A bias against wealth?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

So you are feeling personally attacked in your upper middle class-ness over this bias against the wealthy?

I pointed out at the very beginning that perception of wealth is very tied to one's own position.

I think there's a true bias against the very wealthy, and I think there's very good reasons for it (I think Graeme articulates very well their various and sundry sins). However, I think there's a tendency to crap on the merely well-off (and I'm thinking of your family, Pinga - dual income professional-class people) while actually aiming considerably higher - largely those families with inherited wealth - which is a quite different thing.
 
Absolutely, i have been personally attacked here. Check out monk's posts.

Presumptions abound. When i challenge, others pile on about how the wealthy are...insert attack here against groups of people.

It is hilarious, in a way. Nothing has changed about me but my income and all of a sudden i have terrible characteristics
 
Haha, let me rephrase that: nothing has changed but my income and giving. Oh, wait, now i am falling into the "you cannot win" either anonymous and hence perceived as greedy or open and perceived as bragging.

Note: i am not the only one with this situation, but i am in a mood to confront it
 
The thing is..."the poor" deal with enough already. You are trying to say somehow that there is even hardship on both sides because those "poor wealthy misunderstood folks". I am not buying that.
 
When did I say that there was equal or more hardship for the wealthy, Kimmio.
What I said was that there is a bias. That bias gets in the way of communication.

and, you know what, when was the last time you heard someone be told that they weren't a christian or didn't follow jesus because they happened to have less than the other.

I knwo that we have had folks say the poor shouldn't smoke or drink alchohol and they have been stomped on for saying so.

yet, presumptions are made regularly about those who have some money and it is a "let's all jump on board that one"
 
Kimmio - cute cartoon. What really struck me was the scene of jitterbugging. I couldn't do it then. And I'm quite sure I wouldn't survive it now.

Now - the basis of great wealth is capitalism which is supposedly founded in competition. Christianity is not. So we start with a contradiction. (Yes, I know people compete in tennis, horse-races.... But competing against others for wealth - and power - is another matter.) Our local billionaire has his own church (named after the family). He has been, to say the least, unsupportive of medicare, climate control, social programmes in general. He uses his political influence to get government grants - all that stuff. But, oh, he keeps his church open in summer for us proletariat, and pays for a Rev. DD every Sunday. Nothing but the best - with special music.
For get the theories. Capitalism has brought enormous suffering, starvation, sub-survival pay, war and death, massive displacement, and climate damage to the whole world. The destruction of native peoples in the Americas was largely the product of capitalist wealth - it wanted the mineral resources of native peoples - and it wanted the forests and lands for financial speculation.

Today, you need to be a billionaire to have serious political influence. You can't control who gets elected without very, very big money. That's why parties always assign their most prominent politicians to being the bagmen who go to the billionaires to see what they want in return for money. That's why there is so little progress on climate change. That's why there's no investigation ( or media news) about tax havens. That's why Canadian troops are in eastern Europe. That's why Canadians died in Afghanistan.

The middle class have very, very little political clout. Fifty years ago, a millionaire was on the low edge of wealthy. It takes rather more than that now.

To be upper class you need to have power - financial and political - and power has always been within the reach of just one or two percent of the population.

Class also suggests that the upper class have a sense of themselves as an upper class - a sense of being those superior to others, almost in a racial sense, and a sense of privilege. And, yes, some work their way up to that - but not many. More common are the Rockefellers who have been inheriting upper class status since, at least, the nineteenth century.

Even the dumb sons get to the top. I can think of a couple who dropped out of university, and one who got through university only because daddy paid a little extra.l (A lot extra. For that matter, how do you think a dolt like George Bush Jr. ever got into an an MBA programme - much less passing it?) Anyway, all three of the ones I know now run huge corporations - not bad for college drop-outs. Oh, did I mention Daddy owned the corporations?

We have produced an upper class which now owns us. It owns governments. It decides on taxes, wars, trade agreements....
Trump is something of rebel within that group. But he's still in that group.

Despite a small number of exceptions, it's a class that cares nothing for the rest of us. That's why wealth has been steadily drifting from most of us to the upper class.

And the churches? They played the same kiss-up games in the rising days of aristocrats.

P.S. Oh, someone mentioned the scandalous salaries paid to civil service CEOs. In fact, they come nothing close to the upper CEOs. As well, they are usually more competent. A little history here. In World War 1, management of the war economy was largely up to the private CEOs. And it was a disaster. In 1939, it was placed in the hands of civil servants - and was amazingly successful. In fact, for years after the war, private corporations used to send their rising stars to study the civil service in Ottawa. (Today, of course, the common line put out is that civil servants are incompetent. That's because the upper classes don't want the government to interfere with their looting of the economy.
 
And another thing is...with a disappearing "middle" there is really just wealthy and poor. But those who call themselves middle don't get that either...I see no reason to criticize "the poor"for their perception when their reality is much harsher than putting up with some verbal criticism.
 
I don't blame the wealthy for everything...and I consider most of the "middle" to be wealthy because the centre has definitely shifted and trickle down didn't work for the bottom third. I just don't like to hear the wealthy whining about their hardship over it. It's a bit "rich".
 
I don't criticize the poor for their perception. I criticize the failure of all parties to explain the situation to them. And the failure of the news media to be anything but propaganda.
 
Basically, my advice to pinga is if you want to have a discussion that doesn't get heated don't discuss finances. It's a touchy subject and I would have to say that those in the bottom third are hurting far more.

