Accompanying the many factors Mr. Edsall discusses is also a dramatic change in the way Americans understand ‘rights.’ As originally put forward by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, inalienable rights to life liberty and happiness are universal, not individual. If we claim them we must also recognize them and honor them in all our social and political activities with others. Today we think of rights as pertaining to separate individuals and groups. This confuses the freedoms that rights protect with the privileges that groups and individuals pursue. As expressed by the British essayist, William Hazlitt, a contemporary of Jefferson and Adams, “love of liberty is the love of others. Love of power is the love of oneself.”
19
1. We are televisioned into passivity.
2. We have food, massive piles of sugar, booze, football, drugs. Consumer goods are cheaper, almost everyone can have a big screen TeeVee.
3. The very poor are waiting for the next check, the next food stamp allotment.
4. The poor are told it is their fault and that, along with racism pushing a negative self image, many believe it.
5. No one has devised a full, easily explainable critique of our times upon which to base action. One of Marx's correct ideas, that wealth comes from the exploitation of the labor of others, was only partly correct. Not all wealth is so derived, especially in a technological age.
6. The best minds of our times, those who might lead new movements, are sucked into comfortable jobs, Wall Street, academia, journalism. They would rather describe our plight than find a way out of it. The pay is better.
7, The middle and upper middle economic class is tied down with 30 yr. mortgage payments and trying to ensure their kids get a share when their turn comes, not the stuff for radical change.
8. We persistently and consistently marginalize protest efforts so that they die aborning.
9. Those who take on radical protest and draw the attention of police and FBI, like the Black Panthers in the 1960s and '70s, are killed or jailed, their movements shattered
10. We don't understand our own society, how we have built institutions, like the Ivy League and "elite ed" specifically designed to perpetuate privilege.
Etc.
2. We have food, massive piles of sugar, booze, football, drugs. Consumer goods are cheaper, almost everyone can have a big screen TeeVee.
3. The very poor are waiting for the next check, the next food stamp allotment.
4. The poor are told it is their fault and that, along with racism pushing a negative self image, many believe it.
5. No one has devised a full, easily explainable critique of our times upon which to base action. One of Marx's correct ideas, that wealth comes from the exploitation of the labor of others, was only partly correct. Not all wealth is so derived, especially in a technological age.
6. The best minds of our times, those who might lead new movements, are sucked into comfortable jobs, Wall Street, academia, journalism. They would rather describe our plight than find a way out of it. The pay is better.
7, The middle and upper middle economic class is tied down with 30 yr. mortgage payments and trying to ensure their kids get a share when their turn comes, not the stuff for radical change.
8. We persistently and consistently marginalize protest efforts so that they die aborning.
9. Those who take on radical protest and draw the attention of police and FBI, like the Black Panthers in the 1960s and '70s, are killed or jailed, their movements shattered
10. We don't understand our own society, how we have built institutions, like the Ivy League and "elite ed" specifically designed to perpetuate privilege.
Etc.
43
We have a "policy" in America of undermining and destroying any mass movements. The most recent example is the Occupy Movement which, coming as it did following a world wide financial crisis, grew with lightning speed and became, overnight, one of the few international protest contagions in world history.
Laws are used, any laws, to start arresting those who assemble for the "redress of grievances". Petty laws, like "disturbing the peace" and "failure to obey" can be stretched to cover almost anything. "Resisting arrest" can be simply trying to stop a police officer from bending an arm back to the breaking point and, further, the charge doesn't take into account whether the arrest was in any way warranted. Plus, we don't like inconvenience. If some group is blocking a street, the public wants them moved, fast.
When it is widely known that demonstrators are being arrested, the whole effort then is cast in different terms in the public eye. Suddenly, the attention is focused on lawbreakers, not on the purpose of the protest. Sympathy by a major portion of the public evaporates.
The major media play right along with this game. In latter stages, stories are often given to the media, sometimes openly in official news conferences, about the backgrounds of protesters, portraying them as weird, outside the mainstream.
We don't tolerate, much less accommodate, protest. We have no space for it and police and public officials have learned how to cut it down and send it away.
28
Brilliant writing. I learned today that 1/5 of all Americans live in the bottom economic quintile. Seriously? This is analogous to 1/2 the physicians practicing medicine finished in the bottom half of their medical school graduating class.
Individualization may also be a curse. Which segments of the population would benefit from two parents working in each household?
Shoddy research.
Individualization may also be a curse. Which segments of the population would benefit from two parents working in each household?
Shoddy research.
9
It's not just the poor and working class who are hurting, it goes far further up the economic scale.
So it is not that there aren't enough people and it's not that the problems aren't there and getting worse.
Lack of leadership and organization have a lot to do with it.
We haven't had much social protest in this country for decades. We have had the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and the various events for black deaths in the past 8 years. I fully expect we'll have more social protest, so the elites who have gotten used to a quiet and miserable American public should expect that to change.
The young will not accept the bad deal they are being handed.
So it is not that there aren't enough people and it's not that the problems aren't there and getting worse.
Lack of leadership and organization have a lot to do with it.
We haven't had much social protest in this country for decades. We have had the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and the various events for black deaths in the past 8 years. I fully expect we'll have more social protest, so the elites who have gotten used to a quiet and miserable American public should expect that to change.
The young will not accept the bad deal they are being handed.
9
While this is not going to be a popular statement in a liberal-leaning forum like the New York Times comment section, it's also important to consider the large increase in federal benefits going to the poorest households during this period. In other words, the inflation-adjusted income of these households declined, but federal benefits to the poorest households increased, so there may not have been an actual reduction in the quality of living for the poorest households over time. This in turn could also help explain the "complacency" of the poorest households. This is reflected in the following report from the Congressional Budget Office:
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43934-Means-Test...
This doesn't mean that I believe the poor have easy lives living off of the government dole or that we shouldn't be concerned about wealth inequality. However, in properly analyzing the issue of poverty and wealth inequality, it's insufficient to look just at income but instead necessary to add in means tested program benefits to truly understand what's happening over time.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43934-Means-Test...
This doesn't mean that I believe the poor have easy lives living off of the government dole or that we shouldn't be concerned about wealth inequality. However, in properly analyzing the issue of poverty and wealth inequality, it's insufficient to look just at income but instead necessary to add in means tested program benefits to truly understand what's happening over time.
15
I often think about this question, and wonder if the answer is that they're just almost but not quite poor enough. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's worked out perfectly for the mega-corporations that, although they've shipped our jobs overseas, the cheap labor they're exploiting there enables them to sell TVs, cell phones, and tons of other Walmart junk to relatively poor Americans at absurdly low prices. And maybe it's pretty carefully calculated that as long as everyone has a phone and a TV and a few other basic things, they'll be maybe not exactly happy, but contented enough not to bother rising up against the system.
17
I'd guess that a big part of the reason has to do with a relative lack of community and a social fabric today, as compared to 80 years ago. The great social movements of the early 20th century could take root and grow in high-density poor neighborhoods, where people spent their time on front stoops, socialized with their neighbors, walked or took the streetcar to work, patronized small local mom & pop stores, etc.
Contrast that situation with today, where most people (increasingly the poor) live in sprawling suburbs and ex-urbs, driving wherever they need to go, free time spent in front of a TV--a totally hermetic existence. How is a broad social movement supposed to coalesce under those circumstances?
Contrast that situation with today, where most people (increasingly the poor) live in sprawling suburbs and ex-urbs, driving wherever they need to go, free time spent in front of a TV--a totally hermetic existence. How is a broad social movement supposed to coalesce under those circumstances?
6
Another factor to consider is the rise of the concept of a meritocracy, an issue which has been written about extensively by social scientists. Since the 1960s and the expansion of access to education, the narrative now runs that, if you have not made something spectacular of your life, it's because you didn't work hard enough. Our society subscribes now to the idea that the best rise to the top and if you try hard enough you can be anything you want.
The flipside of that of course is that those who are at the top, the 1%, somehow deserve to be there. Even though much of the 1% wealth is inherited rather than made, social norms still push the idea that the 99% just need to work harder and they'll get there too. So the impetus for the poorest to rebel is weak. The richest can simply turn around, Donald Trump style, and say 'work harder and you can be like me too. If you're poor, it's your own fault'.
The flipside of that of course is that those who are at the top, the 1%, somehow deserve to be there. Even though much of the 1% wealth is inherited rather than made, social norms still push the idea that the 99% just need to work harder and they'll get there too. So the impetus for the poorest to rebel is weak. The richest can simply turn around, Donald Trump style, and say 'work harder and you can be like me too. If you're poor, it's your own fault'.
10
How does poverty, or poorness, break down by ethnicity? We have many ethnicities in our "melting" pot, and I suspect making common cause among them would be difficult in any event.
Charles Tillinghast
McKinleyville, CA
Charles Tillinghast
McKinleyville, CA
1
When you have income numbers adjusted for inflation, you don't get to say the adjustment is wrong because some things have gone down in price. The cost of health care and higher education, for example, have gone up much faster than inflation. That isn't a reason to say the inflation-adjusted numbers overstate their well-being, and lower prices of some goods isn't a reason to say they are doing better than it appears.
The point about lower prices actually misrepresents the article you link to, which makes a more subtle, though still arguable, point. There has been a big, somewhat successful, push to cut cost-of-living adjustments, e.g., for social security, which has produced a one-sided intellectual effort that looks for all the reasons our inflation estimates are too high while ignoring all the reasons they are too low.
The point about lower prices actually misrepresents the article you link to, which makes a more subtle, though still arguable, point. There has been a big, somewhat successful, push to cut cost-of-living adjustments, e.g., for social security, which has produced a one-sided intellectual effort that looks for all the reasons our inflation estimates are too high while ignoring all the reasons they are too low.
2
"According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile [of household income]." With a population of 320 million, it could not be any other way. By definition, the bottom quintile is the bottom 20%. With our current population, the bottom quintile will ALWAYS be 64 million Americans. If our population was 500 million, the bottom quintile would be 100 million. If Thomas Edsall somehow thinks that fewer people should be in the bottom quintile, then he is advocating for a smaller overall population, and should say so. If he doesn't know that, and somehow thinks that the size of the bottom quintile can be adjusted independently of overall population, then his innumeracy is showing.
What is important is the previous sentence. The drop in inflation-adjusted dollars of the household income of the average household in the bottom quintile IS the important number here, not the population of that quintile. The economy is not growing fast enough to allow real incomes to grow. This is the real problem.
But the following paragraph makes a good point. Poverty today is, in some (but certainly not all) quarters less grueling than it was a century ago. I have personally driven down rural roads in West Virginia where the housing stock is clearly substandard, the cars are uniformly 10 years old or older, but every other house has a satellite dish on it. There's poverty, and then there's poverty. Let's make sure we know what we are looking at.
What is important is the previous sentence. The drop in inflation-adjusted dollars of the household income of the average household in the bottom quintile IS the important number here, not the population of that quintile. The economy is not growing fast enough to allow real incomes to grow. This is the real problem.
But the following paragraph makes a good point. Poverty today is, in some (but certainly not all) quarters less grueling than it was a century ago. I have personally driven down rural roads in West Virginia where the housing stock is clearly substandard, the cars are uniformly 10 years old or older, but every other house has a satellite dish on it. There's poverty, and then there's poverty. Let's make sure we know what we are looking at.
4
I don't think rebellion ever comes from the truly poor. To rebel requires certain amount of surplus energy and time. This is demonstrable from the history of labour movements and is the true and sufficient answer to the question of why the poor don't rise up.
8
Something else that's not mentioned in this piece: people in this country move around a great deal. The result is many people don't have deep roots in the communities where they live. They don't talk to their neighbors, they don't participate in community events and they don't spend the majority of their money within the community either (opting to buy online).
7
The political right is more individualistic than the political left: Everyone must be on their own with no help from anyone else, say right wingers.
I teach women's studies where we encourage justice for all parts of society, whether or not we personally belong to the group: women, people of color, LGBTQ, the middle class and poorer Americans, the disabled… I encourage my students to get involved, collectively, to make the world a better place.
Sometimes students talk about why they and their families don't fight for a more class-equal world. They feel powerless and overwhelmed with work, they say. Plus, the stress of lacking money is tiring.
They surely feel powerless and overwhelmed BECAUSE of class inequality which comes, in part, courtesy the political right: break unions, don't raise the minimum wage, and no safety net!
This article feels like a distraction from the real problem.
I teach women's studies where we encourage justice for all parts of society, whether or not we personally belong to the group: women, people of color, LGBTQ, the middle class and poorer Americans, the disabled… I encourage my students to get involved, collectively, to make the world a better place.
Sometimes students talk about why they and their families don't fight for a more class-equal world. They feel powerless and overwhelmed with work, they say. Plus, the stress of lacking money is tiring.
They surely feel powerless and overwhelmed BECAUSE of class inequality which comes, in part, courtesy the political right: break unions, don't raise the minimum wage, and no safety net!
This article feels like a distraction from the real problem.
5
Mr. Edsall's last paragraph, which I think is spot-on, can be read as serious and well-served criticism of the Democratic Party, which simply doesn't stand up for our lower classes. No one within our corporatized two party system does.
11
No revolution can succeed without the middle class, and our middle class isn't going to revolt against anybody.
7
Because they are exhausted, harrased, intimidated, and yes, threatened, by they visible and palpable display of power from their corporate bosses. You may argue such intimidation has always been inherent in the American workplace, however the state and its increasingly militarized police power are also ready to strike. In the name of public safety and "keeping the peace" the police are on call to be unleashed against any pro-worker movement/poor peoples campaign. The fear is real. The recent displays of force across the country make it very clear. Who among workers and the poor today doubts the potential for repressive force and violence to confront their demands for equity and justice? It will get much worse before it can get any better.
8
Edsall is not the first liberal intellectual to feel let down by the masses. For as long as I can remember (and in the different countries where I have lived), the poor have never shared the intelligentsia's obsession with inequality and redistribution.
The pop sociology quoted by Edsall about "individualization" makes the classic mistake of assuming that the natural order of things is working class solidarity with radical potential. So, if the poor don't rise up, it must be because some social trend has alienated the poor from their natural allies. This analysis is wrong because it rests on a faulty premise.
In 19th century Great Britain, the Tory Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, recognized that working class voters were natural supporters of the Tory Party. The London Times famously said that Disreli saw the conservative voter in the working man just as the sculptor sees “the angel in the marble”.
The pop sociology quoted by Edsall about "individualization" makes the classic mistake of assuming that the natural order of things is working class solidarity with radical potential. So, if the poor don't rise up, it must be because some social trend has alienated the poor from their natural allies. This analysis is wrong because it rests on a faulty premise.
In 19th century Great Britain, the Tory Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, recognized that working class voters were natural supporters of the Tory Party. The London Times famously said that Disreli saw the conservative voter in the working man just as the sculptor sees “the angel in the marble”.
10
At the risk of seeming politically incorrect, is it possible that someone in the US today who cannot earn a decent income is intellectually challenged? Some people always has to be in the lower quintile of intelligence, no matter the times or country, right? Could it be that the least smart among us would be those earning the least amount of money? If it is true that those who lack money also lack intelligence, wouldn't it be obvious why "the poor don't rise up?" Could there also be a connection between low brain power and "individualization"? Would the less educated, less literate, and less articulate be more apt to avoid social organizing? Would they be more content with television than activism? Would they rather live as individuals, without the risks, responsibilities and commitments required by "rising up"? I don't know the answers. Are there answers?
3
Tom Edsell is missing the leading reason for the failure of the poor to assert their economic interests. Indeed, the numbers of those in the lowest financial rungs of our society have overwhelming power if, but only if, they vote. The Republican Party, the party of the rich, has successfully convinced people that social issues are far more important than economic issues. Fear has been a successful mask. A look at the historical issues that have driven campaigns will this out. Some of those that have faded into oblivion are: --the Russians are coming; crime is running rampant; abortions are murdering millions of children; the Democrats are turning the country into a Socialist state; the deficit will impoverish us all; immigrants will take over all our jobs; free trade will end the blue collar sector; President Obama is a secret Muslim (and numerous other conspiracy theories), and so on. When combined with Republican efforts to limit the voting rights and opportunities of the poorest among us, well, the results are predictable. Nothing will change while wealth becomes ever more concentrated. Edsell missed the calculated political efforts to keep the dollars flowing to the already rich. David Balint
7
No one has any time between work and commuting to and from work and often working more than one job and caring for children and caring for elderly and... Technology has also made people passive. It's just easier to binge on Netflix and not think too much. Then, it's time to get up and go to work again...
9
And fear...everyone is being video-taped and surveillance online and off isolates people from one another. And the right-wing rhetoric against workers' unions...the list is endless as to why -- and if you're poor, you're that much more vulnerable and dis-empowered.
8
I did my usual and hit Ctrl-F for "immigra" and "divers" and, as usual, neither immigration nor diversity are mentioned as reasons why the wealthy are so much more effective today at outmaneuvering the working class.
1
One point that never appears in discussions like this, but should always be, is that a complex society requires individuals to specialize in a skill that allows them to contribute to society. When I was hired into a "paternalistic" corporation a half century ago, after exploring my skills, the interviewing manager described to me the "benefits" package which included medical coverage, stock purchase plan, retirement points, etc. He further explained that these were not charity; they were provided so I need not worry about them and CONCENTRATE ON MY JOB. Since then, that consciousness has been lost in the focus on individual "responsibility." And that it is a great loss is obvious from the quality of life and product that we experience today.
2
Individualism is in, collectivism is lost. Poverty of the individual will always be attributed to lack of personal responsibility, personal attitudes, lack of purpose, laziness, criminality,entitlement, a lack of self discipline - in short responsible for the sorry state he finds himself in. This seems to be made the logical scapegoat by the Politicians who do not want society to change. The collectivism is ignored as they do not want to topple the apple-cart as that would mean that people would have to come down from their ivory towers and having to share. It does not mean more TVs, ACs, video games but more good schools, more jobs, more amalgamated neighborhoods with less crime and above all hope.
2
I found the notion of individualization interesting becasue it dovetails rather neatly with the Republican push to privatize everything. The Republican mantra is that government is bad. The social services coordinated by government are the very ones that evoke and realize the common good. The push to privatize snuiffs out any notion of a common good and replaces it with "you're on your own."
2
I believe this question has been asked for a long time? Because they think they are going to win the lottery... because at a certain point in time you are mostly making it thru the day.... and don't have time to organize or refuse to become part of an organization...
because people do not really WANT to get along -- no matter what they say?
because they are proud poor -- e.g. all of those adjuncts teaching English in Community Colleges who do NOT organize?
because laws prevent them from unionizing?
You can't just say the bottom quintile is poor? You need to sort out those people by age and health. and explain how you arrive at the $$ figure.
Finally, you do need to define what is poor?
because people do not really WANT to get along -- no matter what they say?
because they are proud poor -- e.g. all of those adjuncts teaching English in Community Colleges who do NOT organize?
because laws prevent them from unionizing?
You can't just say the bottom quintile is poor? You need to sort out those people by age and health. and explain how you arrive at the $$ figure.
Finally, you do need to define what is poor?
3
One indication of how the "sheeple" fail to better their lot is the use of the 401 (c) 3 charitable foundation ruse. Obscenely wealthy moguls are able to use their fortunes to brainwash the "little people" in believing they are unworthy and deserving only of receiving alms from worthy businessmen who really know how to make do. The former publisher of Harper's (Lewis Lapham) spells it out in the latest issue of his quarterly "Philanthropy". Lapham is a national treasure.
