Is the US a "classless" society?

[lsbskins1]

Not so. I may not want it. If I can speak the right words I might persuade you that you need it. What determines the value of a poker hand? Perception of value determined by diligent application of odds and tells of the other players. What is the factor that limits a players sense of the hand's value? Might be wishful thinking and the nonsense idea that he's on a roll, a lucky streak, and so overplay the value. A more experienced player might fold a hand that is valued by the chump. The point being that wealth is not solely based on physical items but on the perception of value. A single song might run its course and quit generating revenue. Are there no more songs available to the artist? Do relationship problems that create empathic emotional response to songs suddenly become limited? Value and wealth fluctuates. You think it zero sum and constant? I'll see your $5 and raise you $5.

Here is what is zero sum. Each player walks into the room with a fixed amount of cash to bet on the hands. I might "think" the hand is worth betting a billion dollars on, but if I ain't got a billion dollars to bet, it makes no difference that I "think" it is worth that amount. Always, in the end, no matter what you do, at some point, you run into physical reality. You run into the fact that the physical things available limit the upper end of the value that can be paid for anything, be it a commodity that sprang from an idea or a commodity that is a commodity in and of itself. I can certainly "game" someone into thinking something is worth more than it is, but in doing that, someone, somewhere else, is gamed out of something. Zero sum. Whether you view it from the micro or the macro, national or international perspective, it ends up being a zero sum game. Yes, certainly, much of it is based on perception. But that does not negate the fact that there is always a physical limit. In 1980, you needed 30 dollars to buy that damn Cabbage Patch Doll that you could not sell for 5 dollars today. But now, you need 30 dollars to buy a game for the Xbox, which no one would have looked twice at in 1980. The perceived value to some particular thing may wax and wain, but to get that thing, you must choose it over some other thing because your resources for attaining things are not unlimited. They never are. That means, someone, somewhere, has a thing they want to sell that you would have bought otherwise. Zero sum.

You limit your sense of economics to what makes zero sum work instead of noting how fractional banking practice provide for increased capital in whatever endeavor be it marketing with the manipulation of consumer purchasing trends or the sale of virtual game talismans and virtual objects of power. It's entirely possible that at some point you will value a set of crutches enough to buy a set and later, when healed, you might not value them. This is not a zero sum game when capital can be created by ideas. Or are ideas as limited as gold? Do we know all there is about resources that they can not increase in value to you and me? Or decrease only on being persuaded of a moral issue justifying the sale or purchase of an item. Is morality limited and a commodity like oil, corn, or gold? Ideas are not limited in the same manner as other sources of wealth. It is the limited nature or intrinsic value of a thing that makes an item a stable tradeable representation of wealth, the value of which can be adjusted thru economic growth. The dollar is not tied to gold though it used to be. What does the dollar represent now? Certainly not a warehouse receipt for an intrinsic item of value anymore. The media is a powerful determining factor in the economy. If the media widely says the economy is going to hell, but its not, how does that indicate zero sum? Doesn't. It indicates flexibility of perception of wealth and value depending on whims, peer perceptions, and much more. Talking Down the Economy[65]

I have answered this previously. Relational and/or inflationary value add no real wealth. If I want to borrow money to acquire land and the bank has deposits to cover the loan and put that money in my hand while simultaneously agreeing to give the same amount of money back to the depositor on demand, any increase in value to the land is inflationary, not real. It makes things move, it keeps things going and is a good practice, but it creates no real wealth. Sorry.

[barts]

Well, if you're going to refer to that report as an authority, then because economics is not a zero-sum game (as it clearly states), and net, overall wealth can be increased, what difference does it make what percentage of known wealth the rich hold? The fact that they have wealth only prevents others from getting wealthier if it is a zero-sum game.

Please review earlier links I posted for your erudition.

If the net wealth increases by 200% and the increase all goes to a small group of people, the poor remain poor or poorer and the gap widens with all the attendant social issues already brought to your attention.

If there are two people in a room and the average wealth of the two people is $100,000 but one has $199,000 and the other $1,000 it is not the same as them both having $100,000 each. Also the person with $1,000 has far fewer opportunities to improve his lot than the person with $199,000. That's how simple this issue is.

[Meleagar]

Please review earlier links I posted for your erudition.

If the net wealth increases by 200% and the increase all goes to a small group of people, the poor remain poor or poorer and the gap widens with all the attendant social issues already brought to your attention.

The increase doesn't all go to a small group. Just a large portion of it does. The poor are not getting poorer in historical terms; they are only "getting poorer" in the same Orwellian sense that reducing the rate of increased spending is called a spending "cut"; they are only "getting poorer" by the standard set by the super-rich.

The poor of the past didn't have food, shelter, hot and cold running water, heating, air conditioning, a running car, cable, a microwave, telephone service, cell phones, medical care, legal counsel, etc. The poor of today do. As the links and excerpts I provided demonstrate, the standard of living of those we call "poor" today match the standard of living of the middle class of the 1970's.

The poor are not "getting poorer" by any standard other than the envy standard.

