are being forced into poverty as a result of redundancy resulting from a sudden drop in demand for their products among the wealthier classes.
So, in this example, the demands of wealthy have created jobs for poor. Not to mention the wealth of the bag making company owner in the first place creating jobs. Pick another example!
more important question is what makes rich people rich
is it i.e. sitting on their pampered arses while happening to own a shit ton of land and maintaining themselves by sucking cash from the creative and productive elements of the economy
of
is it participating in the creative and productive elements of the economy
far too often, particularly in the UK it is the former when it should be the later, something will snap eventually and you'll get a spate of guillotines to return an equilibrium
But buzz you could argue that those workers only had their job in first place because of rich people.
So, in this example, the demands of wealthy have created jobs for poor. Not to mention the wealth of the bag making company owner in the first place creating jobs.
That’s almost tempting enough to send one running screaming into the arms of a Marxist
1. In an absolute sense this is not true. The standard and quality of living for the poor as has been improving steadily throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. That the poor are getting poorer is not true.
it is true that the relative gap between the rich and the poor is widening. However, this is not the claim that is being made.
I went to public school with a lot of wealthy people (but I’m a military brat and a scholar - so poor).
People don’t look at this stuff in the long term over generations. I can’t think of a single ‘rich’ person I was at school with who hasn’t chosen something quite risky and likely to end in failure and financial ruin as a career (e.g. actor, tech entrepreneur, film director, wannabe prime minister etc)
it’s that whole ‘shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves’ thing.
Also, look at how many ‘rich’ people (eg tetrapak bloke) turn into ‘philanthropists’... translation being wealthy people who love the lash but want to legitimize their partying by making it a charity event
I can’t think of a single ‘rich’ person I was at school with who hasn’t chosen something quite risky and likely to end in failure and financial ruin as a career (e.g. actor, tech entrepreneur, film director, wannabe prime minister etc)
Well hang on would this have ended in “financial ruin” for them or would they just have gone crawling back to mummy and daddy?
There is a reason those sorts of careers are massively populated by the children of rich parents and it usually has little to do with their work ethic.
But Tec that completely ignores those people who have pulled themselves out of the mire to make good. I’m afraid to say, a lot of them ( whisper it) boomers!!
not that I want the discussion to move onto age inequality, enough of those generalisations.
but eg our favourited hated millionaire boomer Alan Sugar(ugh).
There will be anomalies within any economic theory, but there is a generality that says money attracts more money always.
Yes, fair to say that some can pull themselves up but it’s very difficult to do so, we are all in various privileged roles here so it’s a bit of an echo chamber, but for every 1 person from a poor family that made it here I could find a hundred in just one town who didn’t make it.
How can anyone possibly argue that the poor are not getting poorer when the amount of homelessness has increased alongside the amount of food banks and the use of the same.
Add to that the increase in children living in poverty and people living in in work poverty while the amount of billionaires has increased and the pay of MPs has continued to increase at c. 11% a time.
This is the very definition of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
If you can't see that you are either wealthy or incredibly dense and ignorant.
All that potentially evidences is that people are using more food banks and that homelessness has increased GM. That could be because that economic group has less money, or it could be because more people are taking advantage of food banks or that there is an increase in mental health/drug abuse issues for homelessness.
At one point in my life a long time ago, I was below the poverty line and had a period of homelessness. I didn't have access to food banks. If foodbanks had become as available as they are now, I would have used them. This wouldn't have been because I was any poorer than I'd been the week before.
Making assumptions about this kind of stuff is incredibly dense and ignorant. We will only solve these problems if we stop doing this vile class snobbery (both ways) and get some decent neutral evidence not grounded in political prejudice.
The food banks thing is a difficult one for the reasons Orwell mentions. Food banks are free stuff that everyone wants/needs (food). The demand for free stuff people want is almost limitless so its hardly surprising as more spring up they are used more.
The stigma attached with using them has diminished a lot as well. That is a good thing but at the same time another reason they are used more.
The problems with poverty (at least in the UK) are very complex but my mum works absolutely on the front line of this (dealing with poorest people in one of the poorest areas of the country) and she has no doubt at all that things are harder than they were were 10 years ago for people below the poverty line because so much local authority provision of services has been lost and because universal credit is a cruel failure. For those with mental health problems or learning difficulties (and those who care for them) times are particularly sh1t.
There is also quite a bit more stuff that you 'need' to feel part of society these days. Essentially if you don't have constant access to the internet you are excluded from an awful lot of modern life and (even in poorer areas) the pressure from schools for kids to have stuff that parents have to pay for is greater than it was.
0
0
1. Sometimes
2. Yes
3. Yes
0
0
1. Overall yes. Individually no.
2. No.
3. No.
0
1
It’s a bit Jean-Paul Sartre theory of freedom v money but that’s not a surprise given the Marxist views of both. But as usual “It depends”.
0
0
Well I kinda agree thuggy. Wouldnt it be great if wealthy people were merely part of the solution (more tax) rather than blamed for being part of the problem?
what does one man’s wealth have to do with another’s poverty? Seeing as the only legitimate routes to wealth are a) creating it, b) earning it c) being given it? Even though c) is undesirable it still does not immediately worsen anyone else’s poverty.