3
As njglea of Seattle points to 6 corporations control 90 % of the media, it' s not difficult to see that the poor now has a very small possibility of uprising. But when the pendulum swings that far to one side, by law of nature it will come back most likely towards the other side with great speed and force. I don't understand how the wealthy1% dare to proceed their dance around the golden calf instead of trying to ease the burden of their fellow American.
But we should do better in my country. Last year we passed the number 5 mill. inhabitants in one of the richest countries in the world, but we have 70-80 000 poor children and the level of family allowance has stood still for many years.
But we should do better in my country. Last year we passed the number 5 mill. inhabitants in one of the richest countries in the world, but we have 70-80 000 poor children and the level of family allowance has stood still for many years.
4
The poor don't rise up because there is a system in place in America to keep their lives just stable enough, their children just fed enough, their bodies just healthy enough so that the strain of living poor is never so great as to cause revolt. When people are dying in the streets, when children are dying of starvation, or many experience constant injustice, then there is collective action. In the US we have systems -- systems of police officers, social workers, emergency rooms, food banks -- that keep it from ever getting that bad.
The problem is -- it never gets "good" for people who are at the bottom quin-tile. The systems keep people who are impoverished from dying in the streets or taking over the government, but also keep them submerged below the quality of life waterline. Look at all the research that says when a child is born into poverty, how hard it is to break out of poverty and into middle or upper socioeconomic status. We have systems that support the classes to "shelter in place" and resist mobility.
The problem is -- it never gets "good" for people who are at the bottom quin-tile. The systems keep people who are impoverished from dying in the streets or taking over the government, but also keep them submerged below the quality of life waterline. Look at all the research that says when a child is born into poverty, how hard it is to break out of poverty and into middle or upper socioeconomic status. We have systems that support the classes to "shelter in place" and resist mobility.
9
None have looked at our education system. The kids are taught to memorize. No NOT challenge or question. It has been this way since Kent State. We have robots in body form. The poor are too tired to fight back. The elite are happy with this.
3
Missing from this great piece is the influence, perhaps the dominance, of privatization. Broadly speaking, there are three main spheres of organizational forces at work in any society: government, whose measure of success is service; the private sector, whose measure of success is profit; and the "community," whose measure of success is "are things getting better?" With the onslaught of privatization, launched by the Reason Foundation and others in the '80s, more and more of the service delivery function of government has come to be measured by profit to the private provider, to the detriment of a fair distribution of services. Indeed, government is increasingly "owned" by the top end of the private sector, both politically and functionally. Everyone wants to live in a better place, but with the erosion of public purpose through privatization those in lower wealth communities lack the access, thus the opportunity. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
3
The Absolute Cluelessness of this Guy!
The Right Wing: Why Don't These People Get A Job!
The Left Wing: Why Don't These People Start A Revolution!
Mr. Edsall. Hit the Street and See What It's Like...
The Right Wing: Why Don't These People Get A Job!
The Left Wing: Why Don't These People Start A Revolution!
Mr. Edsall. Hit the Street and See What It's Like...
5
We gave up E pluribus unum for in God we trust. Then, we surrendered our citizenship and became mass consumers. Today we live in a 24/7 circus maximus of distraction, ignorance and fear so the corporate elite can shackle all us "individuals" to their machine.
5
An uprising of the poor? Historically, the poor never had it so good. What you should fear is an uprising of the middle class tax payer, who is subsidizing both the poor and the elite.
9
The obsession with the idea of choice makes people anxious and guilt-ridden. Poor might thus feel that they are guilty for their lack of success. Renata Salecl in her book Tyranny of Choice develops this idea and also points out that the ideology of choice makes people self-centered and passive when it comes to social action. (http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Choice-Big-Ideas/dp/1846681863/ref=sr_1_1?...
1
The poor and precariat are so subsumed in a daily struggle for survival there is no energy for justice, nor any hope of justice in a polity dedicated to the engorgement of the rich and starvation/imprionment for the poor.
When the American "left" abandoned class politics for identity politics, that too was a knife in the back of the poorest whose misery could increase so long as women, blacks, gays, Hispanics were equitably represented in the ruling class. Ghettoes, which were inclusive of well-educated middle class blacks, now belong strictly to the castaside redundant humans.
Alinsky community organizing is gone, as are the unions, and any organizational structure for anti-poverty activism.
American politics is now the subordinate function of money and lobbying. For every dollar of lobbying for the bottom half, there are tens of thousands spent for the 0.1 per cent.
The U.S. leads the wealthy world in child poverty and there is no moral outcry. Evangelical Bibles seem to have been purged of all Christ's reference to the damning of the rich, the exaltation of the poor, and the Christian duty to feed the hungry and house the homeless. To the right, hungry children are fodder for privatized prisons, neoslavery
The effectiveness of social movements is tied to their militancy. Social justice was helped in the sixties when the underclass started burning the cities. The absence of a left in American politics save Sanders, does not mean there is not a coming fire in the land.
When the American "left" abandoned class politics for identity politics, that too was a knife in the back of the poorest whose misery could increase so long as women, blacks, gays, Hispanics were equitably represented in the ruling class. Ghettoes, which were inclusive of well-educated middle class blacks, now belong strictly to the castaside redundant humans.
Alinsky community organizing is gone, as are the unions, and any organizational structure for anti-poverty activism.
American politics is now the subordinate function of money and lobbying. For every dollar of lobbying for the bottom half, there are tens of thousands spent for the 0.1 per cent.
The U.S. leads the wealthy world in child poverty and there is no moral outcry. Evangelical Bibles seem to have been purged of all Christ's reference to the damning of the rich, the exaltation of the poor, and the Christian duty to feed the hungry and house the homeless. To the right, hungry children are fodder for privatized prisons, neoslavery
The effectiveness of social movements is tied to their militancy. Social justice was helped in the sixties when the underclass started burning the cities. The absence of a left in American politics save Sanders, does not mean there is not a coming fire in the land.
2
"A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage."
That old promise has been fulfilled, and yet those who are poor or in the working class do not find it easy to improve their insecure lives. The middle class is better off, but equally insecure. Identity politics are a distraction from the deeper class issues we face.
Economic changes require a strengthening of the social safety net, and redistribution of income downward from the top. Yet people don't vote to do this, and the poor don't rise up. Why, indeed.
The poor and the working class divide and conquer themselves. No nefarious manipulation by the rich is necessary. People who make only slightly more than a proposed minimum wage are opposed to an increase because 'those who benefit do not deserve it." The Affordable Care Act is opposed for the same reason by large majorities of those who already feel secure, such as Medicare recipients.
So, will the poor eventually rise up? We are more likely to see a revolution from the Right than from the Left in this country. The poor and the working class are more likely to fight each other than join forces to demand better treatment from the rich.
That's how this played out in Germany, when Hitler came to power.
That old promise has been fulfilled, and yet those who are poor or in the working class do not find it easy to improve their insecure lives. The middle class is better off, but equally insecure. Identity politics are a distraction from the deeper class issues we face.
Economic changes require a strengthening of the social safety net, and redistribution of income downward from the top. Yet people don't vote to do this, and the poor don't rise up. Why, indeed.
The poor and the working class divide and conquer themselves. No nefarious manipulation by the rich is necessary. People who make only slightly more than a proposed minimum wage are opposed to an increase because 'those who benefit do not deserve it." The Affordable Care Act is opposed for the same reason by large majorities of those who already feel secure, such as Medicare recipients.
So, will the poor eventually rise up? We are more likely to see a revolution from the Right than from the Left in this country. The poor and the working class are more likely to fight each other than join forces to demand better treatment from the rich.
That's how this played out in Germany, when Hitler came to power.
4
Social action by the poor through the electoral process is limited due to an embedded conservative government at the local and state levels (gerrymandering, focused legislation written by centralized conservative entities...), focused propaganda machine (faux news, Rush et al), lack of funds, and the absence of an enabled leadership ( vs the conservative side of the Koch's et al, PAC's, conservative movement begotten to the wealthy, ...). Progressive leadership is very fragmented--as defined in the article--and, also not enabled.
Suboptimization of varied progressive movements--often acting at odds with each other--and the absence of a rallying cry such as ''one for all, and all for one" (versus "all for feminists" or "all for minorities") results in a relatively poor and unruly mob of sorts.
Who can rally us and provide leadership for the poor and everyone? How about Jim Webb? I like Ike! And, I like Jim Webb! They are very similar in terms of policy approaches. Focus on strategic interests, conservative use of external power, strong concern for EVERY citizen, rational, and apolitical. Demonstrated leadership ability. Also, exceptional military mind. I am an Independent by the way.
Suboptimization of varied progressive movements--often acting at odds with each other--and the absence of a rallying cry such as ''one for all, and all for one" (versus "all for feminists" or "all for minorities") results in a relatively poor and unruly mob of sorts.
Who can rally us and provide leadership for the poor and everyone? How about Jim Webb? I like Ike! And, I like Jim Webb! They are very similar in terms of policy approaches. Focus on strategic interests, conservative use of external power, strong concern for EVERY citizen, rational, and apolitical. Demonstrated leadership ability. Also, exceptional military mind. I am an Independent by the way.
2
Edsall's premise is just plain goofy, his musings are over-intellectualized thumb-sucking and only possible by someone completely disconnected with the circumstances of the working poor.
I'm very sorry to say the following and I understand how it reeks in many ways, but ... Justice in America is for people with money and privilege. People without the means to pay a lawyer rarely join protests. The cops are going to hit you with a baton, mace or worse. You're going to get thrown in jail for "disturbing the peace," etc. You're not likely to take time off work to run up health and legal bills for a "cause" that's as intangible as "income inequality."
The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there -- the costs are obvious and the benefits unknown.
I'm very sorry to say the following and I understand how it reeks in many ways, but ... Justice in America is for people with money and privilege. People without the means to pay a lawyer rarely join protests. The cops are going to hit you with a baton, mace or worse. You're going to get thrown in jail for "disturbing the peace," etc. You're not likely to take time off work to run up health and legal bills for a "cause" that's as intangible as "income inequality."
The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there -- the costs are obvious and the benefits unknown.
4
It takes time, in most cases, sometimes generations, to go from poor to the next level up, whatever that is called on the economic ladder. The poor who are working are hoping and trying to move up. If they can't move themselves up, they hope to give their children a better opportunity to move into a higher tax bracket then they are in. That is the way it is done. Redistribution is not the way to go. If the poor rise up and try to take what those who are not poor have they will be stopped by force.
3
Ever hear of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?
1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep
2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, stability, freedom from fear
3. Love/belongingness needs - friendship, intimacy, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, romantic relationships
4. Esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect, respect from others
5. Self-Actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, personal growth and peak experiences
One level's need must be fulfilled before a person can fulfill the next one, and so on.
If the majority of my time and energy is taken up focused on food, drink, shelter, warmth and safety needs, I have a way to go before I reach Level 4 - achievement, independence, dominance, self-respect, respect from others - to advocate for myself in this system.
1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep
2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, stability, freedom from fear
3. Love/belongingness needs - friendship, intimacy, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, romantic relationships
4. Esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect, respect from others
5. Self-Actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, personal growth and peak experiences
One level's need must be fulfilled before a person can fulfill the next one, and so on.
If the majority of my time and energy is taken up focused on food, drink, shelter, warmth and safety needs, I have a way to go before I reach Level 4 - achievement, independence, dominance, self-respect, respect from others - to advocate for myself in this system.
6
Mr. Edsall is asking the wrong question. The credo of "individual responsibility" for one's economic status has been the default belief of most Americans (including the poor) since the 17th century. For only a brief few decades (from 1930 through 1970) was there a more generalized acceptance (especially among the poor and middle class) about the benefits of unions and the value to the nation as a whole of federal intervention to redistribute income, provide an economic safety net, invest in physical and human infrastructure, and provide greater opportunities for higher education to lower and middle classes. The real question is what brought about this brief "golden" period? Perhaps the social and economic conditions during the worst of the depression were so extremely bad and broadly affected so many people throughout society that it was hard to blame the poor for their own economic plight. Perhaps both the depression and WWII created an atmosphere that encouraged solidarity among nonwealthy Americans (we're all in it together), there was a sense (encouraged by the exceptional political acumen of FDR) of trust that the federal government cared about average Americans and was actively trying to help them through concrete programs (social security, the WPA, the Wagner Act, the GI Bill), and there was a tangible rising economic prosperity and sense of security that average Americans could see for themselves. Perhaps also there was more idealism and less cynicism than today.
4
"Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage."
i think you give the media too much of a pass here. the nytimes, maybe, but by and large, the media reaction to occupy was - and remains - sneering condescension about malingering, tent cities, and the lack of showering facilities outside city hall.
and don't forget the police pressure that eventually forced them to disperse. here in austin, this included infiltration by fbi and local cops and entrapment efforts that resulted in felony indictments for some occupiers.
the collapse of occupy is no mystery, and the media is as culpable as the rest of the power elite. the poor don't rise up in part because they keep hearing how good they have it.
i think you give the media too much of a pass here. the nytimes, maybe, but by and large, the media reaction to occupy was - and remains - sneering condescension about malingering, tent cities, and the lack of showering facilities outside city hall.
and don't forget the police pressure that eventually forced them to disperse. here in austin, this included infiltration by fbi and local cops and entrapment efforts that resulted in felony indictments for some occupiers.
the collapse of occupy is no mystery, and the media is as culpable as the rest of the power elite. the poor don't rise up in part because they keep hearing how good they have it.
3
Why do you think they should? It shouldn’t escape notice that many of the commentators here refer to the poor as “they”. Perhaps having never been poor, some folks lack the experience necessary to understand why someone living in material poverty might actually be as satisfied with their lives as someone with more assets and income.
1
Quotes from opinionated scholars without any dissenting view...plus a bunch of statements with an almost equal amount of non-sequiturs. I got your point with the headline the rest wst the same message from other writer.
Maybe they aren't demanding more "redistribution" because they realize the innate unfairness of taking from someone and giving it to another.
4
The poor have never created a political revolution. It has always been the middle class and some upper income and wealth classes that contributed to revolt (e.g.., Revolutionary War, Civil War, FDR's response to the Great Depression). Economic revolutions, on the other hand, are instigated by a leader or group from the middle class then the poor join in (e.g., Russian Revolution, French Revolution).
The poor don't have the means to protest and take action without the middle class pushing for a poltical revolution.
It is not the poor's fault for the inequality. It is the middle classes for not voting, agitating, protesting, organizing, etc. In other words, in the US we have the best Congress that money can buy and a presidential contest that requires billionaires to annoint their candidates. Why? Because the middle class bought into St. Reagan's lie about trickle down economics, welfare queens, et al and we still haven't take back our government yet from the kleptocrats in Congress and our presidency.
The poor don't have the means to protest and take action without the middle class pushing for a poltical revolution.
It is not the poor's fault for the inequality. It is the middle classes for not voting, agitating, protesting, organizing, etc. In other words, in the US we have the best Congress that money can buy and a presidential contest that requires billionaires to annoint their candidates. Why? Because the middle class bought into St. Reagan's lie about trickle down economics, welfare queens, et al and we still haven't take back our government yet from the kleptocrats in Congress and our presidency.
2
Wages will increase when GDP growth increases. There are too many folks competing for too few jobs. If John won't work for $10/hour Jim will.
The so called stimulus bill failed to put folks to work. It was nothing more than a union payoff.
Obama's greatest failure.
The so called stimulus bill failed to put folks to work. It was nothing more than a union payoff.
Obama's greatest failure.
1
I have a number of friends who say they no longer read or watch the news because it is "too depressing," Some are quite economically comfortable and others have recently lost their jobs.
If citizens do not know what is happening in their world, they have no way of realizing what direction this country is headed.
If they won't or can't take time to inform themselves, they have surely given up on individual responsibility.
I believe this is exactly what powerful interests on the right intended.
If citizens do not know what is happening in their world, they have no way of realizing what direction this country is headed.
If they won't or can't take time to inform themselves, they have surely given up on individual responsibility.
I believe this is exactly what powerful interests on the right intended.
3
Poverty is less grueling, the writer offers, because the cost of goods, e.g., televisions, computers, air-conditioners, household appliances, cellphones has fallen.
I am a man in my sixties...
I do not have a television, cellphone, dishwasher, microwave, or most of the other bourgeois accoutrements people conflate with the so-called good life.
I have enough money to buy whatever I need, but, guess what?
I do *not* need it, nor do I want that stuff in my life.
I have A/C, but have yet to use it this year and it's been in the 90's all week.
Junk...people did fine for millennia without it.
Imagine staging a revolution in order to get cable so you can stare at the mindless garbage that is being disseminated every day...ludicrous.
The poor do not rise up?
Why would they?
So they can sit in traffic in a luxury car instead of hanging out at home?
Nothing like traffic on a hot summer's day...not.
I am a man in my sixties...
I do not have a television, cellphone, dishwasher, microwave, or most of the other bourgeois accoutrements people conflate with the so-called good life.
I have enough money to buy whatever I need, but, guess what?
I do *not* need it, nor do I want that stuff in my life.
I have A/C, but have yet to use it this year and it's been in the 90's all week.
Junk...people did fine for millennia without it.
Imagine staging a revolution in order to get cable so you can stare at the mindless garbage that is being disseminated every day...ludicrous.
The poor do not rise up?
Why would they?
So they can sit in traffic in a luxury car instead of hanging out at home?
Nothing like traffic on a hot summer's day...not.
2
Uh, because they are working? If you are working 2-3 jobs at low wages, probably more than 40 hours a week, struggling to feed your family and avoid homelessness, there is not much time, money or energy left to "rise up." Add to that the probability that "the poor" do not read this newspaper, watch MSNBC and PBS, listen to NPR, or follow Jim Hightower (and many other progressives) on Facebook. It then falls to those of us remaining in the now struggling middle class, to do the uprising. For my part, I support Bernie Sanders and work on voter registration of those most adversely affected by policies of the oligarchy.
2
The way to rise up is to do everything in your power to help your children educate themselves and improve their lot. I have seen it in the magnet schools and the Charter Schools here in Chicago. The parents of these children are dedicated and focused and have high expectations for them. Blue collar technical jobs that pay well require math and reading ability. The way is there for many.
1
History is reple with examples that when things get bad enough, either politically or economically, people do rise up. It may be decades or even a century or more, but eventually things get bad enough so that they feel they have little to lose. I grew up in South Africa and I saw it there too.
3
The good thing about government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, is that no citizen owes it a nanogram of loyalty so it can be legitimately destroyed and completely replaced in justifiable revolution.
2
There are many problems with inequality in the US. But if I had to sum it up, there has been class warfare in this country for the last thirty or so years starting with Ronald Reagan and continuing through today with Barrack Obama. The poor and the middle class have lost. They can still vote (for the most part) but most don't want to participate because they isn't a candidate on either side of the aisle who they feel represents them. The 1% have won, America is their country and we are taught, no really trained through shows like the Kardashians and Housewives of 'wherever' to worship them.
