Hacker News Reader

Comment by marknutter | Hacker News Reader

As another commenter pointed out, the title of this article is heavily editorialized. And I think that's the most interesting part of this link. There seems to be a growing appetite in this country to stoke the flames of class warfare. Perhaps it's because, despite the Great Recession and those two wars you never really hear anything about anymore, our generation truly does not have any great struggle to arm ourselves against. Poverty rates are dropping precipitously around the globe as is violent crime. We have an embarrassing wealth of food, technology, and luxury. Our life expectancy rates are ever increasing. I think we Millenials are, more than any generation before us, desperately in search of our great cause. As we continue to see American wealth "trickle down" to developing nations as labor is shifted overseas, it brings into starker contrast the wealth inequalities between us and our 1%, ignoring of course the irony that we Americans collectively are the one-percenters of the world.

View on HN

You seem to assume that extreme inequality in society is to be fought against only if it leads to an overall degradation of material prosperity. That is nonsense. People always wanted more equality for the same reason they wanted democracy, no matter what the level of material prosperity in a country. People have a deep-seated need to be engaged and to have a say in the unfolding of their own destiny at the scale of society, to have meaningful lives. Indeed, the average person in the US, EU, Japan, Australia, etc. has food, clothes, transportation, health-care (perhaps not US), technology and so on that would make the kings of 100 years ago envious. But they also know that their influence on society through conventional democratic means has decreased dramatically in the last 50 years, as the super-wealthy amassed the material and political means to control the decision-making process. And guess what? Many people hate that. Many people will not be bribed into political submission by knick-knacks, amusement and delicious snacks. There is deep resentment brewing.

I like how you just reiterated GP's last "point of irony" there, in a roundabout way.

Because that's how much of the rest of the world feels re. USA/"the west". One-percenters... complaining about their own one-percenters...

And yes, there is deep resentment brewing indeed.

There is absolutely no irony. Extreme inequality is undesirable on any scale. This is consistency, the opposite of irony.

We'll go with this definition of irony provided by the Google: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."

Class warriors wanting to decrease inequality by getting the 1% to pay their fair share, not enter into global trade agreements, and keep jobs in America end up increasing inequality globally by focusing only on efforts to prop up the global 1%, the majority of whom live in the U.S. Sounds pretty ironic to me.

Your argument is not bad. However there is also a stability issue you missed. The fundamental reason why democracy is proposed or the american dream is proposed is pacification, just like welfare. A calm population who think there is a defined set of fair rules and a path for success don't revolt. Its vitally important for societal stability that the general public doesn't notice they have no chance for improved conditions, in fact things only get worse for them, and they have no input on leadership because they get to vote, but only for almost identical hand picked candidates. If you can't have actual fairness, or actual progress, or actual democracy, it becomes very important to make sure no one notices. The next few decades are going to be very interesting to watch. Can enough riots be prevented by reality TV shows and football games and iDevice releases, or will the cities and gated subdivisions burn from lack of distraction from the fundamental problems?

>We have an embarrassing wealth of food, technology, and luxury

But we still have a significant portion of the population that has to work 2+ jobs to survive. America is the only developed nation in the world to my knowledge where this is expected, let alone imagined (hell, in France it's illegal to have two jobs).

Americans (myself included) should be ashamed at how much of an abject failure we've been to so much of the population. Say what you will about Western Europe, but pretty much everyone will get 3 meals a day there.

France also has double digit unemployment rates.

Life expectancy rates are also falling for middle aged people.

Yes but the EU standard (which only Spain doesn't follow IIRC) for measuring unemployment is a more inclusive than the US one.[1]

edit: which isn't to say that France doesn't have higher (comparable) unemployment rates than the US, I believe it does but different government types have different tolerances and expectations for unemployment levels naturally.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Measurement

double digits, but barely (10.8%). And there are some safety nets, like basic income, housing aids, and gracious help if you have children, that make underemployment slightly less awful.

I bet a hell of a lot less people go hungry in France compared to the US.

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is it just a hunch? The US has a pretty solid safety net as well including unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, child and mother nutrition programs, Medicaid coverage, etc.

Food stamps are not very solid. I know because my father had to temporarily avail himself of the program a few years back.

If I recall correctly he received about $80 a month for a single person which is not enough to even purchase the necessities of a healthy and balanced diet, really. I was paying his mortgage and he was fortunate that he had siblings who could supplement his meager allotment until he could find employment far below his education level and previous salary.

