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!

Interesting to see the perspectives here, and our use of words.

@Graeme Decarie was referring to power as in the power to shake the world, start wars, etc as it applies to the very wealthy.
@Kimmio is referring to the power of choice for individual & family to middle class.
Both are right, in my opinion.

@Kimmio refers to how those choices impact our health.
@ChemGal notes that health can be unrelated to money
Both speak from personal experience, both are right.

When talking about money, power, choice, there is so much that is based on our perspective, and our scoping of those words.

(*interesting edit. Due to the blank in graeme's name if I tag him, it doesn't work as a tag, unless I leave the last name in)
 
If you don't have anything to eat or a place to live...you would be more preoccupied by hunger and exposure to the elements than you would be with university, and the concerns the the middle class are preoccupied with would seem foreign, and indulgent...and not speaking up for injustice, a waste.
 
Which goes back to what Bette said...secure middle class union jobs that you can retire on, are pretty much a thing of a different era. Precarious employment - contract work and p/t - is the almost norm now. That is why perhaps some hold a grudge, or consider those who have such a job, fortunate. My parents forget that making a living was not a luxury when they were starting out - which allowed them to survive fairly comfortably while they achieved what they wanted. That is exceedingly hard to do now.
 
In the middle class, contract work can be significantly more lucrative than paid employment. It is different. Not wrong.

So, is there a bias against those of wealth in middle class terms
Is there a bias against those of uber wealth?,

It feels to me that there may be around the uber rich (read Graeme's responses and Monks as compared to Carolla's). Seems the uber rich cant' win, if they don't communicate their givings, then people presume they aren't giving and are selfish.

It seems similarly there is a bias and presumption around middle class, just because they are middle class.
 
I just don't see it as giving power when it's only a chance, and for some that chance isn't even a possibility.
 
@ChemGal, given two sets of children with the same genetic makeup and one being poor, the other being middle class, on average, the middle class child will do better. Even in extreme cases, they likely would have received better access to health care, better food, etc. Yes, there will be outliers where no amount of benefits would help, but, for the average ones, there is opportunity in being middle class, and for some, that opportunity is seen as internal power.

Did I understand the point correctly, @Kimmio ?
 
@ChemGal, given two sets of children with the same genetic makeup and one being poor, the other being middle class, on average, the middle class child will do better. Even in extreme cases, they likely would have received better access to health care, better food, etc. Yes, there will be outliers where no amount of benefits would help, but, for the average ones, there is opportunity in being middle class, and for some, that opportunity is seen as internal power.

Did I understand the point correctly, @Kimmio ?
There's power that comes with the money, but I will not go as far as stating that gives "the power to stay alive and mentally and physically healthier"
 
Try staying alive without enough to buy food, have a place to sleep, to wash...with zero money...I'd say it'd be near impossible to stay healthy, save for what you can scrounge up.
 
In the middle class, contract work can be significantly more lucrative than paid employment. It is different. Not wrong.

So, is there a bias against those of wealth in middle class terms
Is there a bias against those of uber wealth?,

It feels to me that there may be around the uber rich (read Graeme's responses and Monks as compared to Carolla's). Seems the uber rich cant' win, if they don't communicate their givings, then people presume they aren't giving and are selfish.

It seems similarly there is a bias and presumption around middle class, just because they are middle class.
Okay, but there was a time when a person could get a decent paying clerical or entry job with union benefits and have an adequate standard of living. When my mom was in university, Safeway grocery clerk was a union job. The "working class" was more like the lower middle class - people could raise families. They had to be more frugal but they managed fine as long as there was work.

After my grandfather retired from the military - he worked for the liquor store. My grandma worked at Sears. They owned their own modest house when one of my aunts and an uncle were in high school and - on one military salary earlier on - raised four kids - who all went on to get university degrees and careers. That cannot happen today.
 
Last edited:
Try staying alive without enough to buy food, have a place to sleep, to wash...with zero money...I'd say it'd be near impossible to stay healthy, save for what you can scrounge up.
That's not the same as wealth giving the power that you said it does.
 
@Kimmio , I agree, that many of those jobs are no longer what they are today. Look at bank clerks.
Major differences.

What I am saying is that the presumption that contract is less than full-time is no longer valid, just as the concept that working for a company for 30 years is better than working for one for three years.

Things are different.

Again, I think it is language that has shifted.

I am still wondering though, about bias.

I do my best to ensure I do not make presumptions of a negative sort regarding those who struggle with income, access to housing, medical health or income. I get there are many factors. I think that most people are good. I trust that people help each other. I have had @Seeler share stories of the generosity of those who don't have, but, offer what they do have.

