Economy How the upper middle class keeps everyone else out

[PainIsLIfe]

We don't need another standard. 120k puts a household in the upper 25th. $300k puts them in the top 5 %, so it's probably better to say that the plumber is upper class. The exact division for the plumber is secondary to my point.

Which is that you were delineating based on their job types, not their income. That the blue collar guy couldn't be upper middle class because he was blue collar. I'm saying that someone can be in blue collar job and still be upper middle class and someone can be in a professional job and still be low or lower-middle class (lord knows there are plenty of lawyers who were making less than $40k year out of law school).

All true; and I'll concede the point if someone will simply explain how my wife and I pass laws to keep others from obtaining this magical middle class as the op vid suggested.

 

[gatchaman]

I think we all do. But the unaddressed variable in that is that it's not true. So many things go into whether or not even something as simple as going to school every day and doing the work translates into opportunity.

I write on here all of the time about elite private schools because I've only recently become familiar with them. But I went to a top notch public school program as child. Now, I can look at the local schools around me and see the difference.

I appreciate the difference that having a good guidance counselor makes. There are schools where they don't even have regular guidance counselors. Or they don't provide them until the kids are in 10th or 11th grade. There are a wide range of support programs out there to help kids get recognition for their abilities but if none of the teachers care enough to nominate the students, they go without. Schools without the resources to fund gifted programs. Blah, blah, blah.

That's just the world of pre-college education, so much is outside the control of the student and much of it is about knowledge. Move into the college space and the work place and those things are just exponentially larger in terms of impact. Knowledge of internships, relationships in hiring companies, etc. They all matter as much as, if not more than, just showing up and working hard every day.

And that's what's been happening in the last few decades. People who have achieved at a moderate level are trying to prevent others from achieving the same level of success by reducing opportunity at earlier and earlier levels. They might rail against the rich but they're taking action against the poor.

I didn't go a highly ranked school, and even the job that I work at today, I got it from the want ads. If I had to characterize how I got to where I am today I would say: Showing up to school every day, doing the homework, studying for the tests, and working up from the bottom is a clear path to economic security.

But when I watch the video and read your comments, I can't help but personalize it, like I didn't really do those things. No, actually, it must have been because I was advantaged by my socioeconomic group. And my children won't really do those things. Any success they will experience will be because of their socioeconomic group. I am the villain. I am one of these people: "People who have achieved at a moderate level are trying to prevent others from achieving the same level of success by reducing opportunity at earlier and earlier levels."

I don't deny that political influence is a path to economic security. But I can't help but feel that the people who have political influence far greater than mine will defer the opportunity redistribution that is on the table in this thread, while I experience it full force.

 

[panamaican]

All true; and I'll concede the point if someone will simply explain how my wife and I pass laws to keep others from obtaining this magical middle class as the op vid suggested.

I already gave examples. Just because you, individually, aren't doing it doesn't mean that it's not being done collectively by others.

 

[panamaican]

I didn't go a highly ranked school, and even the job that I work at today, I got it from the want ads. If I had to characterize how I got to where I am today I would say: Showing up to school every day, doing the homework, studying for the tests, and working up from the bottom is a clear path to economic security.

But when I watch the video and read your comments, I can't help but personalize it, like I didn't really do those things. No, actually, it must have been because I was advantaged by my socioeconomic group. And my children won't really do those things. Any success they will experience will be because of their socioeconomic group. I am the villain. I am one of these people: "People who have achieved at a moderate level are trying to prevent others from achieving the same level of success by reducing opportunity at earlier and earlier levels."

I don't deny that political influence is a path to economic security. But I can't help but feel that the people who have political influence far greater than mine will defer the opportunity redistribution that is on the table in this thread, while I experience it full force.

Don't personalize it. There are people in the world other than you.

Here's the thing - when it comes to those people trying to legislate advantage to their economic class, we all say "I'm not doing it so I shouldn't feel responsible." But we don't turn away the benefits when they come our way either. It's a bit selective.