He had lost his job due to, from what I could tell, the early onset of Parkinson's and a heartless employer who would rather dosh a loyal employee of 20+ years than accept the continued employment of an employee with the condition.

Hah, you mean the unemployment insurance that has all sorts of loopholes that employers will use to prevent you from being able to claim it?

You mean the welfare which expires under certain circumstances? The food stamps that got cut during the last budget? The nutrition programs that pay for slop lunches at school?

Medicaid, which still doesn't prevent people from going bankrupt from medical fees?

The US safety net is about as solid as a paper bag.

Which is probably why we have a lower unemployment rate, because people are incentivized to find work (any work) sooner rather than sit around waiting for the job they would prefer to have.

Complete feudalism had 0% unemployment. Best system ever!

Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the "create jobs!" mantra. Jobs for job-numbers' sake has little point, in practice it's just further enslaving the population.

The government has an incentive in keeping unemployment down and cut spending, so it forces people to work shitty jobs by taking away subsidies, which in turn drives down salaries and only helps high-manpower low-skill enterprises like burger-flipping. Is that good for society as a whole?

People working two jobs (great for employment numbers!) are not bettering themselves, they're just producing more surplus for owners, often not even by choice. It doesn't really matter if you have 0% unemployment but everyone is forced to do stuff they don't like in order to survive.

Nobody is forced to work any job, at least not here in the U.S. No more than a lion is "forced" to hunt and kill antelope.

A vegetarian lion could technically survive. A human being needs food (which he cannot grow anywhere, due to property laws) and shelter (which he cannot build anywhere, due to property laws). Does the US government hand out free food and shelter for all?

If not, you are forced to work. You can choose what to work on, but that's about it. Even something as passive as investing capital or extracting rent requires some work. Being homeless is a full-time job asking others for money.

Whenever you'll get free food and free shelter (we can argue about clothes), then you won't be forced to work.

> Whenever you'll get free food and free shelter (we can argue about clothes), then you won't be forced to work.

And to provide that, others will be forced to work. So no matter what we end up with some people being "forced to work", which I don't agree is even a thing. Even if you could just live off the land you'd be "forced" to work a hell of a lot harder to survive than you would getting any minimum wage job. You are perhaps underestimating how bad life sucked before modern society took root.

> but pretty much everyone will get 3 meals a day there.

Incorrect. Whilst I am still shocked by the way America treats homeless people and those at the bottom of society, the UK is headed down the same path.

Over a million people used food banks in the UK last year. These are essentially "last resort" facilities run by charities where people can get food parcels if referred by social services or a doctor. The main reason for using them is having welfare benefits withdrawn.

>* Incorrect*

Is it ?

>Over a million people used food banks in the UK last year.

~1.6% of the UK's ~60M population, seems to fit 'most everyone' even if those FB users didn't get three squares for themselves and their family, which thanks to the work of the food banks, they do.

Apropos the parent's point, the food banks exist. Which means that you live in a society that values you so highly that it will step in to protect you even when the universal welfare system that is supposed to look after you fails to do so and you slip through the cracks.

You are therefore one of the luckiest people on the planet.

Meta : Incidentally, that 'over a million' figure is only from Trussell Trust, there are other food banks around the UK that do not operate under their umbrella, and as for 'the main reason', meh, certainly the largest single reason reported by users at a shade under 30% which means that 70% of food bank use is for other reasons (though this includes 13% 'benefit changes').

Trussell Trust's reported stats can be found here http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats

You have made his point, food banks are giving those that can't afford food, food.

But those foodbanks are provided by charities, not by the state.

They exist because the state is quick to put people on benefits suspension (a temporary withdrawal of benefits while they seek more information) or sanctions (a temporary or permanent loss of benefits as a punishment for breaking one of the very many rules (which is easy to do because there are so many rules and it's impossible to get advice about whether an action is rule-breaking or not)).

This is a change in the current / last government. Previous governments would have had the sanctions, but provided emergency loans for people to buy food.

These changes have seen an increase in suicides among people claiming benefits.

Having two jobs is not expected, unless by two jobs you mean one job for you and one job for your partner. We had women flood into the workforce at the same time jobs were being outsourced to developing nations, so yeah, we get paid less for the same work because the labor pool has increased dramatically. The caveat is that goods are now far cheaper to manufacture than they used to be, which is passed onto us as consumers. I think we Americans work as hard as we do because we are in heavy denial that our standard of living is slowly being brought into alignment with the rest of the world.