The poor and the middle class are bombarded with shows, movies, ads that show how much better people the rich are than them. I still vote in every election, but it gets harder and harder, what is the substantive difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, Gay Marriage? Whether Iraq was a mistake? When it comes to inequality they both talk the same points and they will do exactly as every other President has done in the last 30 years, absolutely nothing about it.
The poor and the middle class are bombarded with shows, movies, ads that show how much better people the rich are than them. I still vote in every election, but it gets harder and harder, what is the substantive difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, Gay Marriage? Whether Iraq was a mistake? When it comes to inequality they both talk the same points and they will do exactly as every other President has done in the last 30 years, absolutely nothing about it.
2
Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up? The answer is not mysterious or surprising. There are innumerable mechanisms at work, placed by the powerful to divide, distract, and bamboozle natural allies.
Chief of these is the sock-puppet media represented by Fox, Limbaugh, and the army of radical right wing talk show hosts. This 24/365 flow of propaganda is something new on the American political scene. Fox spews an unending stream of disinformation and simplistic fabrications aimed at delegitimizing anyone who poses a threat to the hegemony of their corporate backers. Fox, and the Republican party split the poor and middle class into warring factions quarreling over culture war nonsense.
We are seeing countless voter suppression initiatives, and I include the mass incarceration of black men on ticky-tack drug charges as a conscious and deliberate part of that effort.
Organizing efforts can be easily defeated by moving the plant to Bangladesh. ALEC is in every state legislature. The Supreme Court is busy gutting the voting rights act and clearing the way for the Koch brothers to spend more on the election than either of the two major parties.
The national security state can quietly destroy the lives of anyone who dares to fight corporate supremacy. The NSA can ruin your life with a keystroke, and no one will be the wiser.
And the TPP guts worker protections at home and abroad.
Why don't the poor rise up? Because the ruthless and powerful are not about to let it happen.
Chief of these is the sock-puppet media represented by Fox, Limbaugh, and the army of radical right wing talk show hosts. This 24/365 flow of propaganda is something new on the American political scene. Fox spews an unending stream of disinformation and simplistic fabrications aimed at delegitimizing anyone who poses a threat to the hegemony of their corporate backers. Fox, and the Republican party split the poor and middle class into warring factions quarreling over culture war nonsense.
We are seeing countless voter suppression initiatives, and I include the mass incarceration of black men on ticky-tack drug charges as a conscious and deliberate part of that effort.
Organizing efforts can be easily defeated by moving the plant to Bangladesh. ALEC is in every state legislature. The Supreme Court is busy gutting the voting rights act and clearing the way for the Koch brothers to spend more on the election than either of the two major parties.
The national security state can quietly destroy the lives of anyone who dares to fight corporate supremacy. The NSA can ruin your life with a keystroke, and no one will be the wiser.
And the TPP guts worker protections at home and abroad.
Why don't the poor rise up? Because the ruthless and powerful are not about to let it happen.
5
Mr Edsall has missed a very important part of the reason there hasn't been a major revolution. Quite simply put, the mass media has refused to give the issue of the people's economics the attention that it needs. Mr Edsall mentions the Occupy movement and writes.... about the good media coverage it received, but forgets about the indefensible attitude demonstrated by most all the mass media until near the end when the NYCPD ran rampant over the movement. Even then nothing was said about about the sneering employees of the financial services who watched what was happening, or what it was that the movement was all about... namely the rampant corruption of all the financial institutions.. including the Fed.
Until there is an overhaul of the mass media and they are required to be truly even-handed, and I don't mean Fox style, then yes, a movement to correct things will have to wait until everyone is truly fed up.
Until there is an overhaul of the mass media and they are required to be truly even-handed, and I don't mean Fox style, then yes, a movement to correct things will have to wait until everyone is truly fed up.
3
Why speak of rising up when the poor don't take advantage of their most basic means of protest, namely voting. If they can't be bothered to vote, then why should the government be responsive to their needs?
Doesn't the picture say it all? A protester with a multi-hunded dollar coiffure -- and most likely several hundred dollars more in garments on her back! It is myth that the poor ever led protest movements. Lenin and Trotsky themselves came from the middle class -- who else has the leisure to perform non-remunerative political work?
3
The poor haven't revolted because the right or wrong leader depending on your perspective has not come along, although that seems to be changing in Europe as some countries swing to the extreme right or left and I would certainly say that what is transpiring in the middle east has a great deal to do with inequality; America and its allies can only play whack a mole for so long, just as we can only continue on our own journey to third world status for so long before the violence in the inner cities becomes focused on the people that helped put them there rather than each other.
1
42% of all US workers make $15/hour or less. That is nearly half the work force making less than a living wage. The upward redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years since St. Ronny has already occurred; we have returned to the Gilded Age. And, as Thoreau observed, "“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." They are too busy trying to survive to complain.
8
The U.S. has grown a nation where for the first time in history, the vast, vast majority have enough food to eat, enough shelter to house themselves, freedom to love whom they want and live where they want, access to any social or artistic forum they want (any book they want to read, any movie they want to watch, any social interactions they want to participate in, etc.), and you ask why they don't rise up to overthrow the system? Because not everyone owns yachts?
2
you are wrong. education is out of reach for most people-- that is just one example. people do not want a yacht. check out the gini indexes-- we are at the bottom. oligarchy is never good, long term. it comes to bad ends.
1
The poor have risen up by grinding it out daily under the national radar in any way they can. Members of poor families are not interested in political philosophy or debates between columnists and social scientists. They are too busy paying rents and feeding families. You simply don't see them at it in ways that might keep you up at night if you knew about it.
2
It's not only "why don't the poor rise up"? I live in a NYC neighborhood where people hide their identities when they say anything publicly that is by way of protest. This can apply even to so-called community representatives. We might as well be living under the threat of Stalin's gulags if we cannot speak up in America. With all the extreme individualism in our society, individuals do not have the freedom to be identified for speaking up or speaking out. No wonder we have political system run by the Koch Brothers and their ilk. The irony is that the Internet "outs" our most private information yet we are afraid to stand up and be counted. Sad.
3
Even Marx knew ordinary men would not rise up without leadership. That remains the case. If conditions warrant it, however, leadership will appear and the revolution will take place.
4
While TPP was passed and sent to Obama we were greeted with a race baiting headline in the NYT about evil white men killing more than islamic terrorists. While the working class has been dealing with a declining standard of living, the rich are using all their new money and power to keep us divided. Even the left has sold out so what are the people to do?
Well, it COULD be the reasons mentioned in the article... or it could be that poor Americans are badly frightened of the trigger-happy cops who indeed, are there to "Protect and Serve" - the rich, that is.
2
"Why Don't the Poor Rise Up?"....Probably because they're too busy working trying to pay these unaffordable rents, and a cost of living which keeps going up, and up. Inarguably, there is an unequal distribution of wealth here, something that was also noted in a recent edition of The Economist. There's a problem when the wealth of a nation/ society concentrates itself so firmly at the top.
1
The author asks "why there is so little rebellion against entrenched social and economic injustice." That question assumes a fact not in evidence - that there is entrenched social and economic injustice.
2
To "rise up" successfully requires many resources, and not just money.
Give them some time to blow the man down.
Is this guy for real? The poor don't rise up because they're poor. These folks are way too busy trying to raise their families and keep food on their tables to protest anything.
Just in case anybody needs further explanation, the reason they are working so hard is because certain members of the most upper classes want it that way.
Just in case anybody needs further explanation, the reason they are working so hard is because certain members of the most upper classes want it that way.
3
but Esme-- in the past the poor-- who were worse off-- DID rise up. that is what Mr. Edsell is positing as a very real question.
1
An every day Joe or Jane complaining about injustice or inequality is immediately admonished for not working hard enough, being too sensitive, or looking for a handout. Everyone across all socioeconomic lines has bought into this notion.
But when a NYT journalist or Ivy League anthropologist chimes in and says the same thing? Here, here! Pay attention! I ask Mr. Edsall to please incorporate this incredibly annoying phenomenon into his analysis.
But when a NYT journalist or Ivy League anthropologist chimes in and says the same thing? Here, here! Pay attention! I ask Mr. Edsall to please incorporate this incredibly annoying phenomenon into his analysis.
4
Who will lead us? Elizabeth Warren? Cher? J.K. Rowling?
1
Isn't it obvious? Greed is socially acceptable. Instead of looking at the very wealthy with disgust, we admire and revere them.
3
Mr. Edsall's thoughts and the thoughts of many of the commenters (especially the Times Picks comments!) have made far better and more eloquent points than I could ever make. However, if you were to ask me or my thirty year old son why we don't rise up, we'd tell you that both of us are too busy working two jobs and neither of us can afford to take the unpaid time off from work to rise up.
1
The article fails to mention that the poor, along with the middle class, are subject to multiple campaigns of disinformation about which courses of action are truly in the public interest.
We have been told that entitlement programs are a threat to the economy, that government regulation will strangle business, that more widespread access to health care will kill jobs, and that unemployment is always due to some defect in the unemployed. We are even told that climate change is either a hoax or, at best, highly controversial among climate scientists.
All of these claims are false, but their dissemination continues because plutocrats continues to fund it.
More generally, rising economic inequality isn't "driven by cultural forces." It is carefully engineered by the few who own half the country's wealth and would just as soon have it all.
We have been told that entitlement programs are a threat to the economy, that government regulation will strangle business, that more widespread access to health care will kill jobs, and that unemployment is always due to some defect in the unemployed. We are even told that climate change is either a hoax or, at best, highly controversial among climate scientists.
All of these claims are false, but their dissemination continues because plutocrats continues to fund it.
More generally, rising economic inequality isn't "driven by cultural forces." It is carefully engineered by the few who own half the country's wealth and would just as soon have it all.
3
the world's ultrarich/royalty learned a lesson from the french revolution. throw the riff raff just enough scraps to keep them quiet and then go underground or get your head cut off.
2
Frankly, this is a no brainer. The Republicans understand only too well the saying, "united we stand, divided we fall".
For the last 30 years they have made sure we (the poor) have turned on each other, i.e. kill all unions, steal all pensions, stop tenure, etc.
The poor fell for it hook, line and sinker. So instead of us banning together we see each other as the enemy. Ignorant fools that we are.
For the last 30 years they have made sure we (the poor) have turned on each other, i.e. kill all unions, steal all pensions, stop tenure, etc.
The poor fell for it hook, line and sinker. So instead of us banning together we see each other as the enemy. Ignorant fools that we are.
3
There is a very conscious and clear strategy of divide and conquer that is suppressing any sense of unity among those of us who are suffering the most from the injustice of low wages, bigotry, poor working conditions. Fox news is notorious for using language that disparages whole groups of people, and of course this started with the welfare queen straw(wo)man of Reagan. In fact, Krugman just wrote an explanation in your paper that answers your question of why....
2
Poor people are using all their energy and resources just to survive. Quit faulting them!
The move from collectivism to individualism certainly didn't happen spontaneously -- it has been a concerted effort by those who believe they will have less power, and less profit, if people work together for the sake of society.
Napoleon once (supposedly) said that religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. That's probably not entirely the reason any more; perhaps what is outlined in this article is part of it as well.
The thing is, it's impossible to predict when that might change. One dynamic leader? An incident that captures everyone's attention and snowballs into something else? Who knows? Maybe it will never change, but if it does the Koch brothers and there ilk are going to be sorry that they didn't discourage their Republican lackeys from promoting an end to every kind of gun control.
The thing is, it's impossible to predict when that might change. One dynamic leader? An incident that captures everyone's attention and snowballs into something else? Who knows? Maybe it will never change, but if it does the Koch brothers and there ilk are going to be sorry that they didn't discourage their Republican lackeys from promoting an end to every kind of gun control.
I think the pour.. And who exactly are the poor because sometimes that's just relative or a person's state of mind, sometimes. But maybe those poor don't, rise up, because they don't want to give up their opportunity to be just that rich and free themselves. They would be rising up against their own God given future promise as a red blooded American. Maybe? Maybe not.
Right now, poor and working class people can just barely make it if they work as hard as they possibly can, and nothing goes wrong. Things get much worse, and they can't feed their children on what they can make at their two or three jobs...then we will see.
Great essay. It immediately made me think of the new-style business paradigms like Uber. Everyone but the very rich are soon to be adrift.
1
Get behind Bernie - he's the only one who is truly addressing the concerns of the common person.
2
The poor don't rise up because 1%'s spend hundred of millions of dollars to convince them to vote against their own interests.
4
Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?
Because many still believe that they can move up, with a bit of luck and plenty of hard work.
Because many still believe that they can move up, with a bit of luck and plenty of hard work.
6
Money does not buy happiness...
The poor are, ironically, correct not to bother with a revolution.
The rich, people formally admired for their contributions to society, sources of inspiration and aspirations, have now justifiably become objects of disdain and opprobrium.
Who wants to be like them?
I, for one, do not, while is why I dropped out of the workforce at age 41.
Seriously, who needs it?
Boring...
If you want to get rich, go ahead, but do not expect it to impress me.
The poor are, ironically, correct not to bother with a revolution.
The rich, people formally admired for their contributions to society, sources of inspiration and aspirations, have now justifiably become objects of disdain and opprobrium.
Who wants to be like them?
I, for one, do not, while is why I dropped out of the workforce at age 41.
Seriously, who needs it?
Boring...
If you want to get rich, go ahead, but do not expect it to impress me.
3
Well, actually, Tom, the poor have been rising up consistently since the LA riots of 1965, and including the LA riots of 1992, Fergussen, Baltimore, etc., etc.
You just didn't notice, because you live in a nice white neighborhood, where the police protect you.
Instead of harrassing you 24/7 and twice on Sunday.
You just didn't notice, because you live in a nice white neighborhood, where the police protect you.
Instead of harrassing you 24/7 and twice on Sunday.
3
The social safety net.
4
Yes, the safety net plus the fact that middle class income has not really stagnated or fallen (when everything is factored in). It just hasn't risen at the same fast rate as the very wealthy.
Given that so many people can actually afford NOT to work, it isn't a surprise that they are not rising up. Things are structurally out of whack but individual circumstances are not yet dire enough.
Given that so many people can actually afford NOT to work, it isn't a surprise that they are not rising up. Things are structurally out of whack but individual circumstances are not yet dire enough.
5
Why? They don't vote, they are afraid, and they are tired. 30+ years of trickle down economics has only trickled up and redistributed wealth and wage growth upward. It is everyone for themselves. Add to that, those who do make it don't want to even give those below them the chance to succeed. They pull the ladder up behind them as fast as they can by demanding tax cuts that reduce the very services and tools that the less fortunate need to succeed.
11
Words have power, and critics of the American status quo are scared stiff that their opponents will label them "socialists."
9
Is that why the NYT has no voice or doesn't speak? I've been looking for an answer. Perhaps the NYT feels that this little opinion piece is their contribution. I say, too little and way too late. Perhaps if the NYT really took a stand they might endanger their sale of the full page real estate ads for the multi-million dollar co-ops, $10,00 watches and the like. They know who butters their croissants and it's not the poor or the declining middle class. And that's why, kids, the poor don't rise up. They have no voice.
People don't need to "rise up." Today's divided angry political environment provides plenty of outlets for every drop of anger anyone can muster 24/7 365 days of the year.
There are so many ways to express frustration today and so ways to channel the blame and scapegoat that there is no need for an uprising. Just join the chorus.
Want to be angry at the rich? No problem. You not only have a political party dedicated to your cause (Democratic Party) but you also have millions to share your rage. The Republican Party provides the same kind of outlet but for a different set of angry Americans. The TEA Party is a specialized outlet for the really incensed.
It's basically a state of pitchforks raised in the virtual streets day and night.
There are so many ways to express frustration today and so ways to channel the blame and scapegoat that there is no need for an uprising. Just join the chorus.
Want to be angry at the rich? No problem. You not only have a political party dedicated to your cause (Democratic Party) but you also have millions to share your rage. The Republican Party provides the same kind of outlet but for a different set of angry Americans. The TEA Party is a specialized outlet for the really incensed.
It's basically a state of pitchforks raised in the virtual streets day and night.
7
Today's Democratic Party as it consists in the White House and Congress is not representative of an angry electorate against the rich. They are the rich so how can they represent the angry electorate? Are there some demogogues and charlatans that cast themselves as the people's candidate or in populism? Yes. Bill Clinton did. Obama did. They both lied to us.
Wake up America. Vote for Bernie Sanders for president and make REAL change start to happen.
Wake up America. Vote for Bernie Sanders for president and make REAL change start to happen.
1
"National Catholic Reporter article...: “Why aren’t Americans doing more to protest inequality?”"
Work and Pray, Live on Hay, You'll get Pie in the Sky when you die.
Work and Pray, Live on Hay, You'll get Pie in the Sky when you die.
14
Wonderfully said. Why isn't the Roman Catholic Church doing more to protest inequality? That should have been their headline and the question asked by every Catholic in the world.
The poor in the United States don't demand more equitable income because they don't want minorities to get anything.
24
Or maybe it's because the only real solutions to inequality offered have been really high tax rates (Bernie's 90%) and bigger government (post Obama not so attractive).
Higher minimum wage is only attractive to those who are working. A lot of people are NOT working.
Higher minimum wage is only attractive to those who are working. A lot of people are NOT working.
4
There IS quite a bit of wiggle room between 39% and 90%. There's even MORE room between 90% and the 20% capital gains rate that the richest of the rich pay.
Of course, if your sole allegiance is to Grover Norquist and the notion that we force government to be drowned in the bathtub.............the notion of "soaking" the Waltons by "confiscating" the money that they've earned by working so hard and acting so virtuously is of course, completely unthinkable and repugnant.
Of course, if your sole allegiance is to Grover Norquist and the notion that we force government to be drowned in the bathtub.............the notion of "soaking" the Waltons by "confiscating" the money that they've earned by working so hard and acting so virtuously is of course, completely unthinkable and repugnant.
Yes, Bernie says the tax rates of the early 1960s for the top earners is desirable. People see 90% and think "that's too much". I get that. But, when you think about it, at present, hedge funders paying 10% max tax rates - lower rates than a housekeeper at a hotel would pay - is absolutely criminal. In fact, anyone trying to justify such a situation would have to twist themselves into knots, and look silly doing it. Is there a middle ground for you? I'm not advocating 90% tax rates, but I AM advocating that our country's richest pay their fair share. The problem is, is that our government has been so co-opted by corporate interests, that the very definition of what is considered to be "fair" is completely twisted.
1
"Whatever happened to e pluribus unum?"
Through political expediency e pluribus unum has most certainly become e pluribus pluribus (out of many, many). One must continue to promote class, gender, economic and race warfare, hate and distrust in order to collect VOTES. Both parties are guilty in this rampant division of the American populace with the absolute help and compliance of mass media.
That's what happened to that concept.
Through political expediency e pluribus unum has most certainly become e pluribus pluribus (out of many, many). One must continue to promote class, gender, economic and race warfare, hate and distrust in order to collect VOTES. Both parties are guilty in this rampant division of the American populace with the absolute help and compliance of mass media.
That's what happened to that concept.
3
Excellent article - but extremely depressing, a rationale for hopelessness.
