Rich and the Poor

[Audie]

Sure, folks ought to donate what they can afford to a charity of their choice.

Welfsre of some sort is self defense for the powerful.

 

[Nakosis]

That's what happens when major media is owned by corporations and billionaires. They have the power to transform society however they wish with media, and they have. Hence why we now worship mindless celebs and other inane people, and why pop culture is just vapid garbage, consumerism, etc. It's all instant gratification garbage that plays on base desires. Marketing and advertising agencies consult psychologists and have for decades. They know what they're doing.

Yeah, Celebs... Not that they are all bad but many get paid way more than they are worth, IMO.

 

[Nakosis]

Welfsre of some sort is self defense for the powerful.

Yes, well we all have to preserve our egos somehow.

 

[sun rise]

what mattered was not the wealth but how it was used.

Winner.

The US is obsessed with wealth both in worshiping those who have it or disparaging those who have it. Lord Action asserted that power corrupts. Love of money also corrupts.

What counts to me is what one does with it.

 

[Stevicus]

I want to amend my post a bit, because I had a thought. My original post isn't fair because it seems to be linked to political ideologies.

Liberals:

• Rich super evil
• Poor not so much

Conservatives

• Poor undeserving
• Rich super deserving

This is an over simplification, but I am interested in where these mindsets come from?

I've noticed kind of the same thing, although it's not really that black-and-white - even among liberals and conservatives. I've noticed that liberals have no shortage of disdain when it comes to their characterizations of some of the poor people of Appalachia and elsewhere in Middle America - mainly because they assume that their politics are conservative. By the same token, liberals idolize wealthy liberals (usually celebrities).

Conservatives might also show disdain for wealthy liberals and speak highly of working-class conservatives as the "salt of the earth" (or the "silent majority" as Nixon called them).

It's not just about income or net worth, though. Oftentimes, people are judged according to the kind of work they do or the level of education required to do it. Liberals tend to be a bit more snooty in this area, since they consider themselves better educated and therefore feel superior to those who don't have as much formal schooling.

 

[Audie]

Yes, well we all have to preserve our egos somehow.

EGOS?

I am talking about self preservation.

Cynicism ill suits anyone but if you wish to be
cynical, call it pacifying the peasants.

 

[sun rise]

I've noticed kind of the same thing, although it's not really that black-and-white - even among liberals and conservatives. I've noticed that liberals have no shortage of disdain when it comes to their characterizations of some of the poor people of Appalachia and elsewhere in Middle America - mainly because they assume that their politics are conservative. By the same token, liberals idolize wealthy liberals (usually celebrities).

Conservatives might also show disdain for wealthy liberals and speak highly of working-class conservatives as the "salt of the earth" (or the "silent majority" as Nixon called them).

It's not just about income or net worth, though. Oftentimes, people are judged according to the kind of work they do or the level of education required to do it. Liberals tend to be a bit more snooty in this area, since they consider themselves better educated and therefore feel superior to those who don't have as much formal schooling.

Phil Ochs back in the day did a very good takedown of a certain kind of liberal "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" that embodies NIMBYism and more. It's very obsolete in the references but still has truth.

 

[Secret Chief]

Obscenely rich people who treat others like **** are definitely getting to be despised in the UK, even the rightwing rags have been having a go at the likes of Philip Green, serial asset stripper and friend of a tax fraudster. He has a £100M yacht but when his companies fail he can't be ****** to support the pensions of his redundant employees, until publicly pressured. He did kindly sell a previous business to a chum for the princely sum of £1. His chum was subsequently found to have failed to pay £584000 in tax, preferring to spend it on a yacht and a Bentley amongst other things. He got jailed.
I wonder why such people are despised?

 

[Nakosis]

EGOS?

I am talking about self preservation.

Cynicism ill suits anyone but if you wish to be
cynical, call it pacifying the peasants.

Ok, got it.
Seems the peasants are getting restless.

 

[Sunstone]

Another cause for the attitudes mentioned in the OP is the fact the rich and poor in America often no longer know each other on a personal, social level. ...it has become far easier for both groups to believe or swallow BS about each other. Easier because each group knows so little about the other. BS thrives on ignorance.

I know at least a dozen millionaires who I socialize with at least once each year, and sometimes much more frequently than that. That's enough for me to notice that the stereotypes of the rich often have little or no merit to them.

For instance, Gil and Marcella recently moved into a twelve million dollar home they built out in the country. I know they built it, because I often spent a day helping them build it. Of course, there were lots of workmen doing their jobs too. It wasn't like Gil, Marcella, and I did all the work. But we did things we enjoyed doing, like installing the wood-slate ceiling over the main entryway. Now in what stereotype do a couple of millionaires enjoy building their own home? Heck, in what stereotype do millionaires even know how to drive a nail?

How do I know them? They used to be my neighbors. That is, we lived together in an older, very diverse neighborhood. They've moved out now, but I still live here.