If you work one job at minimum wage, you are likely not able to afford rent, food, and health care. Thus the implied "expectation" for working two jobs.

How on earth are immigrants who are clamoring to get into our country pulling it off then? And while still being able to send money home while they're at it? And without the benefit of our social safety nets (if here illegally)? Is their standard of living in-line with the expectations of the average American? Certainly not. Yet, they choose to risk life and limb to come here all the same. The problem, as it usually is, boils down to a gross lack of perspective. I'll stop short of calling it entitlement, but it's certainly naiveté.

Basically, those 2 populations exist in different economies, even if they share the same physical space:

1. US tax code makes very expensive to have people in the payroll. This was originally intended to incentivize mechanization and later automation, but shady employers can exploit the rules by paying cash-only to illegal immigrants and save a lot of money, even if their take home pay is equal or better than that of citizens.

2. It is very expensive to raise a family while complying with US rules. You can have your children taken away if you fail to comply with any of that. Many illegal immigrants shortcut through that issue by leaving their families behind and living like frugal single men. Even those that immigrate as full families are already used to breaking the rules, and since they already face deportation if caught they do not fear doing without with "necessities" like cars, up-to-code housing, child care, etc.

3. Communities matter a lot. Poor citizens are every man for his own more often than not. Arriving illegal immigrants, typically in their teens or early twenties, usually can count on having relatives or former neighbors take care of their needs (which amount to little beyond room&board) while they find their footing in the country. They will later pay it forward.

And? The point is, people can and do survive on minimum wage or below and there are droves of people willing to do so, even if it means risking their lives for the opportunity.

  (hell, in France it's illegal to have two jobs).

I don't think so: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1945

It's illegal to have two full-time jobs, because a person is only allowed to work up to 48 hours a week/10 hours a day.

Yeah, I am 100% ashamed to be American, but most of that stems from the (violent, brutal, inconsistent) way the US treats the rest of the world. Sure, the empire treats its own citizens poorly as the pillaged wealth is sent to the fat cats, but that's their own fault for not demanding more.

> Yeah, I am 100% ashamed to be American

This is also another disturbing trend I'm witnessing in my generation. Sure, ok, you're not happy with some of the stuff that happened. DO something about it.

What do you suggest?

Pfft, easier said than done, which is the critical problem.

My experience is that voting in every election and writing your politicians does nothing. Contributing to their campaigns does nothing, because you don't contribute nearly enough to matter. Protesting in the streets does nothing; nobody cares, and then the cops stop you from protesting. Raising awareness does nothing, everyone is aware of the largest problems. Organizing the public does nothing; they are powerless. Reducing apathy does nothing; refer to the inability to do anything even when voting/writing/protesting. Rioting in the streets does nothing except ruin the areas people live in and make a strong backlash against whatever issue. The citizenry are fully disenfranchised from making changes.

I get it, I haven't tried starting a company to fix the USA's smorgasboard of problems yet. Maybe that's the ticket.

There's also the other problem of bad things being done in your name, even when you speak out. Millions of people protested the Iraq war, and look what we got for it. There is far too large of a disconnect between the public will and the government's execution of that will.

You can do something. That something will not change much, and not at all overnight, but to think there is nothing to be done... that's exactly what they want you to think.

Look around you, there is always people working against your values and people supporting your values. You can do worse than withdrawing your labor and your money from the former and prefer to do business with the later.

You say raising awareness does nothing. That's because hard facts are mostly irrelevant. People live by narratives, and the current mainstream narrative tells them to ignore your facts as irrelevant. You can use creativity to paint a more compelling narrative that will make them want to look for the facts themselves.

You say organizing the public does nothing. That's because what passes for organization nowadays is naive stupidity. Not every opinion is equal, or even valuable. Go learn some how to organize people for real, then get some practice with no more than a handful of friends working in small scale stuff. You could also do worse than that!

"We have an embarrassing wealth of food, technology, and luxury."

But it's not this fact what, precisely, make things worse?.

I mean, we live in the most prosperous age. The productivity increase of the last decades has been nothing short of stunning.

And anyway, we have to heard that "we" can't afford health care for everybody, that "we" should work longer years, that "we" have to cut the expenses of social protections because "we" have not "enough money".

Ah, the irony..

Yes. A glut of resources orbiting the pinnacles of society, and everyone else must cut back to make the numbers work for those elites, to their direct tangible detriment.