5
People need leaders to start the ball rolling and one of the most respected women in the world - Meryl Streep - has stepped up and is playing a key role in getting the Equal Rights Amendment made part of OUR constitution. She has sent a letter to every person in Congress and will play a lead role in "Suffragette". Women - and men who love them - mark your calendars for October 23 and let's fill and overflow every theater showing the film for it's United States film debut. Please read the article from the Guardian and watch the movie trailer from People and if it resonates with you forward it to all your friends and post it on social media. Thank You, Meryl Streep and all women with power for standing up for lawful equal rights for ALL women! We Are With You!!
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/23/meryl-streep-congress-equal-...
http://www.people.com/article/meryl-streep-carey-mulligan-suffragette-tr...
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/23/meryl-streep-congress-equal-...
http://www.people.com/article/meryl-streep-carey-mulligan-suffragette-tr...
1
I have enjoyed Meryl Streep's films. She is a great actress, but playing a role in a movie does not make her a leader of women. Several decades ago there were several actresses who had played roles as farmers' wives who spoke before the Congress about the plight of farmers.........as if a role in a movie made them as one with the wives of farmers.
The concept of actor as representative of millions of people because of a role s/he played is ridiculous.
And yes, I'm a woman.
The concept of actor as representative of millions of people because of a role s/he played is ridiculous.
And yes, I'm a woman.
3
What poor? Do you mean those in the grocery line I stand behind while they use food stamps, I pay for, to buy garbage food, while they talk on their new iPhone? Are those the ones? Or the ones who now get, virtually, free healthcare, housing, child care etc that I pay for? Are those the ones you are talking about? You mention that some "poor" have simply given up, well we can't all do that, who is going to pay their bills for them.
15
Divide and Conquer, Rick. You're helping the dividers. We are, almost all of us, being conquered.
1
Don't be a sucker. If they've got it so good, join them now. I dare you.
1
how about the real welfare queens, rick, the rich, bankers, and corporations? are you as disturbed by them?
1
Excellent observations. How about the fact that today the notion of who is an American has vanished. At one point the draft forced some cultural integration but now the US really is a agglomeration of various colors and cultures with no fundamental commonality. What does a white kid raised in Menlo Park have in common with a Somalian in New Jersey? Without some sort of bonding it is going to be very hard for us to achieve some sort of levelling in society. In fact, the left should be the group opposed to the current immigration mania.
5
The failure of modern America to assimilate new immigrants is the direct result of the liberal opposition to assimilation and the liberal celebration of diversity.
1
One of the ironies of the so-called Clash of Civilizations between East and West is that democracy has often found fertile soil in countries whose values are strongly collectivist and even authoritarian. For example, students, workers and others mobilized against the military dictatorship of Park Chung-hee in South Korea in the 1960s and 1970s and succeeded in establishing a workable democracy by the close of the 1980s. The same thing seems to be happening in Myanmar (Burma) today. In both countries, one often hears dissidents saying they made terrible sacrifices, including torture at the hands of the secret police, "for the people" or "for the country." Loyalty to "the people" motivated them to face up to powerful oppressors who often used the language of tradition to legitimize themselves.
In America, the wild horses of competitive individualism have been tamed and used since (at least) the time of Ronald Reagan to enforce an obedience to the status quo that is steadily undermining democracy. For us Americans, the question is: at what point will we draw the line (war with Iran? Privatization of Social Security?) and fight back, like our braver counterparts in South Korea or Myanmar?
In America, the wild horses of competitive individualism have been tamed and used since (at least) the time of Ronald Reagan to enforce an obedience to the status quo that is steadily undermining democracy. For us Americans, the question is: at what point will we draw the line (war with Iran? Privatization of Social Security?) and fight back, like our braver counterparts in South Korea or Myanmar?
4
All you revolutionaries out there! Have you looked at the Style Magazine of late? Have you looked at the Fashion and Style section of this paper? Have you looked at anything in this paper beyond the Editorial pages? This is a paper for the 1% and the .01%. Don't fool yourself.
17
Thanks for pointing this out. The NYT has always puzzled me: left-leaning editorial policies and, increasingly, socialist leanings in much of their news coverage, BUT with ads for ultra-high-end luxury goods (watches, cars, jewelry), obsession with the lifestyles of hedge fund and private equity managers (except when trashing them politically, such as with Mitt Romney), and celebration of the Hamptons and Upper East Side social set. Just another example of limousine liberalism? Maybe, but still very strange.
And I probably can only dream about the lifestyles of those who scream "social justice!" the loudest in the various comment sections.
And I probably can only dream about the lifestyles of those who scream "social justice!" the loudest in the various comment sections.
16
The term is "liberal elites".
9
Socialist leaning? If you ever met a real Socialist, Steve, you would plotz.
How sweet of you to ask, Mr. Edsall. Wish I had me a car to go buy the big TV and stuff.
4
Yep, and they're all just waiting around for their welfare checks so they can go out, buy cigarettes, sit in bars and get arrested. then, when they return home to their children, they can beat them and denigrate them so that they as well - in the future - will contribute to adding to societal ills. Brilliant. You've got it all figured out. Life is so simple. Just avoid being poor.
Eventually things will get to the point where violent revolution will occur. That will happen when the rich take the last few pennies from everyone else.
Jefferson once said that people will suffer almost anything as long as they can feed, house and clothe their families. When they can no longer do that they will rebel as they have nothing left to lose.
On our current path we will get to that point sooner rather than later.
Jefferson once said that people will suffer almost anything as long as they can feed, house and clothe their families. When they can no longer do that they will rebel as they have nothing left to lose.
On our current path we will get to that point sooner rather than later.
12
You can be sure that after the "rich take the last few pennies" they will not be around to see the revolution. With the success of divide and conquer in Walker's Wisconsin, I suspect the targets for a "violent revolution" will end up being the teachers, professors and other State workers.
aaah, the zero sum theory of wealth creation, the concept that every dollar I make must come from pocket of another. Probably explains why civilization has made so few advances since the 15th Century!
2
First, thank you, Mr. Edsall. The article's timeliness is underscored by the responses that seem to chime "the poor have problems because they are ungrateful and undeserving." Second, "individualization" is such an innocuous-sounding word. It makes it seem like as a society we are just too good at promoting great things like individuality and choice. I wonder if "isolation," "atomization," or "erosion of civic space," would be better terms. Young Americans are taught to fear strangers, but by young adulthood are encouraged to forge superficial online friendships and express themselves through closely monitored (by government and business) electronic means. If space is diminished for people to speak their minds freely without the fear of Big Brother listening in, it suppresses resistance, but also erodes the civil society necessary for a government responsive to the needs of its people. Get out of your comfort zones and see just how bad it is in some parts of the country. We're Americans. We can do better than waiting for hungry, desperate people deprived of meaningful political expression to turn to the last resort of violence.
57
That this discussion is taking place at all, is largely due to a spontaneous and popular movement called Occupy that spread across cities round the country before authorities took steps to shut it down. How soon we forget . . .
10
"Occupy" as a spontaneous movement? Not only was it was well-organized and anything but spontaneous, but the people who started it in NYC ere well educated, wore designer clothes, had expensive computers and watches. Some had jobs paying $100K per year. A group of people from (I think) Columbia University studied the Occupy founders and wrote about them, debunking them as poor and opressed. It makes interesting reading.
I'll try to find it and post a link to the paper IF comments stays open. Or you can Google it.
I'll try to find it and post a link to the paper IF comments stays open. Or you can Google it.
2
Edsall adopts the premise that "individualization" is "a positive, enabling and democratic phenomenon" which gives us "new personal freedoms and rights...opening the door to self-fulfillment".
Wow! One can only wonder why our collectives toes aren't constantly curling with the ecstasy bestowed by our social isolation, more aptly described as alienation.
The truth is, an atomized populace, sufficiently distressed financially that they are unable to form associations with an agenda of protesting the social order, instead competing against each other for scarce employment and resources, and hypnotized by consumerism, is exactly what capitalism and a corrupted representative democracy thrives on.
The tricks that Edsall tries to pull here, is making it look like "individualization" isn't such a bad thing, and that it happened by accident. The first trick is transparently false to anyone who understands that one of the main ills of our current society is the lack of any sense of community.
The second requires more discussion than is possible here but the link below would get anyone started on the right track in understanding how "individualization" was, in fact, engineered in this country, with on-going efforts.
The media, for their part, disparage any group that challenges the status quo, Occupy, Black Lives Matter etc, and brands them as violent and misguided, as the militarized police break up any of their actions.
http://www.bigeye.com/chomsky.htm
Wow! One can only wonder why our collectives toes aren't constantly curling with the ecstasy bestowed by our social isolation, more aptly described as alienation.
The truth is, an atomized populace, sufficiently distressed financially that they are unable to form associations with an agenda of protesting the social order, instead competing against each other for scarce employment and resources, and hypnotized by consumerism, is exactly what capitalism and a corrupted representative democracy thrives on.
The tricks that Edsall tries to pull here, is making it look like "individualization" isn't such a bad thing, and that it happened by accident. The first trick is transparently false to anyone who understands that one of the main ills of our current society is the lack of any sense of community.
The second requires more discussion than is possible here but the link below would get anyone started on the right track in understanding how "individualization" was, in fact, engineered in this country, with on-going efforts.
The media, for their part, disparage any group that challenges the status quo, Occupy, Black Lives Matter etc, and brands them as violent and misguided, as the militarized police break up any of their actions.
http://www.bigeye.com/chomsky.htm
5
I'm a big Chomsky fan, but I think you misread the article. He describes the notional benefits and points out the same results that you have.
Is it not 'framing'?! The poorest don't participate because their frame tells them there is no future in trying to work their way out of poverty. The lower and middle classes are exposed to purposely divisive framing which correlates their personal welfare to notions and nostrums served up replete with scapegoats that pushmepullyou away from confronting a deteriorating income distribution and loss of opportunity at their source. The Republican framing --warnings against class warfare, socialized medicine, a social safety net for slackers not like us, tree huggers who take jobs, people of color, foreigners and a tidal wave of gays, feminists and anti-gun rights advocates-- is doubtless comforting. Framing trumps facts. An easy story trumps facts. Not having to wade through the tax code or climate statistics trumps facts. Not having to know that parental wealth is the prime determinant of children's success is comforting. Inertia and comfort with what one knows to be true deep down is the inalienable right that they must not be allowed to take away... History will look back on all of this and see it as a Republican and 1% framing victory that successfully got people to vote against their own interests while thinking they were defending what is good and right. The framing offers a lottery ticket. Why do the poor gamble against such odds? Hope is also framed...
3
Why don’t the poor rise up? What about the American middle class? We have the most abused and quiescent middle class among the advanced world democracies.
Occupy Wall St did not attract participants from the mass middle class. Street protests and collective citizen action are seen as what the lower classes or radical anarchists do. It’s just not respectable for the middle class. They don’t want to be identified with the have nots, no matter how much they’re losing. That’s how the 1 percent are able to have so much power in the US
But the poor are usually too powerless and passive to organize effective defiance and have any influence.
Occupy Wall St did not attract participants from the mass middle class. Street protests and collective citizen action are seen as what the lower classes or radical anarchists do. It’s just not respectable for the middle class. They don’t want to be identified with the have nots, no matter how much they’re losing. That’s how the 1 percent are able to have so much power in the US
But the poor are usually too powerless and passive to organize effective defiance and have any influence.
10
The poor and the rich have a lot in common, if not materially. Both don't marry, both breed like rabbits, both give their children funny names, and both live off of government subsidies.
2
The residents of the bottom 5th in 2000 aren't the same as the ones in 2013. Many have moved up replaced by people just entering the labor market & immigrants. There will always be a bottom fifth no matter the level of income.
As to demanding redistribution, on what grounds? That they didn't have the best genes, a 2 parent household growing up, didn't work to save to go to school, etc? Believe it or not that some people are where they should be on the economic ladder. It's much easier to demand $15/hr to do a fast food job that requires 1 hr of instruction.
As to demanding redistribution, on what grounds? That they didn't have the best genes, a 2 parent household growing up, didn't work to save to go to school, etc? Believe it or not that some people are where they should be on the economic ladder. It's much easier to demand $15/hr to do a fast food job that requires 1 hr of instruction.
6
Why don't the poor rise up? They're too tired. Why don't the better-off help them? The better-offs don't want even to think about the unpleasantness that is being poor.
22
I take that back: The poor don't rise up because they're too tired. But the better-offs don't help them because they're scared to death of facing even the prospect of being in similar straits.
Much of what you cite from Beck is highly relevant. But, I thought it was perfectly summed up when the late Paul Newman was asked a few years before his death to compare the society of to that of his youth, on the subject of where we went wrong. He simply replied "we have lost our sense of community."
11
We are evolving into a system like honeybees: a large majority of individuals destined to be "workers", always; a few with power and control over the rest.
5
Interesting read. The question remaining is what do you do about it?
Repeal Citizens United and get Big Money out of politics. That's the key.
What makes you think the working poor have the time and money to do anything but try to survive?
Following on that, one effective technique for voter suppression is to have to vote on a working day and make polling places less accessible and less well staffed where they tend to be able to vote.
Following on that, one effective technique for voter suppression is to have to vote on a working day and make polling places less accessible and less well staffed where they tend to be able to vote.
16
Somebody said:
fear and intimidation
I'd add, deception, and media cosmetic two-dimensional runaway fakery, hate to use this expression, but honestly, "opiate of the people" ... why don't we mind that our entertainers are part of the 0.1 percent?
fear and intimidation
I'd add, deception, and media cosmetic two-dimensional runaway fakery, hate to use this expression, but honestly, "opiate of the people" ... why don't we mind that our entertainers are part of the 0.1 percent?
6
Eventually, the poor will rise up, and take to the streets. You can't have a society where fewer folks at the top are supporting more and more at the bottom. Fact is, there are too many people relative to the jobs that need doing. So, we have a structural unemployment and wage problem that isn't ever going away and will get worse. In a capitalistic system, and moreover in a crony capitalistic system, which we have, corporations are not obligated to provide employment, only increase profits. So that's what they do. People are mostly fungible, especially those of low intelligence and few skills. We will be living in a third world America very soon. Given the number of guns in the country, and the standard of living that most Americans expect, the end game won't be pretty.
10
Was opposition to the Net Neutrality Act a populist revolt? Or was it an Astroturf campaign? I have my doubts about that one. Google, Apple and the venture capital powerhouses of Silicon Valley can generate a lot of tweets and emails to Congress. At the very least, their PR and lobbying efforts helped to whip up the frenzy. Unfortunately, there is no super-wealthy segment of society similarly committed to income equality or equality of opportunity. Quite the opposite, unfortunately.
5
Don't forget John Oliver's contribution. This is probably one of the few events that might actually deserve the populist label. Many of us are hoping Bernie's campaign can be another.
What do you think just happened in Baltimore?
7
"Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year."
Occupy didn't simply collapse. Occupy was beaten, pepper-sprayed, handcuffed, and jailed into submission, thanks to the US government and its Wall Street handlers. The state stomped on Occupy with a big heavy boot and gave American's the message to shut up and let Wall Street continue to pick their pockets.
Occupy didn't simply collapse. Occupy was beaten, pepper-sprayed, handcuffed, and jailed into submission, thanks to the US government and its Wall Street handlers. The state stomped on Occupy with a big heavy boot and gave American's the message to shut up and let Wall Street continue to pick their pockets.
21
"First, although incomes have declined, the cost of many goods – televisions, computers, air-conditioners, household appliances, cellphones – has fallen, leaving the bottom quintile less deprived than simple income figures might reflect."
You wrote these words, Mr. Edsall, but is this what you really believe is true? Are you serious? A $2,000 flat screen HD TV can now be had for, say, $750 at WalMart so poverty is less grueling?
Please go live on the inflation-adjusted $11,651 per year, Mr. Edsall, and let us know how well you are doing with your rent ($850/month for a 2 bedroom dump here in my town), food, gas (nearly $4/gallon in California), child care, clothing, school supplies, water, car insurance (required by law), health care, etc., and all those "low-price" computers, appliances and gadgets that even most of us in the middle class cannot sensibly afford.
There's no time to "rise up" because many poor people are working two or three jobs, not counting the poor who are permanently disabled. Your claim that "poverty is less grueling than in the past" is utter nonsense and lacking in any humanity or decency at all.
You wrote these words, Mr. Edsall, but is this what you really believe is true? Are you serious? A $2,000 flat screen HD TV can now be had for, say, $750 at WalMart so poverty is less grueling?
Please go live on the inflation-adjusted $11,651 per year, Mr. Edsall, and let us know how well you are doing with your rent ($850/month for a 2 bedroom dump here in my town), food, gas (nearly $4/gallon in California), child care, clothing, school supplies, water, car insurance (required by law), health care, etc., and all those "low-price" computers, appliances and gadgets that even most of us in the middle class cannot sensibly afford.
There's no time to "rise up" because many poor people are working two or three jobs, not counting the poor who are permanently disabled. Your claim that "poverty is less grueling than in the past" is utter nonsense and lacking in any humanity or decency at all.
19
There are several answers to the headline's question, and some are described in the column. One other is the decline of unions and the reinforcement of it by Corporate America's divide-and-conquer strategy for suppressing workers' power and influence. Another factor that's uniquely American but nothing new is the emphasis on the individual in society; other countries have more of a sense of "us-ness" than we do, so there's a more cohesive "social contract."
One thing that could possibly overcome income inequality and promote economic justice is use of social media to organize people on a large scale. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as internet privacy, especially with regard to employer surveillance of current, potential, and even former employees, so anyone who tries to organize a labor or economic justice movement via social media runs quite a personal risk.
However, in a more hopeful sign with regard to starting political movements via social media, look what's happening with the movement to get rid of the Confederate flag across the South and pressuring retailers and manufacturers to stop selling it.
Someone just has to get the ball rolling. Bernie Sanders has certainly whipped up support for economic justice as a political issue in his campaign.
One thing that could possibly overcome income inequality and promote economic justice is use of social media to organize people on a large scale. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as internet privacy, especially with regard to employer surveillance of current, potential, and even former employees, so anyone who tries to organize a labor or economic justice movement via social media runs quite a personal risk.
However, in a more hopeful sign with regard to starting political movements via social media, look what's happening with the movement to get rid of the Confederate flag across the South and pressuring retailers and manufacturers to stop selling it.
Someone just has to get the ball rolling. Bernie Sanders has certainly whipped up support for economic justice as a political issue in his campaign.
6
Our working and middle class is individualized. But our corporations are collectivized. First they collectivize capital and incorporate with all the legal advantages that brings, then they bring our lawmakers over to their side, with huge campaign donations. This forms an enormous block of power. Aided by the Chamber of Commerce---a collective body. And also the Koch Bros huge organization, which completely contradicts their talk against ‘collectives’.
Our corporations are in effect unions, who direct our laws to undermine employee unions. It’s worked very well, using our states rights doctrine to weaken federal protections for the majority.
Meanwhile they propagandize the public to be proud of their independence, self reliance and competitiveness.
The social democracies abroad with worker protections, h/c for all, low cost education etc are derided for their ‘dependency on the state.’ Forgetting that the people are the govt.
What aids in this hoax is our 2 party system, with private funding for candidates, and a media that profits hugely from high fees for campaign ads---with the longest campaign of any country, as the campaign costs rise to billions.
What chance does an individual have? Like a match stick against a tidal wave. Princeton’s Gilens and Page study showed the majority of our laws ignore the majority wishes, and are written per the preferences of the financial elites.
