Herman Cain: It is your fault you are not rich...

[binary solo]

Kasz216 said:

binary solo said:
Let's not forget that a capitalist system depends for its success on 2 things: maintaining a steady unemployment rate of 4-5%. Keeping factory floor wages as low as possible. In those conditions you cannot say in any sort of absolute terms that not being rich is the fault of the individual. Because the economic system itself requires that there be materially poor people.

If the lowest paid worker in the country was paid $100/hr inflation would soon see that $100 devalue to the point that a person on $100/hr can't live on their income.

You simply cannot have a country where everyone is rich (by some fairly broad definition of rich). Ergo it cannot be the case that it is all the individual's fault that they are poor.

Sure Herman Cain was raised by parent who taught him to be in control of his own life. But he was also blesed with great intelligence, which was none of his doing. You are deluding yourself if you think that every poor person out there has the inherent intellect to get a masters in mathematics if they only got off their lazy arses and tried.

There are people of natural (genetic) high potential, medium potential and low potential. And like just about every natrual variation it follows a bell curve distribution. Telling people in the lower quartile it's their fault that they are not rich is as ignorant as telling a blind person it's their fault they can't see.

Now given I'm in the upper quartile of intelligence (probably in the top 15%) then the fact I'm not super rich certainly is my fault and I accept that entirely, and I don't care because I don't want to have to do what it takes to be mega rich (which ALWAYs involves shitting on other people either directly or indirectly). I don't blame Wall street for my not being wealthy (though relative to the world's population I'd be in the top 10% so by some definitions I am rich, though I don't feel rich), but i do blame Wall Street greed (and govt regulation, or lack thereof) for the macroeconomic situation that perpetuates grinding poverty as bad as almost any 3rd world country in the richest nation in the world.

A) You do know that the economy isnt' a zero sum system right?  That wealth is constantly being added or subtracted?

 

B)  Almost nobody feels rich.   Most rich would self identify themselves as "Upper Middle class".   Most poor usually identify themselves as "Lower Middle Class" as well.  In general we're programmed to think of ourselves as near a baseline.

Four out of Ten Millionaries don't feel rich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-fidelity-survey-idUSTRE72D3RK20110314

I'm not sure what the point of your point A) is. That's pretty much a given. However I've heard some economists say that there has been no true economic growth since the late '60s. What looks like growth since then has basically been achieved by going into debt and the interest accumulated on that debt has negated any apparent growth that's been achieved from the borrowed amount.

As to your point B). That there is the problem. Those of us who are among the richest 10% (hell even the richest 20%) SHOULD feel rich. Why don't we? because there's stuff we don't need that we want but that we can't afford, and we also know that our material situation is quite fragile mostly because we are all in debt up to our eyeballs (mostly from having a mortgage). There's bound to be plenty of other factors. Those who are poor who think of themselves as lower middle class don't realise how badly off they are, they seem to be living on some kind of social hallucinogen but all the while they still suffer from the various ill effects of poverty. They think that because they aren't homeless they are living a prettty average life.

As one Australian put it: when he was a kid in the 70's his dad worked, and his mother didn't. He dad had a median wage sort of job. They could afford to throw a steak on the BBQ whenever they wanted and they lived a comfortable life. Now someone with a family doing the same level job can barely make ends meet and inevitably both parents need to work to get ahead. Is that really economic progress? Seems kinda arguable to me.