"I think we Millenials are, more than any generation before us, desperately in search of our great cause."

Look no further, there's a global crisis of climate change that must be solved. We have a cause, but unfortunately not one that is nicely contained within the borders of a country.

Indeed. We're the ones to face the grandest causes - fixing the climate, killing the death itself, spreading human life to the rest of the Solar System. And only handful of geeks care. Most of the world seems to be busy with celebrity gossip or complaining about 1% or inventing new reasons to get outraged about something.

>> celebrity gossip or complaining about 1%

One is entertainment, the other ends in violent revolution. I suspect we can't fix the climate until we fix inequality because its the 1% that profits from climate destruction yet holds the power of regulation.

Which is why I think it is crucial that we all understand what it is that those party-poopers are actually saying, rather than respond to the whines we're hearing.

The one core point of all of our liberal struggles -- whether "class warfare" as you call it or feminism -- isn't about being content, happy, alive etc.. It is about power[1] and its distribution. Absolute measures of wealth are very important, but so is the distribution of power. As long as the distribution of power is so grossly imbalanced, it means that few of us have a lot of control over the many, or, if you prefer, that the many aren't free[2]. If people learn only one thing about this class-warfare or feminism, it should be this.

This unfair distribution of power is a problem at any scale: within the West, the West vs. the rest of the world etc..

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

[2]: The word free is a loaded one, and in the taxonomy of values it is an ill-defined one because it is self-contradictory, but I'm using it here very loosely.

I don't want more money; I want more democracy.

Treating our highly skewed wealth distribution strictly as a matter of material welfare is a diversion from the fact that extreme income inequality is evidence of regulatory capture and rent seeking. When war contractors and bankers whisper in the ear of the executive branch to lobby for legislation by executive order and extra judicial legal clarifications (as in the Bush-Ashcroft-Gonzales fiasco), massive anonymous campaign donations are upheld by the supreme court as "free speech", and so on, the wealthy have many times more political influence than you do.

Recall the scandals surrounding massive, secret, quid pro quo political donations by the tycoons of the first Gilded Age; now the supreme court has found that when the rich buy an election they have a legal right to do it in secret. The problem is not that I want more money; it's that our votes are counted in dollars.

This is how we ended up with a regressive tax system (20-30 percent for earned income, %15 for capital gains, %0 percent for offshore “wealth managed” assets), “Torte Reform”, “Bankruptcy Reform”, and plea bargaining, to keep you from having your day in court, privatized prisons, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and all sorts of other rules that structurally advantage people who control capital.

The state arguably sponsors consumer indebtedness: the education, health care, and housing markets are all inflated by government money, and medical and student debts are exempt from bankruptcy. Low interest rates seem to create asset bubbles, and we socialize the losses by bailing out banks but not individuals. A good life means more than just “three meals a day” eaten in prison, on parole, or as an indentured servant.

“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” Anatole France

"We have an embarrassing wealth of food"

Who's this "we"? 40% of school children have free/reduced lunch due to poverty.

Sorry, I should have given the proper context in my original post, but I mean we have an embarrassing wealth of food compared to past generations. Yes, it sucks that some children have less than others, but when compared to children from past generations they're doing much better.

My mother will gladly relate to you how her family was never really poor growing up: the really poor kids came to school with Crisco sandwiches.

There was no free or reduced-price school lunch.

Right, but 100 years ago, those kids would just starve to death, rather than get state assistance.

Anyone have statistics for number of starvation deaths in 1915 in the U.S.?

To call America a democracy today is not accurate; the public's actions have no sway on policy relative to the sway that the moneyed elites hold. This phenomenon has been documented by a number of studies. Capitalist oligarchy is the correct term to refer to the system of government of the US. The public is disgruntled about the perceived change from democracy to this new despotic system.

Class warfare against the rich is now a concept because most of the country lost the last round of class warfare around the time the economic depression started, in which the rich got far richer while everyone else got poorer. Whether this is a great struggle for rights or not is unclear, but based off of the last Gilded Age, it will be glossed over in the history books such that people do not understand that change can be effected under certain circumstances.

We have a bevy of great causes, but for the most part, our empowerment to affect changes in service of those causes has been nullified. We are disenfranchised, and disgruntled. That we live in relative comfort is no relief; we feel excluded from the making of our own society, and it is a serious problem. This exclusion needs to change first before the other issues can be pursued. The last time there was such a disenfranchisement of public power in the US, a world war caused it to fall out of attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com