We've talked about classes quite a bit lately. I like the idea of three and a half classes. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I liked the premise and the image of the half class (at the top) keeping a "lid" on the rest of us.
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/20 ... ciety.html
Three-and-a-Half Class Society
I think three and a half is too few to make good distinctions.
http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/status.htm
http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/status.htm
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@Haplo, I can't get the link to work.
If you think three and a half is too few, then you might like the 16 or so that were in the Chutes and Ladders theory of classes from a previous post...
viewtopic.php?t=2795
If you think three and a half is too few, then you might like the 16 or so that were in the Chutes and Ladders theory of classes from a previous post...
viewtopic.php?t=2795
Thanks--Charles Hugh Smith is always worth reading. For a more simplified version of classes (only 3!) see George Carlin:
"You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep them showing up at those jobs."
"You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep them showing up at those jobs."
.@Haplo,
Were you thinking of a book by Paul Fussell, "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System?" About p. 20 forward seems about right.
A Google book link:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=i ... lz=1I7TSNF
Were you thinking of a book by Paul Fussell, "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System?" About p. 20 forward seems about right.
A Google book link:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=i ... lz=1I7TSNF
@Hoplite: Yep, that's it alright. Link is working again btw.
@Chad: It's not necessarily a "wealth" gap. You should know that wealth depends on much more than just income. There are also quite a few millionaires who own small businesses that nonetheless hold none of the political power that the big industry moguls and old megamoney does. Of course, policies that support keeping the lower classes in perpetual debt slavery and policies that punish anyone who succeeds by taxing them to death can directly rob the lower classes of jobs and opportunities to improve their status/standard of living. Kinda like what's happening now..
@Chad: It's not necessarily a "wealth" gap. You should know that wealth depends on much more than just income. There are also quite a few millionaires who own small businesses that nonetheless hold none of the political power that the big industry moguls and old megamoney does. Of course, policies that support keeping the lower classes in perpetual debt slavery and policies that punish anyone who succeeds by taxing them to death can directly rob the lower classes of jobs and opportunities to improve their status/standard of living. Kinda like what's happening now..
In the most mechanical sense, sure. However all income that isn't stolen for you by the government is the direct or indirect result of providing value to others. Whatever work you do whether working for a big company or turning a hobby into freelance work ultimately your paycheck comes because you provide real or at least apparent value to someone willing to spend money on it.
Supplementing people's income mechanically, say by welfare, almost never results in any improvement to their situation. The lower class people I know all blow their money on beer and lotto every week. On the other hand, practicing ERE even on minimum wage can lift you up to a similar lifestyle of the upper-middle class, and possibly better if you make more than that. As long as it isn't illegal to provide value for money (as it is with communism, although we're getting close) then anyone has the opportunity to live comfortably. Self-education is far more important in that regard; some of the most successful people in the last century came from poor families and never attended school (John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie) or dropped out of school (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates). You don't even have to go to that length; making soap, fixing bicycles, sharpening knives, photography, there are limitless ways to increase your income without doing something you hate or enslaving yourself with college debt. The quality of what you spend your money on is also far more important than the quantity you are able to spend.
Supplementing people's income mechanically, say by welfare, almost never results in any improvement to their situation. The lower class people I know all blow their money on beer and lotto every week. On the other hand, practicing ERE even on minimum wage can lift you up to a similar lifestyle of the upper-middle class, and possibly better if you make more than that. As long as it isn't illegal to provide value for money (as it is with communism, although we're getting close) then anyone has the opportunity to live comfortably. Self-education is far more important in that regard; some of the most successful people in the last century came from poor families and never attended school (John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie) or dropped out of school (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates). You don't even have to go to that length; making soap, fixing bicycles, sharpening knives, photography, there are limitless ways to increase your income without doing something you hate or enslaving yourself with college debt. The quality of what you spend your money on is also far more important than the quantity you are able to spend.
The problem that I have with our welfare system (I'm speaking from a Canadian point of view) is that it is overly bureaucratic. In order to get welfare, a person has to fill innumerable pieces of paper and run around to different offices to get approval for a welfare payment which leads to money being wasted during the distribution process.
Why not set-up a negative income tax so that everyone is guaranteed a basic income every year? That would simplify the process.
My preference is the Singaporean and Hong Kong model where there is good quality public housing. Rather than give people a welfare check, people still have to have to work to pay for their accommodation. However, the rental payment is calculated based on a percentage of the person's salary which ensures that housing is always affordable. On the other hand, the person still has to work to meet his or her basic needs.
Rather than criticizing welfare and assuming that it is a complete waste of money, I think it would be more fruitful to look at welfare as a cost of doing business (making society a better place). However, I would agree that there are much better ways to manage it.
I admit that this post is a bit of a tangent but Haplo's comment really got my brain thinking.
Why not set-up a negative income tax so that everyone is guaranteed a basic income every year? That would simplify the process.
My preference is the Singaporean and Hong Kong model where there is good quality public housing. Rather than give people a welfare check, people still have to have to work to pay for their accommodation. However, the rental payment is calculated based on a percentage of the person's salary which ensures that housing is always affordable. On the other hand, the person still has to work to meet his or her basic needs.
Rather than criticizing welfare and assuming that it is a complete waste of money, I think it would be more fruitful to look at welfare as a cost of doing business (making society a better place). However, I would agree that there are much better ways to manage it.
I admit that this post is a bit of a tangent but Haplo's comment really got my brain thinking.
"Rather than criticizing welfare and assuming that it is a complete waste of money, I think it would be more fruitful to look at welfare as a cost of doing business (making society a better place). However, I would agree that there are much better ways to manage it."
I don't really see it as making society better, and the bottom line is that in order to pay welfare to some people, the government must steal that money directly (through taxes) or indirectly (through inflation) from other people. Even most charities are extremely inefficient or corrupt, a government run charity even moreso. However, whereas I might be willing to give money to a charity that proves that it's doing good and using your money efficiently, the government will do neither and take your money by force. And then, after being turned upside down and shaken, I no longer feel very charitable.
Working a rat race job is basically intolerable to begin with, but especially so when I see 10-20% of that money going to enable my belligerent neighbor's beer and lotto and baby popping habits. I can blow my own money on beer and lotto just fine, TYVM.
I don't really see it as making society better, and the bottom line is that in order to pay welfare to some people, the government must steal that money directly (through taxes) or indirectly (through inflation) from other people. Even most charities are extremely inefficient or corrupt, a government run charity even moreso. However, whereas I might be willing to give money to a charity that proves that it's doing good and using your money efficiently, the government will do neither and take your money by force. And then, after being turned upside down and shaken, I no longer feel very charitable.
Working a rat race job is basically intolerable to begin with, but especially so when I see 10-20% of that money going to enable my belligerent neighbor's beer and lotto and baby popping habits. I can blow my own money on beer and lotto just fine, TYVM.