Our corporations are in effect unions, who direct our laws to undermine employee unions. It’s worked very well, using our states rights doctrine to weaken federal protections for the majority.
Meanwhile they propagandize the public to be proud of their independence, self reliance and competitiveness.
The social democracies abroad with worker protections, h/c for all, low cost education etc are derided for their ‘dependency on the state.’ Forgetting that the people are the govt.
What aids in this hoax is our 2 party system, with private funding for candidates, and a media that profits hugely from high fees for campaign ads---with the longest campaign of any country, as the campaign costs rise to billions.
What chance does an individual have? Like a match stick against a tidal wave. Princeton’s Gilens and Page study showed the majority of our laws ignore the majority wishes, and are written per the preferences of the financial elites.
9
The author forgets or omits for some ideological manipulative purpose that millions and billions of the poor have suffered oppression by over classes for centuries, and literally millennia in China, India ... without efficiently "rising up" and getting some measure of Utopian equality. It was only with the somewhat accidental rise of the middle class in Europe and in the US that a large enough fraction of some nations' people gained enough wealth and education/knowledge to be able to affect the policy decisions of a society's leaders. The calculated destruction of our middle class by both political parties via outsourcing (Fast Track trade deals) and insourcing mass immigration in defiance of the popular will and interest (killing of US wages) is a self perpetuating negative feedback loop with no discernable end until all the citizens of the world are 'open bordered' to a low equilibrium, all equally worse off ruled over by a 3rd World like few % oligarchy. Also please note that the Democratic party's alleged efforts to raise the minimum wage offer trivial rises, phased in over many years, are intentionally weak in the same way as the Republican supposed efforts to stop illegal immigration are absolutely cynical and continually self sabotaged. Our democratic party self imaged God-like elites do not trust of care about the "ignorant mob" anymore than the Republicans do, and it is a lethal mistake to believe their propaganda.
4
And young people don't vote, but that might change if there is a voting app on their smart phones.
6
Poor whites in rural areas have been distracted by conservative social issues. Poor Hispanics are caught up with immigration issues. African-Americans and rich whites are the only groups that vote their economic interests.
4
Solidarity is much harder to achieve in a multicultural and incredibly diverse society, where the politics and definitions of identity are forces that keep people from uniting at a critical mass level that would enable or force change. There's a sense of "why should I put the little security I have at risk to work towards giving benefits to those people over there, who don't share my values when I'm fighting my own battles for my own group here?"
4
And so it appears that revolution is impossible? Yes. It's only a matter of when it begins.
1
"Divide and rule" was a strategy the British Empire used to control its colonies. Turn Sunnis against Shiites, Zulus against Xhosa, and they are not going to unify to oppose the ruling power.
Class politics in the US today has a steong element of divide and rule. Focus political discourse of issues that will divide lower classes. Make blue collar whites fear blacks rioting in the streets. Make blacks resent Koreans and Indians prospering from street corner stores in their neighborhoods. Make native born working class despise immigrants for stealing their jobs.
As long as the lower classes busy themselves with fearing and hating each other, they will not have the political cohesion necessary to challenge the status quo.
Class politics in the US today has a steong element of divide and rule. Focus political discourse of issues that will divide lower classes. Make blue collar whites fear blacks rioting in the streets. Make blacks resent Koreans and Indians prospering from street corner stores in their neighborhoods. Make native born working class despise immigrants for stealing their jobs.
As long as the lower classes busy themselves with fearing and hating each other, they will not have the political cohesion necessary to challenge the status quo.
4
" They are political orphans in the new order. They may have a voice in urban politics, but on the national scene they no longer fit into the schema of the left or the right. "
You mean the schema of 'right' and 'the people the right accuses of being to the left but really are just as far to the right'
You mean the schema of 'right' and 'the people the right accuses of being to the left but really are just as far to the right'
1
The downtrodden represent the perfect end to the divide and conquer strategy employed so well by right wing oligarchs.
"The unions aren't here to help you. They keep you from getting work"
And the unions die.
"Regulated commerce isn't here to help you. They hold you back from success!"
And the mom and pop shops wither and die.
"If we give you Free Trade all the markets of the world will open to your goods!"
"The unions aren't here to help you. They keep you from getting work"
And the unions die.
"Regulated commerce isn't here to help you. They hold you back from success!"
And the mom and pop shops wither and die.
"If we give you Free Trade all the markets of the world will open to your goods!"
3
“Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?” Because capitalism had made the poor numbers. Capitalism is religion the US.
5
Redistribution is in effect. It is going the right way for few and the wrong way for many. The poor are not revolting because they are treated like criminals from the moment they start for work in the morning. They are discouraged from interacting with each other on the job. They keep two or more jobs because their employers refuse to give them full-time with benefits. They are exhausted because every decision from what brand of rice to buy to when to fix the brakes on the car is agonizing and stressful. They do not revolt because they are up against a 500 year old system that is designed by the bright, the rich and the powerful to keep them poor.
2
Like old people, the poor are too tired from working too many hours and poor nutrition and depressed about their perceived inability to help themselves. When you have no hope...you feel there is no hope. It's like minorities in a totally racist country that have instituted everything to work against them, including their history... The people who have all of the power and privilege don't want the poor or minorities to help themselves which is why there is no genuine support for them to become self-sustaining...what help there is is from people who withhold opportunity, jobs and economic independence so they can make themselves look better and assuage any modicum of guilt by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars giving parties for themselves where they donate to the "poor," or make donations and create foundations for the poor for a tax write off.
2
"Whatever happened to e pluribus unum? "
It was cynically replaced by "In God We Trust." We put it on our money so people knew what God was.
It was cynically replaced by "In God We Trust." We put it on our money so people knew what God was.
6
In his last paragraph, Edsall describes a two-party political system that does not take into account the interests of the poor but he fails to answer the basic question that he poses as a lead-in to that paragraph. Specifically: "why [is] there so little rebellion against entrenched social and economic injustice"?
1
I think the answer is quite simple, really. To be motivated to work for change, one has to envision the possibility of effecting change. The evidence points to impossible odds.
6
The poor did rise up.
Poor being relative and the very rich being the object of that rising:
It was named Operation Wall Street and 73% of us relative poor and others
said they had favorable opinions of it. BUT, the Mayor of New York and
other like him there and elsewhere I America "disappeared it" pronto.
And newspapers like this one forgot it the next day.
We need it badly; it was going to work and apparently nothing else
will.
Were the leaders paid off? Where are they? WHAT happened?
Poor being relative and the very rich being the object of that rising:
It was named Operation Wall Street and 73% of us relative poor and others
said they had favorable opinions of it. BUT, the Mayor of New York and
other like him there and elsewhere I America "disappeared it" pronto.
And newspapers like this one forgot it the next day.
We need it badly; it was going to work and apparently nothing else
will.
Were the leaders paid off? Where are they? WHAT happened?
2
Reading the conclusions of the studies in this article, I kept thinking to myself: "...And that's just the way the .1% like it."
3
Additionally the stakes are less great than what they once were. Being poor in revolutionary France meant starvation on the streets. Today, even if you are poor you are guaranteed food, shelter, and often other comforts as well. With the top 1% owning 40% of the wealth in the United States, I fear Republicans have struck the perfect balance of economic inequality.
4
Who guarantees food, shelter and even other comforts here in the U.S.A.??? You're watching the wrong TV channel or dreaming if you believe that.
When the poor find themselves buried in a world of radio and television that is all owned and controlled by the 1% and feeds trivia and games shows to the exclusion of anything at all critical of the 1% there is not much the poor can do to understand the vast difference between themselves and the anointed 1%. And with Congress spending most of its time bowing and scraping to the 1% to receive reelection donations, the poor are known to Congress only as distant non donating entities in the shadows. The 1% has apparently come up with a dominating formula that has a financial string to pull on most if not all of the puppets in the economic scene, and the game goes on. As in Greece, income taxes for the 1% are a game of tax havens where some of the 1% pay nothing while the poor struggle away dutifully ponying up to the IRS. Why do the poor not rise up and even things up a bit? They are too busy grinding away on their treadmills in a news world filled with trivia, and once on the merry-go-round you can't get off until the music stops.
4
"You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the s**t out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs."
- George Carlin
- George Carlin
10
To this very interesting article I would add "asymmetrical individualization". People of lesser monetary means may indeed be increasingly on their own. But those with financial means seem better able to bring their resources to bear on their shared goal--increasing their wealth in what ever way possible.
The wealthy is this country are extremely afraid of any type or organized resistance to their agendas. They are especially afraid of the lower working classes who ironically have the power to make their conditions much better if they would just band together.
In addition to the reasons cited in the article, there is a well-organized campaign which is funded by various conservative interests (Koch Brothers, etc.) which spews out fear mongering towards the working classes in this country. This campaign pounds away at the "dangers" of unions and raising the minimum wage.
But what the wealthy are really afraid of is organized resistance to income inequality. If you give the lower classes some power, the rich fear that they will not stop at wanting a decent wage and instead will demand other heinous reforms like affordable health care and decent housing.
In addition to the reasons cited in the article, there is a well-organized campaign which is funded by various conservative interests (Koch Brothers, etc.) which spews out fear mongering towards the working classes in this country. This campaign pounds away at the "dangers" of unions and raising the minimum wage.
But what the wealthy are really afraid of is organized resistance to income inequality. If you give the lower classes some power, the rich fear that they will not stop at wanting a decent wage and instead will demand other heinous reforms like affordable health care and decent housing.
3
Part of the answer, I'm sure, is decades of divide-and-conquer political rhetoric, appealing to jealousy, a sense of injustice, and primitive tribalism to make the poor see their differences in ethnicity, circumstance, and socioeconomic level rather than their similarities.
This works on a variety of levels (and might even be fractal in nature), helping the middle class, what's left of it, view the poor as leeches, the working poor take that view of the unemployed or destitute, etc. (And we can all look down on undocumented immigrants...)
Bread and circuses is another part of the reason -- this has worked and worked well since the days when it was called Panem et circenses, which is Latin for "underinflated footballs and overinflated backsides of celebrities."
This works on a variety of levels (and might even be fractal in nature), helping the middle class, what's left of it, view the poor as leeches, the working poor take that view of the unemployed or destitute, etc. (And we can all look down on undocumented immigrants...)
Bread and circuses is another part of the reason -- this has worked and worked well since the days when it was called Panem et circenses, which is Latin for "underinflated footballs and overinflated backsides of celebrities."
5
Religion keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
2
After years of a 24 hour a day propaganda cable channel financed by billionaires the right has convinced a large segment of our population that anyone who suggests that the government should help the poor will be branded a "socialist" which has somehow become a supreme insult.
I see people in the supermarket glaring at people using food stamps. Behind the backs of these poor people they question their tattoos,cigarettes, liquor and food choices, all the while claiming to be Christians.
The level of our inequality is such that soon the poor will figure it out and rise up. I can't wait...
I see people in the supermarket glaring at people using food stamps. Behind the backs of these poor people they question their tattoos,cigarettes, liquor and food choices, all the while claiming to be Christians.
The level of our inequality is such that soon the poor will figure it out and rise up. I can't wait...
3
Why don't the poor rise up?? Simple really, the policies that are required to generate the opportunities for the poor to rise out of poverty (training, sustainable skilled jobs that pay a living wage etc) simply aren't talked about. We hear much about how the rich must be taxed more but we don't really hear how it's going to help the poor. In large cities across America the poor and minorities have remained poor for decades. For the liberal elite, keeping the welfare dollars flowing in exchange for votes seems to be enough. Until that thinking changes the poor will remain poor.
3
By constantly keeping people classified, demoralized and angry, it's pretty clear what the commercial media really pines for is a good riot. Riots are nothing more than corporate strings making marionettes dance for the next photo op, all the while reporters yearn for a prize by making their fantasy a reality on the street.
People don't need to swallow the media's bait when they want "change" or "redistribution", the establishment steels its resolve, tosses a few bones, and the status quo remains. Americans, plain and simple, need to exercise their pen and vote. With voter laws in the majority of states designed to encourage even the most apathetic and laziest of Americans to vote, the nationwide voter participation rate on average is pathetic. With people who have not self-disengaged with society, there are no excuses for not voting, period.
It is quite probable that voters who are defined as poor or middle class have enough clout to make changes, IF they come out and exercise the most basic of American freedoms. With a 15-25% voter participation rate, the only changes that will ever be made are by those with the $$ to energize support for their pet cause...which, rarely if ever, fall in line with the needs of the poor. A 75% participation rate? Now there's a chance for genuine change. A riot, protest or weeks-long camp out on the lawns of a public square? Those are just additional clicks and viewer minutes leading to increased ad revenue for your media masters.
People don't need to swallow the media's bait when they want "change" or "redistribution", the establishment steels its resolve, tosses a few bones, and the status quo remains. Americans, plain and simple, need to exercise their pen and vote. With voter laws in the majority of states designed to encourage even the most apathetic and laziest of Americans to vote, the nationwide voter participation rate on average is pathetic. With people who have not self-disengaged with society, there are no excuses for not voting, period.
It is quite probable that voters who are defined as poor or middle class have enough clout to make changes, IF they come out and exercise the most basic of American freedoms. With a 15-25% voter participation rate, the only changes that will ever be made are by those with the $$ to energize support for their pet cause...which, rarely if ever, fall in line with the needs of the poor. A 75% participation rate? Now there's a chance for genuine change. A riot, protest or weeks-long camp out on the lawns of a public square? Those are just additional clicks and viewer minutes leading to increased ad revenue for your media masters.
3
Many poor and lower middle class people don't identify with rebellion, and vote against their interests, for the reasons listed in Paul Krugman's latest article about Race.
However another major factor is the belief of many Christian's, which include most poor and lower middle class people, that Jesus is coming imminently and so the state of the world today is as it should be. They are hunkering down for it. And they vote for things that they believe Jesus would want them to vote for, not for their own interests.
I believe that my statement about Christian's, along the with issues detailed in Krugmen's article and this one by Edsall, need to be understood together to help analyze the situation in our country.
However another major factor is the belief of many Christian's, which include most poor and lower middle class people, that Jesus is coming imminently and so the state of the world today is as it should be. They are hunkering down for it. And they vote for things that they believe Jesus would want them to vote for, not for their own interests.
I believe that my statement about Christian's, along the with issues detailed in Krugmen's article and this one by Edsall, need to be understood together to help analyze the situation in our country.
5
As the wealthiest among us have been rendered apathetic to the process of building and expanding real communities, so have the poor learned to be apathetic to the notion of living any other way than paying usurious housing rent, or scuttling--homeless--like a cockroach over this inadequate civilizational infrastructure.
The real reason the rich and their poor allies have become nihilistic and anti-civilization is that these creatures would rather suffer ethically and materially themselves, than see a stranger live in dignity. The "individualization" propaganda serves to preclude civic engagement on a mental level, and makes our disdain for our fellow humans seem like a responsible stance. It is manna for the big resource extractors and the multinational industrialists, who want no part of providing such frills as housing and public amenities for "the mob".
The real reason the rich and their poor allies have become nihilistic and anti-civilization is that these creatures would rather suffer ethically and materially themselves, than see a stranger live in dignity. The "individualization" propaganda serves to preclude civic engagement on a mental level, and makes our disdain for our fellow humans seem like a responsible stance. It is manna for the big resource extractors and the multinational industrialists, who want no part of providing such frills as housing and public amenities for "the mob".
2
The poor very rarely initiate a revolt. They may occasionally strike or riot, but they generally lack the organizational skills and motivation to stage a full-on revolution.
Revolution comes not from the poor, but the middle class; specifically, from educated young people who see no hope for advancement of their situation or alignment with the status quo. If you seek the roots of revolution, then better to ask why our college graduates are not rising up. If there is to be a revolution, then that is where it will begin.
Revolution comes not from the poor, but the middle class; specifically, from educated young people who see no hope for advancement of their situation or alignment with the status quo. If you seek the roots of revolution, then better to ask why our college graduates are not rising up. If there is to be a revolution, then that is where it will begin.
10
When I was in the service we used to tell each other this about the Russians. I ave no idea where the idea came form America was full of reaganesque made up facts and this I am sure is one of them but I think the idea still applies.
It goes like this one soldier says to another "Ya know why the Russian's have so much natural wealth, easily far more than us, yet the people live in poverty? And the other soldier realising he wasn't meant to answer but to ask "Why?" and the answer is this "Because they have to keep the people focused on making a living and feeding themselves to prevent them from having the time to sit around and talk about their lives and how they might improve them by changing the government."
I suspect the same sort of mechanism we imagined existed in Russia is also working here. Whether or not it is a passive fact of life or an intentional one I'll leave for others to say.
It goes like this one soldier says to another "Ya know why the Russian's have so much natural wealth, easily far more than us, yet the people live in poverty? And the other soldier realising he wasn't meant to answer but to ask "Why?" and the answer is this "Because they have to keep the people focused on making a living and feeding themselves to prevent them from having the time to sit around and talk about their lives and how they might improve them by changing the government."
I suspect the same sort of mechanism we imagined existed in Russia is also working here. Whether or not it is a passive fact of life or an intentional one I'll leave for others to say.
7
Prozac. It changes people permanently, it castrates passion. It is Soma.
3
Prozac, and TV, and computers, etc.
3
In his New Nationalism speech, Teddy Roosevelt declared that a person should have work hours short enough to allow then to give back to the country by being involved in politics or government.
That is the problem today. We don't have enough time left after work and obligations to volunteer our time to make our country better. And the system doesn't promote that ideal because the wealthy want to exclude the common man from the debate.
That is the problem today. We don't have enough time left after work and obligations to volunteer our time to make our country better. And the system doesn't promote that ideal because the wealthy want to exclude the common man from the debate.
21
"The household income has fallen sharply from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013." Why aren't the poor storming the barricades?! Yes, the quality of life has gone down considerably, but there are plenty of places in the world where people eek out a living for a $1 a day and consider themselves lucky to be alive. Take a look at what's going on in the world today. If you were born on the wrong side of a marker, you life could be sheer hell, just check out most of Africa, Asia and even some places in Latin America, that's half the world population right there. Aren't you lucky your children are not growing up in Honduras?
Yet, Americans are not very vociferous about their discontent with the current economic situation, because most of them are ignorant as to the channels through which they can voice their discontent. The masses have been dumbed down, and that suits the politicians just fine. They can't wait until this place becomes more and more like a third world country, then they can really suck us dry.
Yet, Americans are not very vociferous about their discontent with the current economic situation, because most of them are ignorant as to the channels through which they can voice their discontent. The masses have been dumbed down, and that suits the politicians just fine. They can't wait until this place becomes more and more like a third world country, then they can really suck us dry.
5
Maybe the answer is very simple. The prevailing ethos in the U.S., a matter of faith to the haves, constantly drummed into middle class and poor have-nots, is that the poor are poor because they don't work hard enough. They are lazy and unworthy, deserving of low wages. How could a poor person protest their own laziness? Now I don't believe that the poor are necessarily poor because they are lazy. But I meet many people of low income who were anything but lazy or otherwise undeserving. I encounter huge numbers of people who believe that people get what they deserve in life. Of course, these are the same people who do not support an increase in the minimum wage.
1
What would you call all the Occupy movements across the country? And how did the establishment react to that? Forcibly terminated. This is the pattern whenever "the people" join together to protest government. The civil rights marches of the '60's couldn't happen today.