Johnny steals a million dollars and gives his friends enough money for the down payment on new houses. When the cops come a-knockin', the friends say "I didn't steal any money, why are you looking at me? I pay the note on my house, not Johnny." They pretend as if Johnny's actions didn't benefit them by focusing only their active role, not their passively received benefits. It's a self-defensive mechanism, a way of distancing themselves from what they know is going on without having to distance themselves from the benefits.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

Income is a very poor indicator of wealth.

The issue is capital being taxed lower than labour on the same amount.

Everyone looks out for themselves.

Something tells me there isnt a gathering of everyone in the upper middle class where they come up with ways to protect "the upper middle class"...

This is just more class propaganda getting the uneducated poor to hate those that have more than they do...its all their fault you know. Them. Those others. They are evil and are against you.

He specifically said it was not by design or anyone setting out to do this. It was a rare inclusion that stuck out to me as frequently people speak as if there is some grand conspiracy trying to change society.

 

[panamaican]

I didn't ask for an example. I asked you a direct Yes/No question because you were talking so far around the thread topic to get back on track. I posted your example, to stay on topic after you answered, and more information on the point I was making with another example of my own. Schools, housing, people.

Disregarding the unnecessary disrespectful tone in response, your only counter argument is that "the nation benefits more because it maximizes resources". Why? How? Your post can be summarized as "this is happening", and "this is the result", with the entire middle completely non-existent. I disagree, as explained, and highlight why I think it has a better impact for individuals and families, which in turn creates better situations for many involved. Had you made an argument as to why the "nation is prioritized" in reverse maybe I would feel like there was substance in your replies. However you can keep the vague non-answers, but there is no need for disrespect. I have had multiple discussions with you and never once got emo and started throwing insults, speak condescending, or alter my tone, even when I completely disagree because I have (had) a level of respect for you and your positions. Yet you continuously do this towards me.

This isn't the first time I have stated this to you, though it'll be the last. Peace.

Again, why must I re-type things that I already typed? I explained the why.

You responded to the post with the why and completely ignored it in your response. In your response to my post with the why, all you did was repeat your argument for the individual. You didn't acknowledge the why for the nation.

Hence my lack of patience. You were given the answer to your question quite early in the exchange.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

He specifically said it was not by design or anyone setting out to do this.

I replied to the OP...where it does in face imply that it is done purposefully.

It is often the upper middle class rigging things through their community. They control it so it suits the needs of themselves and their families. Real rich people like Bezos and Gates don't need to rig shit. These upper middle class people prevent upward mobility of those below them systematically.

 

[gatchaman]

Don't personalize it. There are people in the world other than you.

Here's the thing - when it comes to those people trying to legislate advantage to their economic class, we all say "I'm not doing it so I shouldn't feel responsible." But we don't turn away the benefits when they come our way either. It's a bit selective.

Johnny steals a million dollars and gives his friends enough money for the down payment on new houses. When the cops come a-knockin', the friends say "I didn't steal any money, why are you looking at me? I pay the note on my house, not Johnny." They pretend as if Johnny's actions didn't benefit them by focusing only their active role, not their passively received benefits. It's a self-defensive mechanism, a way of distancing themselves from what they know is going on without having to distance themselves from the benefits.

Again, I can't help but personalize it. I have some money. Johnny stole money. On account of me merely having money, I must have some of Johnny's stolen money. Stolen money must be recovered from me.

I don't like being held collectively responsible for political influence based on my economic success. Rather than being held collectively responsible, I would like to see the case made against me individually, and not just me, Trump also.

 

[panamaican]

Again, I can't help but personalize it. I have some money. Johnny stole money. On account of me merely having money, I must have some of Johnny's stolen money. Stolen money must be recovered from me.

I don't like being held collectively responsible for political influence based on my economic success. Rather than being held collectively responsible, I would like to see the case made against me individually, and not just me, Trump also.

Well, if you have to personalize all of these things then you're not going to be able to view anything political neutrally.

You don't like being held collectively responsible for political influence...how does that work when you live in a democracy? When someone argues that people pay too much in taxes and lowers your tax burden and the deficit increase, you're going to say "I don't have any responsibility for the deficit because I didn't personally vote for the tax cut."