I also think monk is middle/ upper middle class. I am poor - but I have very nice (small) digs, nice fashionable clothes from VV because I was blessed with good taste ;) and a job. I feel rich. But I am not on paper - yet I am. And being close to homeless a year or so ago - that was rough! I didn't really mention it here - the close to homeless part (maybe I did) but a couple of people knew what I was going through.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, re definition of middle class
Found this article, which starts with numbers like lucends posted, actually starts with what politicians said. It later moved into regional differences and a comparison of income vs wealth
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/

That was the best article of this sort that I have come across ... thanks for the link @Pinga

@Kimmio ... you see that you were way off in classing us as wealthy ....

Your approximate net worth is: $ 47,000

Here’s where you fit in compared to other Canadians:

If you are in a family of two or more
Negative to $67,970: Bottom 20% of the population

TRY: All Canadian Wealth Test Calculator »



 
My net worth is $0 I own no saleable assets - I have an iPad that was a gift but I cannot resell it - and I have about $500 debt and my only money is about $22,000/ year now - gross - but they didn't ask about income from employment.
 
My discomfort is that I grew up as one considered to be smart and hard-working. I was always at the top of my class in high school and university. I worked at jobs since I was 14. But too many of my decisions landed me in the position of lower-middle-class with zero prestige or leadership. And the students I competed with are presidents of colleges, or writers for national newspapers, with money and prestige. My very best friend from university is a multi-millionaire who has done Ted Talks and got an honorary doctorate from McGill. (She doesn't talk to me any more!) So, I guess I'm saying that we live in a stratified society where money and prestige go hand in hand it seems. I'm not bitter about my choices. I think having a lot of money is a lot of work and responsibility. Am I biased against wealth? Maybe a little uncomfortable when it makes me feel like I've failed somehow.
 
Wait, so I can't engage in finance talks and expect some semblance of respect, but, others can? Just want to make sure that I am understanding your viewpoint
 
Aah. But if someone names the bias when it slips out regarding poor, there is a backlash

Yet, the bias against the wealthy turns into attacks on those who fit into that class, rather than dialogue.

Witness this thread as an example.

There is no attack against the poor and disadvantaged ... what a metaphor! Could we eliminate them ...

Some try by just saying: "don't help those slugs!"
 
A bit about my perspective on wealth:

Epicurus taught that the highest good comes from being free of physical and mental suffering. He specifically identified "anxiety" as mental suffering.

Not having enough money to live on causes suffering of both types.

Having a lot of money can, and often does, cause a lot of the latter type (worrying about managing the money, worrying about people hitting on your for money, worrying about what your kids will do with the money when you pass it down) so being uber-rich is simply not a sensible goal for an Epicurean.

So I tend, as I often do, to the golden mean. I do not strive to be rich, but nor do I strive to be poor. If I have enough to feed, clothe, and house myself with some left over for some less necessary pleasures, I am happy.

I do not hate, envy, or otherwise care negatively about the rich. They are human beings with all the foibles thereof and I expect nothing more or less from them than I would from anyone else.

I do think we have a responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the poor (and that's Christianity talking, not Epicureanism, as Epicureanism really did not talk much about anything beyond the personal) but I do not think that means cutting down the rich. We should be able to raise the floor without having to push people off the roof.
 
A bit about my perspective on wealth:

Epicurus taught that the highest good comes from being free of physical and mental suffering. He specifically identified "anxiety" as mental suffering.

Not having enough money to live on causes suffering of both types.

Having a lot of money can, and often does, cause a lot of the latter type (worrying about managing the money, worrying about people hitting on your for money, worrying about what your kids will do with the money when you pass it down) so being uber-rich is simply not a sensible goal for an Epicurean.

So I tend, as I often do, to the golden mean. I do not strive to be rich, but nor do I strive to be poor. If I have enough to feed, clothe, and house myself with some left over for some less necessary pleasures, I am happy.

I do not hate, envy, or otherwise care negatively about the rich. They are human beings with all the foibles thereof and I expect nothing more or less from them than I would from anyone else.

I do think we have a responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the poor (and that's Christianity talking, not Epicureanism, as Epicureanism really did not talk much about anything beyond the personal) but I do not think that means cutting down the rich. We should be able to raise the floor without having to push people off the roof.

All humans have flaws ???? That could raise some questions among those outside the average flaws ....
 
Absolutely, i have been personally attacked here. Check out monk's posts.

Presumptions abound. When i challenge, others pile on about how the wealthy are...insert attack here against groups of people.

It is hilarious, in a way. Nothing has changed about me but my income and all of a sudden i have terrible characteristics
You have chosen to take my posts as a personal attack but they are not. You defend a system that allows the rich to prosper off of keeping people poor. You say that you interpret Jesus to mean that those who have money have an obligation to give more and that coveting can be interpreted as a good thing. These are the points that I disagree with. I disagree with Mendalla as well in that he is always ready to hold up one billionaire over another as one having good morals and one not. One being a good philanthropist and one not. That is never to criticize the individual it is to criticize the global system that is driving war and austerity and pitting people like us against each other. As I learn more and more of how 'money' makes the world turn and that the Golden Rule really has become he who holds the gold rules ... I lean more and more to working for the other and letting go of the idea of accumulating 'wealth' for myself. The system that you are engaged in is counter intuitive to what I believe has to happen globally. If I have a bias against you personally it because you ignore the reality of what is happening globally ... in favor of 'special interest' causes. I do not want to support war in any way shape or form - but taxes make me complicit in that. Will it serve any purpose for me to quit paying my taxes and go to jail in the grand scheme of things ... no. I am frustrated with the world situation and especially so when I am told over and over that these are 'necessary evils' and it is human nature. If I have a problem with you personally ... it is that you feel that you have 'expert' authority to dismiss any concerns that people like myself might have.
 
Back
Top