3
People constantly talk about the honor and dignity of work. People do jobs that make it possible for society to function. They clean our public spaces, stock shelves, care for our children and the elderly. But when the subject comes up about paying a living, decent wage to these people...well! The right counters with, "work isn't THAT dignified!"
3
I wouldn't discount the forces of ignorance and mass dis-information, especially among the lower half of the population in terms of income. We have people who truly do not understand the difference between the public and private sectors.
4
1. Fear, mostly of losing what little is already gained or possessed.
2. Ingrained American doctrine that individuality is good and communality is bad.
2. Ingrained American doctrine that individuality is good and communality is bad.
12
“Why aren’t the poor storming the barricades?” asks The Economist. “Why don’t voters demand more redistribution?” wonders David Samuels, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. The headline on an April 7 National Catholic Reporter article reads: “Why aren’t Americans doing more to protest inequality?”
Could be that we are too tired, hungry and disillusioned to even bother. If you remember, guillotines were outlawed in 1789, so we have little means of redress even though we have second amendment rights and sadly most of the corrupt politicians don't live in states that have "open carry"--and we're not talkin' a can of beer here.
People are too glued to Lame [sic] of Thrones (fantasy depiction of congress, I suppose), their iphones, tablets or whathaveyou. If only we had more French blood running through our veins, we could storm some "bastille" and regain our democracy.
When you live in a country that has been bought and paid for, it is pretty difficult to gain traction on ideas that that benefit the citizens. We are now more inclined to benefit the 11 million "dreamers" with scholarships, homes , cars, tax-free whatever.
The middle class-soon to be in the ranks of the 5th quintile- will be underwater on their soon to reset mortgages and the rich will have a new abundance of houses to flip.
does that answer your question?
Could be that we are too tired, hungry and disillusioned to even bother. If you remember, guillotines were outlawed in 1789, so we have little means of redress even though we have second amendment rights and sadly most of the corrupt politicians don't live in states that have "open carry"--and we're not talkin' a can of beer here.
People are too glued to Lame [sic] of Thrones (fantasy depiction of congress, I suppose), their iphones, tablets or whathaveyou. If only we had more French blood running through our veins, we could storm some "bastille" and regain our democracy.
When you live in a country that has been bought and paid for, it is pretty difficult to gain traction on ideas that that benefit the citizens. We are now more inclined to benefit the 11 million "dreamers" with scholarships, homes , cars, tax-free whatever.
The middle class-soon to be in the ranks of the 5th quintile- will be underwater on their soon to reset mortgages and the rich will have a new abundance of houses to flip.
does that answer your question?
2
The French Revolution, like the American one was a revolution of the middle class. When we of the middle finally get fed up with the system, then the poor will gladly join the uprising. I have a feeling that is not too far in the future, unless our corporate leaders have a change of heart.
1
Do not recall the title, but a recent (within the past few months) New York Times article attributed the lack of protest to the extent and availability of cheap "stuff" shopping (Dollar Stores, Wal-Mart, fast food etc) - that cheap shopping has "brainwashed" us.
3
I believe this "individualization" and acceptance of growing inequality trend is to a strong extent a matter of socialization. Public school teachers as a matter of legal responsibility strive for "political neutrality" (probably an impossible goals, as as I'll suggest, all pedagogy has strong political dimensions and tacit commitments, in hidden and manifest curriculum alike), meaning they can't openly advocate for political solidarity pro-labor type movements challenging inequality.
The worst part of the socialization aspect is the seemingly democratic commitment to "meritocracy" pervading every instant and every iota of school happenings inculcates a social contract of rewards and punishments (putatively) based on (putative) achievements. For teachers straining to corral large numbers of students through, preparing them for eventual employment, this scheme provides the carrots and sticks - educators as opportunity gatekeepers - signaling above all: People Get What They Dererve. Thou Shalt Achieve (Or Else!). The relentless message is one of raw social Darwinism. Of course, it's now well known that parental affluence is one of the main, if not the sine qua non, of "merit." But most are too busy, stressed, and well-conditioned (or on the privileged side, complacent) to challenge anything.
The worst part of the socialization aspect is the seemingly democratic commitment to "meritocracy" pervading every instant and every iota of school happenings inculcates a social contract of rewards and punishments (putatively) based on (putative) achievements. For teachers straining to corral large numbers of students through, preparing them for eventual employment, this scheme provides the carrots and sticks - educators as opportunity gatekeepers - signaling above all: People Get What They Dererve. Thou Shalt Achieve (Or Else!). The relentless message is one of raw social Darwinism. Of course, it's now well known that parental affluence is one of the main, if not the sine qua non, of "merit." But most are too busy, stressed, and well-conditioned (or on the privileged side, complacent) to challenge anything.
1
Rise up? Haven't we been told all our lives that the USA is the "best country in the world" and that every foreigner in the world wants to come and live here? If paradise turns into hell, what can you do but despair?
6
reagan used to tell us to be grateful for the trickle down of money form his buddies.
2
Tom,
Good question for discussion. The question I have will this harm our society at large? Your essay conclusion that the cost of inequality is irrelevant to the agenda-setters seems to point to a drift toward oligarchy and monopoly. Does that hurt all of us? I thought so but if the poor are suppressed because they fear losing their job can you blame them for losing interest in changing the government by turning out for a vote?
The discussion is fantastic. You have a well informed readership.
Good question for discussion. The question I have will this harm our society at large? Your essay conclusion that the cost of inequality is irrelevant to the agenda-setters seems to point to a drift toward oligarchy and monopoly. Does that hurt all of us? I thought so but if the poor are suppressed because they fear losing their job can you blame them for losing interest in changing the government by turning out for a vote?
The discussion is fantastic. You have a well informed readership.
1
It was Joseph Goebbels who used individuation to cleave the German people into isolation so he could drum them into war. We are herd animals and yet we are told our power resides inside each of us alone. I believe that unity is better than solidarity. It allows the individual to be heard and not herded or buffaloed.
When it comes it will be like a broken dam. The leader is most likely alive today, a triggering event will happen, just where and when is uncertain.
Don't hold your breath.
1
they don't have more clout because they don't go out and actually cast a vote!
1
You are assuming that voting for either party will fundamentally change anything that will materially help them. You are wrong. The GOP and Dems are fully aligned on the pieces of the puzzle that ensure they remain in power and wealth. Hillary? Jeb? They both stand for exactly the same thing where it counts. Go ahead argue about race, gender, guns and abortion. That is exactly what they want you to do.
1
...or if they do, they cast it for their oppressors (though some people are cynical enough to opine that there is little choice, as politicians from both meaningful US political parties will generally act in the interests of their corporate sponsors).* The right wing has been successful at factionating the underclasses and pitting one part against others...
...and at persuading many of them that siding with their exploiters, forsaking known effective ways of collectively standing together such as unions, embodies old-fashioned virtues such as self-reliance and even patriotism.
There is also the extent to which the genuinely poor *can't* vote due to felony convictions on their record. Intentionally or not (and I am not nearly enough of a conspiracy theorist to consider it part of some master plan) the "wars" on crime and drugs have cost a great many people -- mostly the poor; disproportionately racial minorities -- a variety of their rights, including the right to vote. This form of lingering punishment is usually lifelong and disenfranchises people long after the actual sentence has been served.
* Sometimes I think the trouble with the Occupy movement is that it wasn't more aggressive, focused on K Street as well as Wall Street, and occurring in about 1981.
...and at persuading many of them that siding with their exploiters, forsaking known effective ways of collectively standing together such as unions, embodies old-fashioned virtues such as self-reliance and even patriotism.
There is also the extent to which the genuinely poor *can't* vote due to felony convictions on their record. Intentionally or not (and I am not nearly enough of a conspiracy theorist to consider it part of some master plan) the "wars" on crime and drugs have cost a great many people -- mostly the poor; disproportionately racial minorities -- a variety of their rights, including the right to vote. This form of lingering punishment is usually lifelong and disenfranchises people long after the actual sentence has been served.
* Sometimes I think the trouble with the Occupy movement is that it wasn't more aggressive, focused on K Street as well as Wall Street, and occurring in about 1981.
When the only "legal" place to hold a protest is behind a 6 foot high opaque fence, is it any wonder that folks give up and go home?
2
I will try to answer Edsall's question by brining up the following (personal) example: For many years, I worked for a Fortune 100 company, and enjoyed tremendous benefits, such as health care, stock options, and a company-directed retirement plan. Slowly, however, I and everyone else had to begin covering an increasing share of the benefits, while hourly workers in the company were pretty much shut out of anything other than a bare minimum of extras.
By the time I left, health care coverage had been trimmed and was more expensive, stock options were limited to the very top executives and retirement was switched to self-directed. Which meant that it was now up to me and my wits to figure out the best mix of investments to insure a comfortable future. Talk about pressure.
The point is, this process encompassed millions of American salaried people, and it helped dissolve the emotional bond managers and executives had with their company. With every passing year, millions were on their own for health care and retirement, leaving little or no time -- and no way -- to organize to protest what had happened. You could say that the American dream has been gummed to death, slowly but surely, as free market capitalism has morphed into a competitive zero sum game in which the wealthy gain and everyone else loses.
By the time I left, health care coverage had been trimmed and was more expensive, stock options were limited to the very top executives and retirement was switched to self-directed. Which meant that it was now up to me and my wits to figure out the best mix of investments to insure a comfortable future. Talk about pressure.
The point is, this process encompassed millions of American salaried people, and it helped dissolve the emotional bond managers and executives had with their company. With every passing year, millions were on their own for health care and retirement, leaving little or no time -- and no way -- to organize to protest what had happened. You could say that the American dream has been gummed to death, slowly but surely, as free market capitalism has morphed into a competitive zero sum game in which the wealthy gain and everyone else loses.
10
The only presidential candidate who truly cares about the poor and the middle class is Bernie Sanders. He has consistently maintained his call for a living wage and numerous other programs that would benefit the underserved. And his goal is to try to reach those people who consistently vote against their own self-interest with his message. But corporate media, including the NYT, and Mr. Edsall, seem united in their unwillingness to give Bernie Sanders the coverage he deserves--in particular, describing his agenda, which is far more detailed and precise than anything we have heard from Hillary. This makes it an uphill battle for Mr. Sanders. But guess what? The word is out, and it's like a wildfire. And Bernie will prevail, with or without the coverage from corporate media. The poor will now rise up (together with any compassionate liberals) because they finally have the right wagon to hitch onto!
2
This article is utter nonsense. If all you can do is flip burgers, load a grocery bag, shine shoes, or mow a lawn do you deserve $75,000 or $100,000 a year? The professors that are advocating for this type of redistribution are hypocrites because they are vehemently against redistributing their own grades or degrees. The fact is that were are already redistributing over $1T a year to 50 million people in the US. That is enough to give every one of those individuals $20,000 a year or a family of 4 $80,000 per year. We have the most progressive tax system in the world when you look taxes paid less benefits received. We know that socialism doesn't work, why do we keep revisiting the subject?
6
Thank you for demonstrating why efforts at improving life for millions of Americans are so hard to accomplish.
SJWilliams: Well, don't know about "burger flippers", but I do believe you rely on grocery bag loaders and those who clean up after you in restaurants and even on the streets. All Chiefs and no Indians makes for a really crumby life in the tribe. (I can say this because my great grandmother was Native American). You need the people who do the every day, boring, mindless tasks. They should be paid $75,000 a year if that's what it takes to live in a house and eat three meals a day. And, don't forget health care!
No teaching of world history in US ...no knowledge of French Revolution, Russian revolution, etc etc. Clever divide and conquer tactics by corporate capitalists--dissatisfaction advertising (money and things will solve problems) , fear mongering, circle the wagons against your own neighbors! etc etc etc. Ugh.
2
"ever-changing risk, perceived as new obligations or burdens."
You mean, I assume, the demands of everyday life and the need to address them responsibly?
Oh dear, what a burden! If only the government or some other omniscient entity would just step in to provide my sustenance and spare me the rigors of unwelcome decision-making!
Just the way Obama's re-election ad promised to come to the rescue of poor, put-upon "Julia."
What a drag it is, growing up!
You mean, I assume, the demands of everyday life and the need to address them responsibly?
Oh dear, what a burden! If only the government or some other omniscient entity would just step in to provide my sustenance and spare me the rigors of unwelcome decision-making!
Just the way Obama's re-election ad promised to come to the rescue of poor, put-upon "Julia."
What a drag it is, growing up!
2
Mr. Edsall cites the 2008 book "The Great Risk Shift" as a chronicle of the "widespread erosion of social insurance". However, in 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, creating the largest new entitlement program since the New Deal. The subsidies for low-income persons' insurance coverage are largely paid for by new taxes on higher-income earners. At the same time, Medicaid was substantially expanded (in states where governors would allow it), also largely funded by new taxes on high earners. So here we have two major examples of recent social insurance policies relying upon wealth redistribution; these may partially account for the lack of outcry among those in lower earning quartiles.
3
I find it particularly ironic that protest has been so muted since we are all supposedly so "connected" by social media and an impromptu uprising should be so easy to stage. Mark Zuckerberg is laughing all the way to the bank.
I think of Delecoix's painting "Liberty Leading the People"
http://www.wikiart.org/en/eugene-delacroix/the-liberty-leading-the-peopl...
Today, she'd be waving a selfie stick instead of a Tricolor.
I think of Delecoix's painting "Liberty Leading the People"
http://www.wikiart.org/en/eugene-delacroix/the-liberty-leading-the-peopl...
Today, she'd be waving a selfie stick instead of a Tricolor.
3
This is depressing but not surprising news. Well stated exposition. It doesn't bode well for the future, at least not for the 2016 election cycle. So long as the poor don't even bother to vote it's hard to see how there can be any momentum for change.
Where are the millions who should be demonstrating for a universal health care system? Or safer lives with some kind of lethal weapons control? Or access for poor women's health issues such as birth control and abortion?. Or unequal education funding among districts?
There is no other democratic country I know where the majority of voters vote against the own family's interests. Just see and continue watching my own state of Wisconsin.
There is no other democratic country I know where the majority of voters vote against the own family's interests. Just see and continue watching my own state of Wisconsin.
3
Unfortunately, this newspaper has done a lot to damage the strength of the collective. It seems to be obsessed with promoting individualistic rights (especially gay and black) at the expense of straight, white families. The liberal media has left most of us behind, to fend for ourselves.
4
The poor don't rise up because the "middle class" is too heavily indebted to support them. US citizens have been sold the "American Dream" for so long they don't realize that the reality of the mortgage, the car payments and the credit cards have left them as impotent as a newborn.
Change might bring a better nation, but endangering Susie's lifestyle is too much to bear.
Change might bring a better nation, but endangering Susie's lifestyle is too much to bear.
7
The changes are fully supported by our Congress that lets cheaper foreign workers replace any of us, even those of us with college degrees. The recent event of Disney replacing its IT staff with foreign H-1B visa workers is indicative of the trend that is making paupers out of all of us, regardless of our education. The much bigger influence is the millions of our jobs that have been offshored. It amazes me that anyone is suddenly waking up to the trend that has been most evident to me for the past 20 years when a once high-flying technology company I worked for laid us all off and replaced us with cheaper workers in Bangalore..
3
If you are speaking of the truly poor, the reason that they don't rise up is that most are eligible, either directly or indirectly, for government benefits that do not make their lives all that comfortable, but that essentially bridge the gap between them and others who make just enough money to be ineligible for those benefits. In short, they know that even if they were to be better compensated, they would not likely be that much better off, at least in the short run. They probably also realize that if wages were to go up, they would soon increase across the board, quickly returning them to the relatively poor position they now occupy. Please note that this is not a screed against increasing the minimum wage, but rather an observation that doing so without somehow indexing benefits eligibility cutoffs as well as controlling wage inflation might not really help the poor.
The group that really should rise up, but hasn't, is the core of the middle class. Most have enough money to meet current expenses, but are headed for a train wreck in retirement.
The group that really should rise up, but hasn't, is the core of the middle class. Most have enough money to meet current expenses, but are headed for a train wreck in retirement.
5
The public is anesthetized and its focus diluted by the cacophony of the internet, partisan media, idiotic entertainment diversion like ESPN, sports in general, trash popular programs, etc. The heat gradually turns up so slowly on their melting opportunities and they're too distracted to notice them melting away.
Here we come, neo-feudalistic dystopia. It's not far off. Government already only exists to hand out market fiefs to the buyers of government. To think we live in a democratic republic at this point is to have completely missed the cancer Ronald Reagan was to the country and the world.
Here we come, neo-feudalistic dystopia. It's not far off. Government already only exists to hand out market fiefs to the buyers of government. To think we live in a democratic republic at this point is to have completely missed the cancer Ronald Reagan was to the country and the world.
7
Revolution? It's coming. The police state can't hold it back forever. With 1/31 people in prison, parole or probation that means that perhaps 10% of the general population, or more, are living in fear of the law. In ghettos, it could be 60% or higher.
The CIA's Gini index, which measures economic imbalance, puts the US in the same club with South America, South Africa, Russia and China. We will have revolution when the disenfranchised kids band together with the old.
The thing about revolutions is that they are always considered impossible until they happen. Then, they are inevitable.
The CIA's Gini index, which measures economic imbalance, puts the US in the same club with South America, South Africa, Russia and China. We will have revolution when the disenfranchised kids band together with the old.
The thing about revolutions is that they are always considered impossible until they happen. Then, they are inevitable.
6
Mr. Edsall:
The isolation of gov. from the rest of the country has a lot to do with what, I suppose is posited as apathy or, at best, resignation as a response by the poor.The rot that is American Exceptionalism is a sop thrown to the white working poor that helps perpetuate the division beween them and the minority poor.
Today the absence of a viable and secure middle class exacerbates the situation as work is no longer considered a right, despite the ill-named "right-to-work" laws conservatives are so fond of. We have a shallow remnant of the manufacturing base that provided a way forward for workers. The search for work has caused many to abandon generations old community ties in a diaspora that has turned many states purple, if not, blue.
In turn that diaspora has also ameliorated the voting power of those who enter new cultures alien to their upbringing. It takes time to assimilate and food on the table takes precedent over politics, but, the political dynamics are changing. When bread is hard to come by for most we may see the poor rise up, many think we are not far from that moment. It will not be pretty.
The isolation of gov. from the rest of the country has a lot to do with what, I suppose is posited as apathy or, at best, resignation as a response by the poor.The rot that is American Exceptionalism is a sop thrown to the white working poor that helps perpetuate the division beween them and the minority poor.
Today the absence of a viable and secure middle class exacerbates the situation as work is no longer considered a right, despite the ill-named "right-to-work" laws conservatives are so fond of. We have a shallow remnant of the manufacturing base that provided a way forward for workers. The search for work has caused many to abandon generations old community ties in a diaspora that has turned many states purple, if not, blue.
In turn that diaspora has also ameliorated the voting power of those who enter new cultures alien to their upbringing. It takes time to assimilate and food on the table takes precedent over politics, but, the political dynamics are changing. When bread is hard to come by for most we may see the poor rise up, many think we are not far from that moment. It will not be pretty.
2
Constitution basically says we the people. This means, we're all in this together.
Is the rich get richer, they want to rewrite this. They no longer need us.
If their greed is allowed to run rampant they will be successful. One by one they dismantle regulations to protect the American people as a whole.