Here's another example of a stereotype debunked. Larry and Catherine were in Honduras on a vacation with their kids. As they were passing though a village, a soccer balled rolled out in front of their SUV and they ran over it. The next thing they knew, a nine or ten year old kid dressed nearly in rags was crying his eyes out. They immediately realized the kid was likely to be too poor to afford a new ball. So they stopped to give him cash for a new ball. But now a problem rose. How much would a new ball cost the kid in the local currency? They had no idea, so -- rather than pay too little -- they gave the kid the entire cash contents of their wallets that morning. It wasn't a fortune -- they mostly use cards -- but I find it telling that they wanted to do everything they reasonably could to make sure the kid got a new ball.

Which stereotype of the rich does that fit?

 

[JustGeorge]

That's more or less been my experience -- with exceptions. The relatively poorer neighboorhoods tend to have more people in them who are easy to befriend. But there can be several reasons for that. For instance, people in upper-middle class neighborhoods dominated by professionals and small business owners are usually exceedingly focused on their careers. They often do not know their next door neighbor by name, and do most of their socializing at work or church. They work such long hours, they have very little time to meet and get to know people beyond their work place or their church.

Many people in poorer neighborhoods work two or three jobs and are more or less in the same boat as the people in the upper middle class neighborhoods. But many people also do not. Many are unemployed or underemployed and have time to socialize with their neighbors.

Another factor is higher income people tend to move more long distances more often than poorer people. The poorest housed people change residences often, but they usually stay in the same town or neighborhood. The higher income people often change towns or even states and countries. All in pursuit of their careers.

But moving so often tends to break ties and friendships, and after a period of years, people tend to give up trying to form deeper, more meaningful friendships outside their own families. Too much pain involved in breaking up friendships every five or so years.

I think what I miss most, from moving from a poor neighborhood, to a comfortable middle class one is the kids. There's very few kids playing. In the poor neighborhood, kids went outside and played. Biked, played basketball, jump rope. In the neighborhood we live in now, it was months before we realized there was any kids at all living on the block. The parents can afford the more expensive 'toys' of devices, so the only time we ever saw the youngsters was as they went from house to car(sometimes device in hand).

I think the social rules are different for the varying neighborhoods as well, and the age group. Those 55+ are more likely to say hello in either a poor or well off neighborhood. Those under can sometimes be willing to chat if you have something specific to say in a well off neighborhood, but you get pretty dirty looks if you try to make small talk. They are often(but not always) more inclined to discuss the weather in a poorer neighborhood.

Petty theft seems to happen at the same rate in both, though the folks in the poor neighborhoods aren't ever shocked, and those in the middle class seem to be flabbergasted by it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had immigrant friends, a family of 9. They weren't allowed to apply for the local low-income subsidized housing, as the program maxed at 5 kids. (Why, I have no clue, maybe it was the legal occupancy for the size of the dwelling) ) They got around by declaring the two eldest sons as living with another friend. So, officially, they were 'just visiting'.

So yeah, your list of possible complications is longer than you listed.

If they wanted a subsidy, they should've investigated
the max # of kids before having them. Were there
height or weight requirements too?

 

[Quetzal]

I've noticed kind of the same thing, although it's not really that black-and-white - even among liberals and conservatives.

I agree and it is a weakness of my post. It is too general.

I've noticed that liberals have no shortage of disdain when it comes to their characterizations of some of the poor people of Appalachia and elsewhere in Middle America - mainly because they assume that their politics are conservative.

This is really interesting. It questions my own assumptions because I think of the poor as the urban poor. Thanks for sharing, I want to think about this one some more.

It's not just about income or net worth, though. Oftentimes, people are judged according to the kind of work they do or the level of education required to do it. Liberals tend to be a bit more snooty in this area, since they consider themselves better educated and therefore feel superior to those who don't have as much formal schooling.

I have been guilty of this in the past. Although, thanks to those around me pointing it out, I am trying to get better.

 

[Audie]

Ok, got it.
Seems the peasants are getting restless.

They are always simmering. We keep the lid on.

 

[Quetzal]

That's what happens when major media is owned by corporations and billionaires. They have the power to transform society however they wish with media, and they have. Hence why we now worship mindless celebs and other inane people, and why pop culture is just vapid garbage, consumerism, etc. It's all instant gratification garbage that plays on base desires. Marketing and advertising agencies consult psychologists and have for decades. They know what they're doing.

It's crazy! It's also challenging because most social media networks employ those same principles, too!

 

[Sunstone]

Welfsre of some sort is self defense for the powerful.

An apple a day keeps the doctors away
Bread and circuses keep the guillotines at bay.

 

[ValdresRose]

This is an over simplification, but I am interested in where these mindsets come from?

I have no idea. But here is the Natural law of Money and Wealth: If you take all the money in the world and divide it equally, in 10 years 95% of the wealth will be back into the hands or 5% of the people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree and it is a weakness of my post. It is too general.

Weakness?
Hah!
Over-generalizing is the most inspiring kind of post.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no idea. But here is the Natural law of Money and Wealth: If you take all the money in the world and divide it equally, in 10 years 95% of the wealth will be back into the hands or 5% of the people.

Money seeks out the worthy.
(That explains my meager successes.)

 

[Nakosis]

Money seeks out the worthy.
(That explains my meager successes.)

Well, I suppose it ain't seeking out the humble.