0
0
Workers in the paper bag industry are being forced into poverty as a result of redundancy resulting from a sudden drop in demand for their products among the wealthier classes.
0
1
But buzz you could argue that those workers only had their job in first place because of rich people.
0
1
So, in this example, the demands of wealthy have created jobs for poor. Not to mention the wealth of the bag making company owner in the first place creating jobs. Pick another example!
0
1
Noblesse oblige
0
0
If we are going to get into a discussion about marginal units of labour capital I need to take some stronger drugs.
0
1
more important question is what makes rich people rich
is it i.e. sitting on their pampered arses while happening to own a shit ton of land and maintaining themselves by sucking cash from the creative and productive elements of the economy
of
is it participating in the creative and productive elements of the economy
far too often, particularly in the UK it is the former when it should be the later, something will snap eventually and you'll get a spate of guillotines to return an equilibrium
0
0
That’s almost tempting enough to send one running screaming into the arms of a Marxist
0
0
1. In an absolute sense this is not true. The standard and quality of living for the poor as has been improving steadily throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. That the poor are getting poorer is not true.
it is true that the relative gap between the rich and the poor is widening. However, this is not the claim that is being made.
2. Premise is incorrect. See 1.
3. No.
0
1
I think this isn’t true.
I went to public school with a lot of wealthy people (but I’m a military brat and a scholar - so poor).
People don’t look at this stuff in the long term over generations. I can’t think of a single ‘rich’ person I was at school with who hasn’t chosen something quite risky and likely to end in failure and financial ruin as a career (e.g. actor, tech entrepreneur, film director, wannabe prime minister etc)
it’s that whole ‘shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves’ thing.
Also, look at how many ‘rich’ people (eg tetrapak bloke) turn into ‘philanthropists’... translation being wealthy people who love the lash but want to legitimize their partying by making it a charity event
0
1
Well hang on would this have ended in “financial ruin” for them or would they just have gone crawling back to mummy and daddy?
There is a reason those sorts of careers are massively populated by the children of rich parents and it usually has little to do with their work ethic.
0
0
The only restriction to a person’s freedom is the requirement to have sufficient funds.
So yeah feelingchill is right about rich kids being able to do those sorts of jobs.
0
0
But Tec that completely ignores those people who have pulled themselves out of the mire to make good. I’m afraid to say, a lot of them ( whisper it) boomers!!
not that I want the discussion to move onto age inequality, enough of those generalisations.
but eg our favourited hated millionaire boomer Alan Sugar(ugh).
0
0
There will be anomalies within any economic theory, but there is a generality that says money attracts more money always.
Yes, fair to say that some can pull themselves up but it’s very difficult to do so, we are all in various privileged roles here so it’s a bit of an echo chamber, but for every 1 person from a poor family that made it here I could find a hundred in just one town who didn’t make it.
0
0
The rich are getting richer
The poor will get the picture
The bombs never hit you when you're down so low
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W_arDkjaWmU
0
0
Read Factfullness by Hans Rosling
0
1
How can anyone possibly argue that the poor are not getting poorer when the amount of homelessness has increased alongside the amount of food banks and the use of the same.
Add to that the increase in children living in poverty and people living in in work poverty while the amount of billionaires has increased and the pay of MPs has continued to increase at c. 11% a time.
This is the very definition of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
If you can't see that you are either wealthy or incredibly dense and ignorant.
0
1
All that potentially evidences is that people are using more food banks and that homelessness has increased GM. That could be because that economic group has less money, or it could be because more people are taking advantage of food banks or that there is an increase in mental health/drug abuse issues for homelessness.
At one point in my life a long time ago, I was below the poverty line and had a period of homelessness. I didn't have access to food banks. If foodbanks had become as available as they are now, I would have used them. This wouldn't have been because I was any poorer than I'd been the week before.
Making assumptions about this kind of stuff is incredibly dense and ignorant. We will only solve these problems if we stop doing this vile class snobbery (both ways) and get some decent neutral evidence not grounded in political prejudice.
0
0
The food banks thing is a difficult one for the reasons Orwell mentions. Food banks are free stuff that everyone wants/needs (food). The demand for free stuff people want is almost limitless so its hardly surprising as more spring up they are used more.
The stigma attached with using them has diminished a lot as well. That is a good thing but at the same time another reason they are used more.
The problems with poverty (at least in the UK) are very complex but my mum works absolutely on the front line of this (dealing with poorest people in one of the poorest areas of the country) and she has no doubt at all that things are harder than they were were 10 years ago for people below the poverty line because so much local authority provision of services has been lost and because universal credit is a cruel failure. For those with mental health problems or learning difficulties (and those who care for them) times are particularly sh1t.
There is also quite a bit more stuff that you 'need' to feel part of society these days. Essentially if you don't have constant access to the internet you are excluded from an awful lot of modern life and (even in poorer areas) the pressure from schools for kids to have stuff that parents have to pay for is greater than it was.
Join the discussion