We need people in our government who will protect and serve all of the American people.
Is the rich get richer, they want to rewrite this. They no longer need us.
If their greed is allowed to run rampant they will be successful. One by one they dismantle regulations to protect the American people as a whole.
We need people in our government who will protect and serve all of the American people.
3
Umm, we have been. We took to the streets in zuccotti park, in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Charleston. And we are being beat on,pepper sprayed and tackled. And you ask why we're not rising up? When you condemn us for doing so and call us thugs? As if a CVS is more valuable than a human life? Lol. Thanks for my daily dose of cluelessness, New York times .
3
In the American Revolution, the people stormed the armories to get weapons. In the French Revolution, the people stormed the Bastille to free the prisoners therein. In the Russian Revolution, the people marched on the factories, shutting down the means of war production.
In Baltimore, the people marched on CVS, in order to get free beer. I find this a modern example of Mao's quote, "to a bandit, a gun is a means to get gold; to a revolutionary a gun is a means to get more guns".
In Baltimore, the people marched on CVS, in order to get free beer. I find this a modern example of Mao's quote, "to a bandit, a gun is a means to get gold; to a revolutionary a gun is a means to get more guns".
1
The monuments to collectivist revolutions and uprisings are unmarked mass graves sprinkled about the globe, where the poor and powerless are buried.
4
The rise of social justice movements and the decline of economic activism are both rooted in the same political realization: government is capable of less and less every day, so it may as well stop marginalizing subsets of people, if it can be expected to get anything done at all.
Any movement must have a message and a message delivery system.
The forces which control the media in this country won't permit an effective message to be delivered for a sustained period of time. Instead, the poor are provided with messages and slogans which are carefully calibrated to give them hope but not genuine motivation.
Obama's "change you can believe in" is a quintessential example. It's just enough to get people thinking tomorrow can be better, but not enough to get them off their couches.
Obama's "make me do what you want" was truly rich.
But this is somewhat beside the point. The real trick of the rich is convincing the people that there is a right and a left, when in reality there is a rich and a poor. By keeping the poor divided over such nonsense as gun control, gay marriage, and abortion rights, the rich are able to advance their real agenda, which is to profit from the exploitation of labor.
The proof is in the pudding. Look at how income and asset distribution has stratified over the past sixty years, and then tell me I'm wrong.
The forces which control the media in this country won't permit an effective message to be delivered for a sustained period of time. Instead, the poor are provided with messages and slogans which are carefully calibrated to give them hope but not genuine motivation.
Obama's "change you can believe in" is a quintessential example. It's just enough to get people thinking tomorrow can be better, but not enough to get them off their couches.
Obama's "make me do what you want" was truly rich.
But this is somewhat beside the point. The real trick of the rich is convincing the people that there is a right and a left, when in reality there is a rich and a poor. By keeping the poor divided over such nonsense as gun control, gay marriage, and abortion rights, the rich are able to advance their real agenda, which is to profit from the exploitation of labor.
The proof is in the pudding. Look at how income and asset distribution has stratified over the past sixty years, and then tell me I'm wrong.
10
#boom! Great reply!
1
Our Congress and, now our President, no longer work for all of us. Thy have sold us out to the richest with the latest insult being the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
8
I imagine many are numbed out by our crazed media culture. Others, who have not given up but made the choice to live outside the mainstream as much as possible. Living on limited economic means surely cultivates resourcefulness. I know many who live without banks, credit cards, cars and traditional jobs. Rising Up is another story. Whats a day in jail cost?
5
"Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?"
.... 1) because the white working/middle/upper-middle class have been buttered down. whites, regrettable, imagine their interest aligned with the corporate class. why rise to stir things up, and give comfort to the minorities and the betrodden?
... 2) conservative media is powerful and noisy. their financial interest is vested in the racist system. keep everyone in fear and angry. a tribalistic society benefits a lot of people.
...3) the minorities (e.g., blacks) have been beaten so badly in the past 40 years that many have given up hope. It isn't about to get better for them. the system is corrupt at its core.
...4) the political courage is gone. America is now just a collection of people and interests. it isn't really a community.
.... 1) because the white working/middle/upper-middle class have been buttered down. whites, regrettable, imagine their interest aligned with the corporate class. why rise to stir things up, and give comfort to the minorities and the betrodden?
... 2) conservative media is powerful and noisy. their financial interest is vested in the racist system. keep everyone in fear and angry. a tribalistic society benefits a lot of people.
...3) the minorities (e.g., blacks) have been beaten so badly in the past 40 years that many have given up hope. It isn't about to get better for them. the system is corrupt at its core.
...4) the political courage is gone. America is now just a collection of people and interests. it isn't really a community.
10
I think the poor, first of all, are busy just trying to survive. And beyond that they don't believe they can change anything.
10
The poor in the US are so much better off, even relative to the rich, than the poor in 1787 Paris that it is difficult to even measure. Yet they found time and effort to overthrow an absolute monarchy.
Your second point is, however unfortunate, the real reason.
Your second point is, however unfortunate, the real reason.
1
I think the poor are much too busy trying to provide for their daily means and making it through each day to have time and energy to rise up. Typically it is the middle (or even upper) class which rises up on behalf of the poor. Lenin did not come from a poor family; neither did Simon Bolivar or even Mao Zedong. With wealth comes the time and leisure to plan and carry out acts of protest, without fear of losing the ability to provide for one's family.
5
The middle class usually provides the leaders who inspire the poor to rise up. The leaders you give are good examples of this, Maximilien Robespierre is an even stronger one. Where are the leaders today is the question we should be asking, that is the real reason the poor do not rise up.
I was raised by my dad to think of the old triumvirate: business, unions, and government, as a good balance. Business and government have continued to grow and prosper; unions haven't.
One laments this, including me, but it's an exaggeration to blame it all on "reactionary forces". Unions always had some serious innate problems. They were exclusive, for all of their talk of solidarity. They could be quite coercive of dissenters or outliers-- the price of that "solidarity". And the biggest problem of all: they were obstructionist. (There were some noteworthy exception, like the West-coast ILWA, which rapidly adapted and cooperated with technological change on the docks.) They didn't produce anything (as organizations). They were not creative.
To this very day, the unions talk about bringing the 8-hour day, minimum wage levels, all sorts of employment reform. But that happened generations ago. "What have you done for me lately?" is the language of business; businesses don't stand still, or they die. Unions stand still-- so they die.
One laments this, including me, but it's an exaggeration to blame it all on "reactionary forces". Unions always had some serious innate problems. They were exclusive, for all of their talk of solidarity. They could be quite coercive of dissenters or outliers-- the price of that "solidarity". And the biggest problem of all: they were obstructionist. (There were some noteworthy exception, like the West-coast ILWA, which rapidly adapted and cooperated with technological change on the docks.) They didn't produce anything (as organizations). They were not creative.
To this very day, the unions talk about bringing the 8-hour day, minimum wage levels, all sorts of employment reform. But that happened generations ago. "What have you done for me lately?" is the language of business; businesses don't stand still, or they die. Unions stand still-- so they die.
8
Wait a few years. Wait until the bankers, politicians, and corporations completely crush our opportunities.
6
Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta were dirt poor, afraid, and overworked, too, yet they pushed through those barriers and improved the lives of farm workers forever. Maybe they didn't have TVs to lull them to complacency or recliners to sink into.
6
People are exhausted, depressed and impoverished in increasingly difficult times, so they allow themselves to be lulled into semi-consciousness by a tsunami of vapid, 24-hour media and by antidepressants (which don't increase happiness but in fact deaden all emotion).
Add on the loss of any real sense of community and interpersonal connection. PLUS people labour confusingly under the illusion that they live in democracies that are clearly corporate oligarchies, and voila: populations stopped dead in their tracks.
Add on the loss of any real sense of community and interpersonal connection. PLUS people labour confusingly under the illusion that they live in democracies that are clearly corporate oligarchies, and voila: populations stopped dead in their tracks.
12
If Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are taken away, the pitchforks and guns will come out and the rioting will begin. The various groups among the poor will be forced together and better see the common enemy/oppressor. Now we are still delusional: a poll several years back showed that 19% thought they were in the top one percent in income and 20% thought they would be in the near future.
7
You are right, but it will be the well-off, not the poor, who will lead that revolution! I'll be at the head of the crowd!
2
I take a dim view of all these big, Latinate words to describe poverty and alienation. I think it all comes down to this – and i'm not by nature a paranoid person – a long-term strategy by monied interests to disempower the vast majority of their fellow citizens both economically and politically.
All the while, the craven Democrats stood by and did nothing. Most telling, and most significant for the well-being of millions, they did nothing to support the unions in their hour of need.
All the while, the craven Democrats stood by and did nothing. Most telling, and most significant for the well-being of millions, they did nothing to support the unions in their hour of need.
40
The "craven Democrats" are filthy rich. Check the wealth of Democrats in Congress and other branches of government - whether the billion dollar Kennedy fortune, the multi-million dollar Clinton fortune (that doesn't include the Clinton Foundation, their personal tax-free piggy bank), Nancy Pelosi's family fortune, John Kerry's fortune (not connected to his wife's billions) and many, many others, they aren't among the 1%: they are among the one-tenth of 1%.
And support for the unions? Lip service. Clinton's NAFTA took out more union jobs than any industrialist could dream of doing. Obama's TPP will be the same "benefit", and like NAFTA the benefit will be to the wealthy. The dislocated workers at the bottom will get TAA - Trade Admustment Assistance. Yes, TPP has TAA written into the plan.
Business as usual..........the rich get richer. Politics is one thing, and Democrats and Republicans disagree some issues. Money is another thing, and Democrats and Republicans agree: more is better. Much more is better still.
And support for the unions? Lip service. Clinton's NAFTA took out more union jobs than any industrialist could dream of doing. Obama's TPP will be the same "benefit", and like NAFTA the benefit will be to the wealthy. The dislocated workers at the bottom will get TAA - Trade Admustment Assistance. Yes, TPP has TAA written into the plan.
Business as usual..........the rich get richer. Politics is one thing, and Democrats and Republicans disagree some issues. Money is another thing, and Democrats and Republicans agree: more is better. Much more is better still.
1
This is an incredibly obtuse piece. Up until the 70's, white working-class people were fairly united, and supported reducing inequality. When white Southerners were Democrats, they were economicially progressive, even populistic. What changed after the 60's? The economic attitude of white Southerners and other racists was deliberately reversed and they changed parties because the Republican party supported their racism in exchange for support of plutocracy. Of course it is not called plutocracy, it is called "individualism" or "libertarianism". It is apparently more important to many white people to keep those of other colors down than to prevent those at the top of the ladder from enriching themselves and increasing inequality.
The very rich want to keep their taxes down and prevent redistribution of their own wealth, and they have enlisted many in the white "middle-class" on their side by selling the idea that nothing should go to those at the very bottom. It is a matter of class and racial alliances - the philosophic and economic ideology are rationalizations, not motivations.
The very rich want to keep their taxes down and prevent redistribution of their own wealth, and they have enlisted many in the white "middle-class" on their side by selling the idea that nothing should go to those at the very bottom. It is a matter of class and racial alliances - the philosophic and economic ideology are rationalizations, not motivations.
10
There is the little problem that when Democrats start talking about the "rich" they define them as about 25% of the population, also the most educated and politically active people. This does not lead to a groundswell of support.
Here's a little local example in my state. The Democrats proposed a 5% capital-gains tax on gains over $25,000. (We have no income tax here, including CG.) A local Dem representative in a newspaper op-ed piece described a $25K gain as an "enormous windfall", so nobody could possibly object! It's not so much the question of a tax, it's that "enormous windfall" thinking.....
Here's a little local example in my state. The Democrats proposed a 5% capital-gains tax on gains over $25,000. (We have no income tax here, including CG.) A local Dem representative in a newspaper op-ed piece described a $25K gain as an "enormous windfall", so nobody could possibly object! It's not so much the question of a tax, it's that "enormous windfall" thinking.....
3
What happened recently in Baltimore? In Ferguson?
When the poor rise up they get shot and arrested.
And when they try to get together in unions, the party of the wealthy passes so-called "right to work" laws.
And when they try to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge they get jammed into paddy wagons.
There's an awful lot of power on the other side. Blame that!
When the poor rise up they get shot and arrested.
And when they try to get together in unions, the party of the wealthy passes so-called "right to work" laws.
And when they try to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge they get jammed into paddy wagons.
There's an awful lot of power on the other side. Blame that!
37
There is no more power on the other side now than there was in Paris in 1787, yet those people overthrew an absolute monarchy. What is lacking is will, that and effective leadership.
"And when they try to get together in unions, the party of the wealthy passes so-called "right to work" laws."
Really? Who voted "the party of the wealthy" in? The top economic ten percent make up ten percent of the electorate.
An awful lot of middle class, working class, and poor people either voted for the party of the wealthy or stayed on their butts and wasted their energy complaining.
If we don't get the government we want, maybe it's because we do get the government we deserve.
Really? Who voted "the party of the wealthy" in? The top economic ten percent make up ten percent of the electorate.
An awful lot of middle class, working class, and poor people either voted for the party of the wealthy or stayed on their butts and wasted their energy complaining.
If we don't get the government we want, maybe it's because we do get the government we deserve.
I consider myself very well informed on these issues, but I never fail to marvel at the cogent and thoughtful analysis provided by Mr. Edsall. Of all the columns I read regularly in NYTs, this is the one most likely to reliably provide a novel and edifying insight on social justice issues.
10
Perhaps the poor should pool their money and hire lobbyists to represent them in the halls of Congress. It seems no one else is.
17
If the poor organize and follow through on things, they probably wouldn't be poor to start with - they would be contributing members of a company.
1
We all always want to have our cake and eat it too. We no longer want the constraints of church, family, and "censorious" peer-group; but we'd like less competitiveness, and more security and solidarity.
Can't have it both ways, as in so much in life.
Also, poverty is not what it used to be. When we were kids in the 1950s and '60s, we took our vacations at local state parks. We were a big family, so we had two used cars. My dad commuted to the campground after work-- and he was a dentist. He bought his first new car in 1965, 20 years after he and my mom were married. And we thought we were rich! And we probably were--- but our "lifestyle" from a purely material point of view was far less affluent that an equivalent family today. The situation toward the "bottom" was much tougher than it is today.
Can't have it both ways, as in so much in life.
Also, poverty is not what it used to be. When we were kids in the 1950s and '60s, we took our vacations at local state parks. We were a big family, so we had two used cars. My dad commuted to the campground after work-- and he was a dentist. He bought his first new car in 1965, 20 years after he and my mom were married. And we thought we were rich! And we probably were--- but our "lifestyle" from a purely material point of view was far less affluent that an equivalent family today. The situation toward the "bottom" was much tougher than it is today.
7
Mr. Edsall's premise to his article begins with the poor being quiescent, and although unions are given some mention, the same question could be asked of the middle and upper middle class. and the millions of successful Americans that care about our country's future. Why are we not rising up?
The erosion of ideals that were held in previous decades regarding economic security and opportunity, the individualization, the seemingly endless and thinly joined social interests and movements; the arrogant and multiple channels of editorial noise, are all a wake-up call that most educated Americans should contemplate.
There seems to be little discussion or action among those that can help the poor and lower working class improve their quality of life. The added dimension is that we are afraid to admit that the values of the baby-boom generation - individual happiness and freedom, globalization, careerism and the me-generation vision of what a healthy family - have to a large degree failed us and are to to a great extent the causes of our failure to have an integrated society.
Mr Edsell's points about the economic and culture pressures upon the middle class, the effect of changing sexual mores and the high levels of family dissolution should not go unnoticed. Instead of planning a Florida retirement, we of the middle class should be planning sustainable social reforms and should start with the leadership of our country.
The erosion of ideals that were held in previous decades regarding economic security and opportunity, the individualization, the seemingly endless and thinly joined social interests and movements; the arrogant and multiple channels of editorial noise, are all a wake-up call that most educated Americans should contemplate.
There seems to be little discussion or action among those that can help the poor and lower working class improve their quality of life. The added dimension is that we are afraid to admit that the values of the baby-boom generation - individual happiness and freedom, globalization, careerism and the me-generation vision of what a healthy family - have to a large degree failed us and are to to a great extent the causes of our failure to have an integrated society.
Mr Edsell's points about the economic and culture pressures upon the middle class, the effect of changing sexual mores and the high levels of family dissolution should not go unnoticed. Instead of planning a Florida retirement, we of the middle class should be planning sustainable social reforms and should start with the leadership of our country.
2
Lets point out some of the inequalities:
The top 10% of earners pay 68% of all income taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes.
Maybe the bottom quintile should be quiescent?
The top 10% of earners pay 68% of all income taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes.
Maybe the bottom quintile should be quiescent?
8
I always love this quote. You are right, B. We should equalize things. Would you rather increase taxes on the poor or lower taxes on the rich?
1
Perhaps, but that 3% is much more crippling to that bottom 50% than the 68% is to the top 10%. If you earn only $20,000 a year and 1/20th goes to taxes, you have to figure out how to live on $19,000. If you make $10 million a year and give up 1/10 of it, you still have $9 million to get you to the Bahamas
1
Societies rarely succumb to popular revolt but usually fail internally long before anyone hits the streets.
The Soviet Union. like the United States, was physically falling apart, its bloated military was unable to win wars, and its self serving political elite was completely out of touch with any discernible reality.
The poor, which probably are the majority of Americans, will eventually bring down the current system but by then it will already be a done deal.
The Soviet Union. like the United States, was physically falling apart, its bloated military was unable to win wars, and its self serving political elite was completely out of touch with any discernible reality.
The poor, which probably are the majority of Americans, will eventually bring down the current system but by then it will already be a done deal.
3
Many of us are afraid of storming the barricades because as soon as there are sizable gatherings, the police makes its presence felt and they will use their most powerful weapon, arrests (remember OW – Brooklyn bridge). Who in their right mind wants to be arrested and then deal with the ensuing court drama?
The media is also a powerful weapon of social control. Many of the more impoverished youth feel that a sign of rebelliousness is wearing sagging pants showing their underpants. The media has conquered the minds of the younger generations with its unrelenting and twisted message of material needs and wants.
Around my way, I keep seeing how more and more people are struggling to get by, while the nation’s wealthy keep getting richer. Letting corporate America and the very rich impose their will on the nation is a recipe for social disaster. But I guess the privileged feel that the poor will not rise and if they do, they will be swiftly quashed. Let’s party on!
The media is also a powerful weapon of social control. Many of the more impoverished youth feel that a sign of rebelliousness is wearing sagging pants showing their underpants. The media has conquered the minds of the younger generations with its unrelenting and twisted message of material needs and wants.
Around my way, I keep seeing how more and more people are struggling to get by, while the nation’s wealthy keep getting richer. Letting corporate America and the very rich impose their will on the nation is a recipe for social disaster. But I guess the privileged feel that the poor will not rise and if they do, they will be swiftly quashed. Let’s party on!
2
Unions are being demonized and their influence, especially with what is left of our rapidly failing consumer-based economy - Walmart and McDonalds - has not demonstrated "strength in numbers".
3
Perhaps it occurs, even to the poor, that with freedom comes responsibility. Americans generally want lots of individual freedoms, which is great. But one can’t demand the “right to choose ____” (fill in the blank) without accepting a reciprocal obligation to assume responsibility for one’s choices.