[el ايمان]

I don't think we're talking about the poor of today versus the poor throughout history. The impression I had was that in modern society, the middle class is being pushed lower and lower down the ladder into the lower class, who are with the aforementioned class being pressed into relative poverty.

The following is a fabricated situation, but I think it will help explain the "poor get poorer" viewpoint.

There are 100 million dollars in circulation, 20 of which are owned by the common person. Oprah has developed a skin care line, so she is supplying skin care to people. Over time, the common persons develop fabulous skin,.but it's been a few years, so now 99 million dollars are owned by Oprah and the common persons have only 1 million dollars between them. You can see how the common peoples are in deep shit, but they figure they will earn back some money by selling their products to Oprah. Unbeknowngst to them, Oprah is fabulously wealthy and therefore already owns all the cars she needs, the house she needs, only pays a small portion of her money in utilities, and grows her own food on a sustainable farm. She got richer and the poor got poorer, and she is not putting enough money back into circulation by herself for all of the poor to even have a chance at non-poverty.

[barts]

The increase doesn't all go to a small group. Just a large portion of it does. The poor are not getting poorer in historical terms; they are only "getting poorer" in the same Orwellian sense that reducing the rate of increased spending is called a spending "cut"; they are only "getting poorer" by the standard set by the super-rich.

The poor of the past didn't have food, shelter, hot and cold running water, heating, air conditioning, a running car, cable, a microwave, telephone service, cell phones, medical care, legal counsel, etc. The poor of today do. As the links and excerpts I provided demonstrate, the standard of living of those we call "poor" today match the standard of living of the middle class of the 1970's.

The poor are not "getting poorer" by any standard other than the envy standard.

Your sensibilities are not at issue. What is at issue is the actual effects of the expanding wealth gap on people in general and the state of nations. It doesn't matter that you think people who are getting poorer relative to the rich should suck it up because they aren't as poor as people a half century ago. What matters is what is happening today to people as consequence of the expanding wealth gap.

If the wealth gap is reduced, improvements in the lives of billions of people around the world will be realized. There is no defensible social, economic, or ethical reason that the largest percentage of the world's wealth should be concentrated in a just a few people while billions are deprived of opportunity and in many cases adequate food, water, housing, and security.

On every indicator a more equitable distribution of a nation's or the world's wealth produces greater benefits for the greatest number of people, and it produces peace and stability, necessary precursors for the development of real, sustainable, material wealth. To argue that billionaires ought to have their billions rather than merely a million or two is truly perverse, morally indefensible, and dangerous.

No benefits accrue to a society and the vast majority of its people when the gap between rich and poor is extreme. Those are the undeniable facts.

The only rationale I can see for defending the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor and the deliberate annihilation of the middle class is a belief that the rich are superior beings to those who are not rich, and that the superior beings have an earned privilege to prey on those less powerful than them. Is it any wonder then that usually when the wealth gap becomes too extreme the prey rise up violently and devour the predators? Did you not notice what is happening now in the Middle East? Are you not aware of the great revolutions in France, Russia, and China?

[minorwork]

Here is what is zero sum. Each player walks into the room with a fixed amount of cash to bet on the hands.

And so you have fixed the game. It is then a zero sum game. Not arguing that a fixed game can't be rigged. Texas hold 'em tourneys have a buy in and that's it. But in functional life that begins as a game of strip poker with only 4 items of clothes had between 2 guys and 2 gals. Once the clothes are gone from a player, is the game over? Are they kicked out? Not if I'm playing. People can wager favors of some kind to be done at the pleasure of the winner. Like washing a car or mowing a lawn. Or... What constitutes wealth and the means of its exchanging is only as limited as your imagination and desires and agreement with another to exchange for what you lack for something you have. It is a thing of beauty. The spice must flow. Desires and appetites sated when interests are piqued. It's called barter.

I have answered this previously. Relational and/or inflationary value add no real wealth. If I want to borrow money to acquire land and the bank has deposits to cover the loan and put that money in my hand while simultaneously agreeing to give the same amount of money back to the depositor on demand, any increase in value to the land is inflationary, not real. It makes things move, it keeps things going and is a good practice, but it creates no real wealth. Sorry.

Inflation robs those on fixed income. You are correct. If the game is rigged to limit income then inflation is the cruelest tax for the decrease in purchasing power. So that indicates the class distinctions of those on fixed incomes from those on increasing incomes. But that's not the end if those on fixed incomes can reduce their need for increasing incomes by the same amount as inflation. They will just hold their own until they die and if they've done it right the last check they write will bounce. That's right kiddies, I've spent your inheritance. Ha.

[Meleagar]

I don't think we're talking about the poor of today versus the poor throughout history. The impression I had was that in modern society, the middle class is being pushed lower and lower down the ladder into the lower class, who are with the aforementioned class being pressed into relative poverty.