I'm sorry but I find that laughable. People live in a democracy, sit on a political forum arguing about policy directions FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY and then have the lack of self-awareness to state: "I don't want any collective responsibility for political things."

Then why spend any time arguing for collective political positions of you don't want any of the associated responsibility? It's comical.

 

[gatchaman]

Well, if you have to personalize all of these things then you're not going to be able to view anything political neutrally.

You don't like being held collectively responsible for political influence...how does that work when you live in a democracy? When someone argues that people pay too much in taxes and lowers your tax burden and the deficit increase, you're going to say "I don't have any responsibility for the deficit because I didn't personally vote for the tax cut."

I'm sorry but I find that laughable. People live in a democracy, sit on a political forum arguing about policy directions FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY and then have the lack of self-awareness to state: "I don't want any collective responsibility for political things."

Then why spend any time arguing for collective political positions of you don't want any of the associated responsibility? It's comical.

I think that I am lumped in with Trump in terms of collective responsibility. Because we both have some money, we must have both acquired stolen money from Johnny (per your analogy in post #131).

But Trump will defer any recovery of the stolen money. Me on the other hand, I will be unceremoniously turned upside down and have the contents of my pockets shaken out. And my protestations to such treatment will be found laughable.

 

[panamaican]

I think that I am lumped in with Trump in terms of collective responsibility. Because we both have some money, we must have both acquired stolen money from Johnny (per your analogy in post #131).

But Trump will defer any recovery of the stolen money. Me on the other hand, I will be unceremoniously turned upside down and have the contents of my pockets shaken out. And my protestations to such treatment will be found laughable.

Ah got it, you're now deflecting this conversation into a conversation about Trump. That makes even less sense than before.

 

[gatchaman]

Ah got it, you're now deflecting this conversation into a conversation about Trump. That makes even less sense than before.

Who realistically will most likely experience the downside of whatever new affirmative action scheme arises out of the video, the people in my socioeconomic sphere or the people in Trump's socioeconomic sphere? And who is more likely the beneficiary of inherited political influence?

 

[panamaican]

Who realistically will most likely experience the downside of whatever new affirmative action scheme arises out of video, the people in my socioeconomic sphere or the people in Trump's socioeconomic sphere? And who is more likely the beneficiary of inherited political influence?

I can't engage you anymore. You've gone too far afield to be worth the effort.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I already gave examples. Just because you, individually, aren't doing it doesn't mean that it's not being done collectively by others.

We'll have to disagree, Im still not buying that 120k households have the power to do it. Especially in Rural America where everyone goes to the same schools.

 

[panamaican]

We'll have to disagree, Im still not buying that 120k households have the power to do it. Especially in Rural America where everyone goes to the same schools.

I literally already posted an example. Are you saying that example I provided isn't happening?

 

[original doom]

We are not fortunate for it to be this way but that entirely depends on what the long terms goals are. If you're talking about maximizing the nation's human resources in the furtherance of remaining international top dog, it's not a good thing. If you're talking about maximizing an individual family's climb up the economic and social ladder then it is.

In my opinion, I prioritize maximizing the nation's resources. But that's because I come from a background where I've seen the impact of how nations fail to do so.

If the children of the upper middle are truly elite and/or superior then they will outcompete their poorer counterparts, given an equal footing. If they're not and they're artificially raised into positions of power then we're impoverishing our nation in terms of intellectual capital.

shouldnt the tax paying class have some say within their neighbourhoods. why shouldnt the better off see their kids getting better schooling oppurtunities than the poorer folk.

 

[BossRootin]

"While the top 1% of America's wealthy receive so much attention, the more significant divide is between the top 20% and everyone else."
Within the first 20 seconds they have thrown all credibility of an honest argument out the window.

 

[BossRootin]

If you can defend the propaganda in this video you probably should find the nearest communist country and move there. The USA is no place for you.

 

[gatchaman]

I can't engage you anymore. You've gone too far afield to be worth the effort.

To you, I am laughable and not worth the effort. To you, I should try not to take it personally.

 

[BossRootin]

The upper middle class are in the bottom 90%.