Yet, I hear/read stereotypes about those who are middle class (who are wealthy to some), and the uber-rich (who are very wealth to others), and it seems ok to make negative presumptions. So, why is the bias acceptable? (or, i guess, do you agree that there is a bias)
 
Wealthy is a vague term. Perspective is everything

Good jobs for people with only highschool educations are gone. Those Ford union line jobs, making lots of money with no education are gone

Young people look hard to find any job

And i agree that if your parents have good jobs,you are more likely to get agood education. Health is partially dependant on income, but also genetics and luck.

However, the current mood is blame the rich. Graeme says wealthy don't pay taxes. We definately need a new accountant then. Of course people pay taxes. But they also look for every deduction they can get. Dont you?

If you have charitable donations, do you not deduct them?
Dependant deductions?

And on and on

Often very rich people have made tons of money by getting into a business at the beginning. Often these businesses fail and risk was taken. But sometimes they succeed enormously. Facebook, Apple, Microsoft

So those early investors,took big risks, made the right decision and won. We envy them. But they are not bad. How many people around the world do you think have jobs related to Microsoft. Millions and millions i suspect

I read about a guy in the early days of Apple. He painted a mural on the office wall. They really couldnt afford to pay him. They offered him instead a share in their new company. He took it. He could have ended up with useless paper and no money for his work. Instead it turned out well

My husbands parents immigrated with engineering degrees and two suitcases. Myfather in law worked as a labourer for a year trying to work on his english and find a job. They worked hard, got ahead

My husband did six years of university. Has worked 10-12 hour days for 35 years. Has made some good investment decisions. We are wealthy to some, ordinary to others. But the government sure wants to grab more of our money

The wealthy are easy to pick on.
 
Hi, in the opening post, i asked the question, how do you define wealth.
Chemgal has also asked you that question.

So, when you discuss the wealthy, what annual income, investment or capital assets do you consider wealthy.

It is indeterminate ... according to the rules on overseas divestment ... and thus the needs are dissociated from wishes to avoid the lawful taxes ... which are defined by social needs not individual wishes ... desires that can cause schism in community. Chis am ... and you see the damage that can do ...

I like Harold Blooms comment: "human kind is the only race that does not know when enough is enough" possibly due to the belief in emotional opinion is greater than the lesser concept of what happens to the supportive base when in the polity (extreme) of gross extraction?

But this is all word and wordy ... and you know what emotional leaders feel about piles of word and information, intelligence and all that is buried in the word? It just rests there ... thus the chitty case ... going up in smoke as rising from the lesser realms ... as bad news those believing only in good news obscure the sights of what's coming with smoke and mire ... that's the dirt of dissociative wealth !
 
@Kimmio , I agree, that many of those jobs are no longer what they are today. Look at bank clerks.
Major differences.

What I am saying is that the presumption that contract is less than full-time is no longer valid, just as the concept that working for a company for 30 years is better than working for one for three years.

Things are different.

Again, I think it is language that has shifted.

I am still wondering though, about bias.

I do my best to ensure I do not make presumptions of a negative sort regarding those who struggle with income, access to housing, medical health or income. I get there are many factors. I think that most people are good. I trust that people help each other. I have had @Seeler share stories of the generosity of those who don't have, but, offer what they do have.

Yet, I hear/read stereotypes about those who are middle class (who are wealthy to some), and the uber-rich (who are very wealth to others), and it seems ok to make negative presumptions. So, why is the bias acceptable? (or, i guess, do you agree that there is a bias)

Does this dispose of the need for the lower class majority (essence of the marketplace as moral majority)?

Does technology make the marketplace obsolete? Einstein questioned this! Was Einstein a mean, or medium as Grandma Walton? Perhaps that was said in the wrong order ... calculate the hourly wage of the Walton fortunes at 1% on $100B ... then expand on that concept ... does Grandma W feel she is the mean?

Tis perspective of where one comes from if you haven't been around ... take a turn ... you could see worse TED! Tis a rough fabric to get through ...
 
Do high ends get there ass up about cognizant mediums that are dissociated from physical wealth?

Tis a peculiar comprehension ... no?
 
Chances and averages have meaning. I grew up in poverty. It was no accident that of my grade 1 -class, only one (not me) finished high school. They started leaving school in grade four. It was accepted in our social class. That was also my experience as a teacher. My parents were a little unhappy when I got kicked out in grade eleven - but not dismayed. Finishing high school was something not expected of us. That was for the kids of a 'better' sort.
The kids I played with were functionally illiterate. Nobody thought anything of it.
To get a job - any job - was a success story. When I got a job in which I wore more or less clean clothes to work, and came home clean, it was a triumph.

The first shock to me was grade 10 when I moved to a school with more prosperous kids. I was stunned when I heard their plans for the future - law, medicine, doctorates....... it was all simply understood at their social level. But it was too late to save me.
 
Back
Top