Except that's not true; what's actually going on is that as the poor are redefined and gain more wealth, the term "poor" consumes more and more of the middle class, which serves the interests of those who would incite class warfare. IOW, those who were "middle class" in the 1970's would now be the "poor", Why is that? It's because the poor have become as materially wealthy as the middle class of the 70's. The middle class is only disappearing because the terminology has been moved upwards along the wealth scale, where "middle class" now means those who would have been considered borderline rich in the 70's.

[Meleagar]

Your sensibilities are not at issue. What is at issue is the actual effects of the expanding wealth gap on people in general and the state of nations. It doesn't matter that you think people who are getting poorer relative to the rich should suck it up because they aren't as poor as people a half century ago.

People with adequate shelter, plenty to eat, one or two running vehicles, telephones, cell phones, cable, air conditioning, heat, hot and cold running water, indoor plumbing, video game console and 2 televisions have to "suck it up" in what sense?

What matters is what is happening today to people as consequence of the expanding wealth gap.

Once again: being poor is only a consequence of the wealth gap in and of itself if acquisition of wealth is a zero-sum game. It is not.

On every indicator a more equitable distribution of a nation's or the world's wealth produces greater benefits for the greatest number of people, and it produces peace and stability, necessary precursors for the development of real, sustainable, material wealth.

As my linked resources indicate, there is no permeating sense of unrest or unhappiness to be found in the general population of America just because the wealth gap exists - at least not outside of those whom the socialists incite, while it appears that there is great social unrest in those European countries where the forced, "equitable" distributions of wealth have led to unsustainable economies that are now going bankrupt.

To argue that billionaires ought to have their billions rather than merely a million or two is truly perverse, morally indefensible, and dangerous.

To argue that billionaires should be stripped of their wealth simply because they have more than others is truly perverse, morally indefensible, and dangerous.

No benefits accrue to a society and the vast majority of its people when the gap between rich and poor is extreme. Those are the undeniable facts.

Except that the gap between the rich and the poor has always been extreme in the USA, and the benefit to society of that system is the generation of so great an amount of wealth that even our poor live like kings compared to most of the real poor in the world today, or historically, which accounts for why the poor in America are, as the report shows, as happy as the wealthy.

The only rationale I can see for defending the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor and the deliberate annihilation of the middle class is a belief that the rich are superior beings to those who are not rich, and that the superior beings have an earned privilege to prey on those less powerful than them.

If that's the only rationale you can see, then it's no wonder you support redistribution via the envy metric.

Where has it been shown to be "deliberate" to get rid of the middle class, except by redefining what it is to be "poor" upward so that the term "poor" subsumes most of what used to be the middle class? Also, please direct me to any source that objectively defines what it means to be "poor", and what objective values are used to determine that status.

Is it any wonder then that usually when the wealth gap becomes too extreme the prey rise up violently and devour the predators? Did you not notice what is happening now in the Middle East?

Errr .. if the socialist economies of Europe are so great, why is there such civil unrest there now? People are rising up in the Middle East aren't doing so beause they're poor, they're doing so because they're being oppressed; the pro-democracy revolutionaries want democratic reforms (they don't chant "we want more money"), and the muslim brotherhood wants a sharia-compliant, anti-Western government (they, also, are not chanting "we want more money").

Are you not aware of the great revolutions in France, Russia, and China?

Russia .. let's see ... the socialist revolution established the distributive communist model ... and the people revolted against the zero-wealth growth real-world result to create a capitalistic society. China has introduced capitalist wealth-acquisition for individuals to spur wealth production both due to unrest and just to be able to compete. France? Are you talking about the revolution against the formal class system when the atheists murdered tens of thousands of the religious, or the current unrest in that socialist model?

[el ايمان]

Except that's not true; what's actually going on is that as the poor are redefined and gain more wealth, the term "poor" consumes more and more of the middle class, which serves the interests of those who would incite class warfare. IOW, those who were "middle class" in the 1970's would now be the "poor", Why is that? It's because the poor have become as materially wealthy as the middle class of the 70's. The middle class is only disappearing because the terminology has been moved upwards along the wealth scale, where "middle class" now means those who would have been considered borderline rich in the 70's.

Actually, it's because the price of the US dollar went down, relative historically. A middle class person in the seventies had a lesser numerical salary than a middle class person today, but was not poorer, because everyone else in the seventies had a lesser numerical salary than they would were they in today.

Me of the future may have five dollars more than I do today, but today, everything is five dollars cheaper.

[Meleagar]

Actually, it's because the price of the US dollar went down, relative historically. A middle class person in the seventies had a lesser numerical salary than a middle class person today, but was not poorer, because everyone else in the seventies had a lesser numerical salary than they would were they in today.

Except the links I had and my argument wasn't about "numeric value", but upon comparing the lifestyle and material wealth of the middle class of the '70s wtih hte poor of today.

Me of the future may have five dollars more than I do today, but today, everything is five dollars cheaper.

Comparisons of wealth in the studies linked adjust for such variances.

[el ايمان]

If you refer to this

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

link, the only mid-1900s comparisons that I saw were for air conditioning and minor height/weight differences.

[Meleagar]

Who said anything about the mid-1900's?