Why is it so popular to talk about inequality instead of the living standard of the poor?

equal is unfair wrote:

Would you be unhappy if the poorest people all lived in 1500 square foot houses if there were still a few rich guys who lived in 7000 square foot houses?

I would be happy if everyone lived by the golden rule. Sadly, we live in a fallen world where that will not happen.

People tend to be dissatisfied with what they have when the see how much more others have. I think your imaginary scenario would be cool, but the people in the 1500 sq ft houses would complain all day long.

I don't get the push to have affordable housing in wealthy areas. Why would anyone pay a premium to live next to smelly poor people?

jewbacca wrote:

People tend to be dissatisfied with what they have when the see how much more others have. I think your imaginary scenario would be cool, but the people in the 1500 sq ft houses would complain all day long.

I agree. Our standard of living in America is awesome. You can be poor yet still afford your own apartment, a car, a cell phone and data plan, running water (hot/cold), AC and Heat, and have enough money left over for food.

Wilkommen wrote:

I agree. Our standard of living in America is awesome. You can be poor yet still afford your own apartment, a car, a cell phone and data plan, running water (hot/cold), AC and Heat, and have enough money left over for food.

So they aren't actually poor then.

equal is unfair wrote:

Would you be unhappy if the poorest people all lived in 1500 square foot houses if there were still a few rich guys who lived in 7000 square foot houses?

Liberals would answer no to that question. In fact liberals would be happier if everyone lived in 1000 square foot houses than your scenario. (Some liberals will deny what I've just said, but deep down, this is how they truly feel)

The poor wouldn't be as poor if they didn't spend all their money on alcohol, drugs, and $200 shoes.

Wilkommen wrote:

Our standard of living in America is awesome. You can be poor yet still afford your own apartment

Wrong! You can maybe afford a room in someone's house.

car

dead m/f-in wrong there, too. Can't even afford insurance let alone repairs, fees, etc.

a cell phone and data plan

Owning an up-to-date form of communication doesn't mean you're not poor. Poor people have always had telephones.

running water (hot/cold)

another basic necessity, doesn't mean you're not poor

AC and Heat

dead m/f-ing wrong again. Have you ever been to a poor person's house? You're clearly too sheltered for your own good.

and have enough money left over for food.

not quality food. Soybeans, wheat and sugar maybe, but not meat.

Yep!

The poorest in the U.S. have a living standard higher than Kings of old, and higher standard than the U.S. Presidents a short 120 years ago.

But now that we have media and politics that spread dissatisfaction, we never think about how incredible that fact is.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Wilkommen wrote:

Our standard of living in America is awesome. You can be poor yet still afford your own apartment

Wrong! You can maybe afford a room in someone's house.

car

dead m/f-in wrong there, too. Can't even afford insurance let alone repairs, fees, etc.

a cell phone and data plan

Owning an up-to-date form of communication doesn't mean you're not poor. Poor people have always had telephones.

running water (hot/cold)

another basic necessity, doesn't mean you're not poor

AC and Heat

dead m/f-ing wrong again. Have you ever been to a poor person's house? You're clearly too sheltered for your own good.

and have enough money left over for food.

not quality food. Soybeans, wheat and sugar maybe, but not meat.

I disagree, you can afford these things on 13.00 an hour.

Studio apartment: 500.00

Car payment: 300.00

Food: 300.00

Cell phone: 100.00

Car insurance: 95.00

Electric bill: 50.00

Gasoline: 50.00

Leaves you with 165.00 excess, assuming your work 40 hours a week and deduct 25% for taxes and health car etc.

If you want to save get a part time job on the weekend, or live with your GF or BF and split the rent and share the car. Or live in a city where you don't need a car then you can save 400 a month.

I not saying this isn't the scenario of a poor person but you can live a happy life just starting out if you maintain your health and are active.

Why can't these greedy poors just be happy with what they've got? They're not pooping in dirt holes! They're not battling the bubonic plague! What's all the complaining for?

Sure, roughly one in every five kids lives in a food insecure household, but even fast food meals come with a friggin toy these days! Maybe poor kids have demonstrably worse educational opportunities than kids who live in wealthier areas, and maybe millions of Americans are only one accident away from a lifetime of drowning in debt, but they all get to watch TV! They're living like kings!

I find the Golden Rule to be a very unhelpful directive. I don't think many people would appreciate it if I treated them the way I'd prefer to be treated (i.e., shut up and leave me alone).

Roger, why is just about every homeless or poor person I've ever seen fat?

Because they are too poor to eat quality food, and subsist on junk food and fast food. Also, no time to exercise.

It is two things:

1) The plain, naked ENVY of those who hate the rich.

2) Professional inequality alarmists like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to be ruling elites for selfish reasons.

equal is unfair wrote:

Would you be unhappy if the poorest people all lived in 1500 square foot houses if there were still a few rich guys who lived in 7000 square foot houses?

I think the conversation on inequality is not about what people have or don't have. It's more about opportunity.

Do people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum have any chance of improving their situation in life? Or are they born into a predetermined subsistence-level way of life?

Answering for liberals wrote:

Roger, why is just about every homeless or poor person I've ever seen fat?

Because they're living like kings, of course! Being homeless is just one big act. Pretend to be a broken person with "schizophrenia", subsist on a diet of delicious soup, donated granola bars and McDonalds, and spend the rest of your life camping in the great outdoors! I wish I never had to shower or sit in an air conditioned office building What a life! Anyone who thinks we should "help" such people is an ENABLER.

xfithonorarycaptain wrote:

Because they are too poor to eat quality food, and subsist on junk food and fast food. Also, no time to exercise.

Junk food doesn't cost more than healthy food and certainly less than fast food. Most of them have plenty of time to exercise particularly if unemployed.

There might be the occasional hard-luck case where this is true, but most of the time they are either 1) mentally disabled, or 2) LAZY. Like radical [REDACTED] terrorism, everyone knows it, liberals just don't want to say it.

foo wrote:

Do people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum have any chance of improving their situation in life? Or are they born into a predetermined subsistence-level way of life?

Oh, boy more fatalistic propaganda. Is this trope still being spoon fed in academia? Equality of opportunity is a myth. We all have different talents, IQs, developed skill sets, and work ethic. How well has 50+ years of leveling the playing field worked out?

It's pretty simple, really: a Person is at Point A. Point B is a step upward. Move to Point B. Point B now becomes Point A. Repeat. I don't guess that really fits the Marxist narrative of everything being predetermined by class though.

No-one in the USA is poor. Poor is having nothing and not being able to do anything about it.

Even in the shacks of Mississippi or Appalachia, there's lot's of programs available to help. People choose whether or not to take that help. Yes, you might have to move against your will, but the help is there...and they know about it.