You note that the less well off “have struggled with high levels of family dissolution, father absence and worklessness”. Is not the first the direct and proximate result of governmental policies which hugely subsidize single parenthood and punish people for acting responsibly? Is not the last the direct and proximate result of massive, unskilled immigration, both legal and illegal?
You conflate the words “community” and government. Yet government actively undermines families, by subsidizing single parenthood. And the left hates community, if that community finds its genesis – as it often does – in a church.
Envy makes for rotten economics. No one is poor because someone else is rich; no one suffers because someone else’s taxes are too low. Quite the contrary: poor people suffer because leftist envy prevents the elimination of destructively high tax rates.
There are no barricades to storm. If poor people truly want to get ahead –without sacrificing their hard won personal liberties – they will run leftists out of power, elect free market politicians, and reap the benefits prosperity provides. It won't be equally shared, but only one beset with envy would care.
You note that the less well off “have struggled with high levels of family dissolution, father absence and worklessness”. Is not the first the direct and proximate result of governmental policies which hugely subsidize single parenthood and punish people for acting responsibly? Is not the last the direct and proximate result of massive, unskilled immigration, both legal and illegal?
You conflate the words “community” and government. Yet government actively undermines families, by subsidizing single parenthood. And the left hates community, if that community finds its genesis – as it often does – in a church.
Envy makes for rotten economics. No one is poor because someone else is rich; no one suffers because someone else’s taxes are too low. Quite the contrary: poor people suffer because leftist envy prevents the elimination of destructively high tax rates.
There are no barricades to storm. If poor people truly want to get ahead –without sacrificing their hard won personal liberties – they will run leftists out of power, elect free market politicians, and reap the benefits prosperity provides. It won't be equally shared, but only one beset with envy would care.
4
Good grief! You've swallowed the right-wing Kool-Aid in gallons! When the 1% controls over 50% of the assets in this country, then "freedom" is not worth the paper you print it on.
You'd place the same consumption tax on everybody, and include even foodstuffs. The richest will thrive, and the poor will have to choose between food, medicine, and housing--not to mention education.
You need to read our founding documents...and contrast them with what we fought in World War II, if you ever did learn about it.
You'd place the same consumption tax on everybody, and include even foodstuffs. The richest will thrive, and the poor will have to choose between food, medicine, and housing--not to mention education.
You need to read our founding documents...and contrast them with what we fought in World War II, if you ever did learn about it.
While not having read many of the studies referred to in the article I have read much neuroscience research and most of not all confirm that humans are wired to connect. We are social beings. So where is the individuation meme coming from? It is a cultural creation. Every other country has a " we" mentality. Also my belief is that most, but not all, women are relational beings and thrive in networks and relationships. But the John Wayne cowboy got it alone mentality has deep roots in the US DNA and I believe this is a Western Male Socialization concept that has been reinforced by government and corporate policies of the last 40+ years. My wish is that boys would be socialized from day one to a relational paradigm rather than the domination/competition paradigm. If that would happen I believe we would be a much safer, social, and connected culture.
3
"Individualization" is more a consequence of the long term process mentioned in the article of the political/social demand for greater personal freedom in all areas of life and, yes, the consequence of that is a greater onus on the individual with the decline of collective social responsibility-a consequence that falls most heavily on those least able to bear it. So the sum is that those who have more resources and power demand they be less shackled by social norms and little thought is given to those who suffer from the withdrawal of collective support- most often support offered by government.
A very bright line example of the process has been the retreat of states from providing long term care to the mentally ill under the disingenuous argument that long term hospitalization violates the right to free choice the mentally ill supposedly possess, I suppose based on some theory of natural law. As a result the mentally ill get to live their 'freedom' on the streets in poverty and risk facing disgust and disrespect from a public who wishes not to be reminded of who bears the externalized cost of their greater social freedom.
A very bright line example of the process has been the retreat of states from providing long term care to the mentally ill under the disingenuous argument that long term hospitalization violates the right to free choice the mentally ill supposedly possess, I suppose based on some theory of natural law. As a result the mentally ill get to live their 'freedom' on the streets in poverty and risk facing disgust and disrespect from a public who wishes not to be reminded of who bears the externalized cost of their greater social freedom.
3
The answer can be found in "what's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank, Hacker's book and "One Nation Under God". The poor and the middle class drank the right wing koolaid and are still doing so. Ignorance and god, guns, gays and abortion. Many in the bottom 90% think that with just a little luck they can be in the top 10%.
9
Isn't it interesting that Republicans (conservatives) who espouse a set of conservative cultural and communal social positions, e. g. family values, traditional marriage, and so on also support free market capitalism and a culture that supports such an economic order which promotes the very changes that offend social conservatives. I wonder how that contradiction will be resolved?
And so on
And so on
3
Bread and circuses, plus cleaver manipulation by the entrenched powerful through the media and other means so that the struggling classes don't have confidence in their ability to effect change by voting and other forms of engagement.
4
It's odd (but not entirely surprising) to read this article in the Times. As a devout Roman Catholic, committed to all the teachings of the Church...of course I sympathize and want to help the poor. In fact, the Church holds that neither unbridled capitalism nor revolutionary socialism provides the answer to anyone's problems. Class conflcit and pure redistributionist policies don't do it, and neither does supply-side economics. The Pope recently spoke of the importance of "human ecology" something he borrowed from Benedict's earlier statements on the subject...where he emphasizes the dignity of all men.
Uprisings by the poor or calls for redistribution fall on deaf ears if our individualistic society does not take into account the basic idea that every man, woman, and child is blessed with God-given dignity. That dignity demands that they be treated equally, that they have equality of opportunity, and that dignity demands that those who are better off than the less fortunate Christian brothers (though they don't have to give up all their profits) mut give a substantial amount back to the poor and to society. If you don't believe that the Church holds these positions just read Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891) which makes many of the same points I am making.
That said, I think it is regressive and anachronistic to make calls for a large uprising of one class against all the others. What we need is a rediscovery of the common dignity and brotherhood of man.
Uprisings by the poor or calls for redistribution fall on deaf ears if our individualistic society does not take into account the basic idea that every man, woman, and child is blessed with God-given dignity. That dignity demands that they be treated equally, that they have equality of opportunity, and that dignity demands that those who are better off than the less fortunate Christian brothers (though they don't have to give up all their profits) mut give a substantial amount back to the poor and to society. If you don't believe that the Church holds these positions just read Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891) which makes many of the same points I am making.
That said, I think it is regressive and anachronistic to make calls for a large uprising of one class against all the others. What we need is a rediscovery of the common dignity and brotherhood of man.
2
I agree utterly with your beliefs, but note a problem with your last paragraph. Power (and its surrogate, wealth) are never given up in great amounts voluntarily. Most of those who have power will not "give a substantial amount back to the poor and to society" without at least the threat of "a large uprising of one class against all the others." At that point, fear, prudence, or virtue can then lead to "a rediscovery of the common dignity and brotherhood of man" and Pacem in Terris.
rising up for the poors is i.e. converting their physical changes into something not acceptable to world, deseases hunger and injustice by not you by not others BUT our owns only . either looking again to another o---ma next time but the issues not solved till dissimiliarty continues to dominate around us.
Does the media, perhaps by accident, help in suppressing worker rage by showing all the refugees fleeing their homes in Africa and the Middle East and crossing the Mediterranean in dangerous conditions? By so doing they show how we, even the poor and unemployed, have it relatively easy.
The News Hour, for example, nearly every night has at least one feature on these unfortunate people.
The News Hour, for example, nearly every night has at least one feature on these unfortunate people.
1
they've been conditioned with a syndrome of sorts that began with Ronald Reagan. Act rich and you will be rich. It's called delusion in the normal direct world. People vote against their own interests with the belief that they don't want to be seen as struggling or aligned with a lower class than themselves who are also being neglected. Why did millions of decent Germans go along with a clear message of hate and murder, turning against their own neighbors? Human behavior isn't science but it is predictably flawed. That compounded by a two decade era of Globalism that has created a myopic vision, one's own survival, not a collective, a singular survival by any means possible. Quite simply, no one cares about activism and protest because you are branded a trouble maker should you do so. Not to mention, people don't have time to care, they are busy trying to scrape together a living. The middle class has been hoodwinked, yet they want to believe they are good Republicans and there is a way out of this mess. There isn't. We are owned by lobbyists and corporations, and a few unnamed foreign countries. The death of outrage has been percolating for a long time, with a new button pushing generation, ignorant of history, we have never been in greater danger as a country or greater, humanity, due to this complacent, self centered way of life. Unpleasant, but the hard facts, not just an opinion.
5
"Still, it’s possible that poverty is less grueling than in the past, for several reasons."
It's possible? It's only possible that being poor in modern countries today is easier than it was in the past? Not completely certain?
It's possible? It's only possible that being poor in modern countries today is easier than it was in the past? Not completely certain?
1
The Left is partly to blame. It surprised me that during the recent recession, when unemployment rates were as high as 8% in the United States, the Left championed gay marriage. Gay marriage is a laudable idea, but no responsible person should consider marriage unless they have a job and unemployment was not restricted to straight people. (I have a gay friend who was unemployed for two years, marriage was not on his agenda.) So long as our leaders keep telling us the main issues are race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., working people will never see the commonalities of their experience and work together. Let’s get back to basic bread and butter issues in our political discourse, as I think Prof. Beck would agree.
1
people in the US don't know the meaning of being poor. poor people in all countries have big bellies. there is a difference, though. in poor countries it is the result of lack of food. in rich countries it is the result of poor diet choices. in america the working poor can get by because the food and merchandise distribution system is well developed making the cost of goods cheap. the same cannot be said for africa and parts of east asia. in africa and east asia you work or you starve. in america you lose your job and the government supports you. some people then realize that government checks and benefits is the equivalent of what they were struggling to make before. why bother to work at uncertain jobs when you can receive guaranteed government benefit and give society nothing in return. . the only answer would be self respect and a desire to improve your life. it is not easy when government regulation makes it difficult to hire people. raise the minimum wage and you will not be able to get a foot in the door of the work world. there are family units today where each member does not make the so called living wage but add wages together they can live a comfortable existence.
the working poor in the US are fortunate to be in the US. they recognize this reality. therefore, there is no reason for the working poor to rise up.
the working poor in the US are fortunate to be in the US. they recognize this reality. therefore, there is no reason for the working poor to rise up.
4
When you're up against the militarized police, the government's collusion w/corporate malfeasance, lobbyists, educational inequalities, that's enough to drown out any opposition. The voice of the poor won't stand a chance. Collectively, we should all be outraged.
4
Why? Read the Powell Memorandum, it sets out the basic plan. The global elite took over the media, refashioning it as corporate media while news was regulated to entertainment divisions. This corporate media delivers spectacle and corporate propaganda. Meanwhile, public education is increasingly becoming a strange joke, while private prisons proliferate. Then there are new, radical technologies of surveillance and militarized police (all paid for by taxpayers to keep them safe from "terrorists"). (Where do people think the Occupy movement went?) In short, bombarded and bamboozelled by corporate propaganda, repression and spectacle, yet somehow having enough to eat and a television to watch, how does one protest and what does protest accomplish anyway? (See Arab Spring. Seems, thanks to technology, a few can control the great many.) And so, I get the how, but why? What kind of "elite" work to create a world like this? Of ecological and moral ruin. Who wants to live in this world of global corporations? And yet, seems we have no choice. No one wants the TPP (NAFTA on steriods), but here it is anyway. What is left of the dream of America these days? It seems to have become what it was first formed to oppose and there's no real way to change course until collapse.
2
I hope no one has forgotten Occupy Wall Street and the Nazi-styled Police actions that resulted against student protests.
In my opinion, it was an unapologetic attempt to squash our most important
constitutional Freedom.
Remember it, because there will be other actions against that most important of all --The Freedom of Speech and protest for redress of grievances.
In my opinion, it was an unapologetic attempt to squash our most important
constitutional Freedom.
Remember it, because there will be other actions against that most important of all --The Freedom of Speech and protest for redress of grievances.
3
It is not lack of motivation. It is not the social idea of being on our own.
Whenever people "rise up" they have leaders.
The French Revolution was not leaderless mobs arising spontaneously. From Britain commentators called it that, but those who were there knew who was leading "the mob."
Likewise our labor movement was not leaderless, did not arise from just workers one day downing tools. It was a very long time in the making, and the leaders were well known enough at the time that many were jailed for it.
What we lack today is leaders. In fact, we don't see real leadership even in our regular politics.
We act as a stunned mass, exploited like a herd. Why is that? No leaders.
Why is that? Where are the leaders?
People don't rally first, and then find a leader for the rally. The leader draws a rally, inspires people to come. Leaders come first. Followers follow.
The same thing is true for our race relations. Where is our MLK, Jr.? It has been half a century since he was shot.
Why are Americans leaderless? That is the real question.
Whenever people "rise up" they have leaders.
The French Revolution was not leaderless mobs arising spontaneously. From Britain commentators called it that, but those who were there knew who was leading "the mob."
Likewise our labor movement was not leaderless, did not arise from just workers one day downing tools. It was a very long time in the making, and the leaders were well known enough at the time that many were jailed for it.
What we lack today is leaders. In fact, we don't see real leadership even in our regular politics.
We act as a stunned mass, exploited like a herd. Why is that? No leaders.
Why is that? Where are the leaders?
People don't rally first, and then find a leader for the rally. The leader draws a rally, inspires people to come. Leaders come first. Followers follow.
The same thing is true for our race relations. Where is our MLK, Jr.? It has been half a century since he was shot.
Why are Americans leaderless? That is the real question.
13
Leaders lead a movement bring about change only if there is a cause plus goals and specific objectives that unite many kinds of followers. OWS had a cause but no specific objectives, it was intimidated and dissipated. Bernie Sanders is the closest to a leader we have: he is running for President and wants to restore the New Deal. He needs more of the OWS outrage, though, to replace the religious affiliation that was a huge part of MLK's success in creating a movement.
The clearest examples are international, we barely have the beginnings of a movement in the US. The Arab Spring in Egypt failed because they had freedom as a cause and succeeded in overthrowing the autocratic government but only one subgroup had goals and specific objectives: the Islamic Brotherhood. They took over and rammed their goals through against the will of a huge minority (bye bye solidarity) which enabled the return of a totalitarian, non representative government.
The biggest revolutionary movement is, of course, Jihad. ISIS Is the leader because it is brilliant with Social Media, has a cause (an Islamic State), and specific goals (military and financial) plus tactics and strategy. I wish it ill, that goes without saying. But it is an example of what a revolutionary movement can look like where there is extreme inequality drenched in religion in a suppressed, uneducated population.
The clearest examples are international, we barely have the beginnings of a movement in the US. The Arab Spring in Egypt failed because they had freedom as a cause and succeeded in overthrowing the autocratic government but only one subgroup had goals and specific objectives: the Islamic Brotherhood. They took over and rammed their goals through against the will of a huge minority (bye bye solidarity) which enabled the return of a totalitarian, non representative government.
The biggest revolutionary movement is, of course, Jihad. ISIS Is the leader because it is brilliant with Social Media, has a cause (an Islamic State), and specific goals (military and financial) plus tactics and strategy. I wish it ill, that goes without saying. But it is an example of what a revolutionary movement can look like where there is extreme inequality drenched in religion in a suppressed, uneducated population.
Our present political, economic, and social system has been "gamed" at all levels to reward those at the very top. The wheels of progress have been profusely greased for those who have already "arrived" so to speak. It hasn't always been like this.
The changes away from a sense of community spirit and "belonging" to a greater sense of isolation ("individualization") is a relatively new phenomenon and stands in stark contrast to that which existed in the 60s and 70s when opportunities were plentiful at all levels of society, and wealth was more evenly distributed.
At that time, we in Western societies were facing a common enemy -- communism -- as represented by the then Soviet Union. Nuclear war was then a real possibility. But since the dissolution of the Soviet empire in the late 80s and early 90s, the "external threat" which served to unite us has dissipated markedly. And with this change, I believe, began the process from a more inclusive approach to one of exclusion where those "with the most" no longer felt the need or compelled to keep us all united in a common goal. They seemed to have abandoned those "shared values" that served to bring us all closer together. The threat to their wealth and position is gone so, apparently, is their desire to appease the masses who were prepared to fight in a common defense.
Could it be that this new sense of security has unleashed their selfish pursuit of unlimited wealth without the need for any real regard for those "below"?
The changes away from a sense of community spirit and "belonging" to a greater sense of isolation ("individualization") is a relatively new phenomenon and stands in stark contrast to that which existed in the 60s and 70s when opportunities were plentiful at all levels of society, and wealth was more evenly distributed.
At that time, we in Western societies were facing a common enemy -- communism -- as represented by the then Soviet Union. Nuclear war was then a real possibility. But since the dissolution of the Soviet empire in the late 80s and early 90s, the "external threat" which served to unite us has dissipated markedly. And with this change, I believe, began the process from a more inclusive approach to one of exclusion where those "with the most" no longer felt the need or compelled to keep us all united in a common goal. They seemed to have abandoned those "shared values" that served to bring us all closer together. The threat to their wealth and position is gone so, apparently, is their desire to appease the masses who were prepared to fight in a common defense.
Could it be that this new sense of security has unleashed their selfish pursuit of unlimited wealth without the need for any real regard for those "below"?
2
Rebellion is not so much a function of one's situation as it is the gap between one's situation and one's expectations, especially when the gap is defined personally in ethical terms. Unless a person feels he or she is not getting their due, the likelihood is acceptance of one's current status. The peasant may grumble but do little else if his thoughts are that the lord of the manor deserves to be lord of the manor. The slave will accept his condition, if he believes God will reward him in eternity for his suffering now.
In addition, if one chooses to have the opportunity to become king of the hill, whether by personal initiative or luck, he or she is not likely to upset a system that they believe -- rightly or wrongly -- allows for that opportunity.
To those commenters who claim the reason for the lack of organized rebellion of one sort or another is that folks are just too tired from working several jobs while trying to maintain a household, I would just note that the mass movement that created unions in this country was accomplished when the average worker had it much, much harder than he or she does now.
In addition, if one chooses to have the opportunity to become king of the hill, whether by personal initiative or luck, he or she is not likely to upset a system that they believe -- rightly or wrongly -- allows for that opportunity.
To those commenters who claim the reason for the lack of organized rebellion of one sort or another is that folks are just too tired from working several jobs while trying to maintain a household, I would just note that the mass movement that created unions in this country was accomplished when the average worker had it much, much harder than he or she does now.
1
Huh? What is he talking about?
We're in the midst of a mass movement, hurtling with dizzying speed, the Confederate flag removal. And we're coming to a successful end to one of the great mass movements for equality in American history...same-sex marriage.
It's 2015 so mass movements are done on social media. Granted it's not as romantic as Mr. Edsall leading the downtrodden masses against the palace walls, his right arm raised in the air, fist clenched, shouting slogans, while his left hand is on his smart phone checking his investment portfolio.
We're in the midst of a mass movement, hurtling with dizzying speed, the Confederate flag removal. And we're coming to a successful end to one of the great mass movements for equality in American history...same-sex marriage.
It's 2015 so mass movements are done on social media. Granted it's not as romantic as Mr. Edsall leading the downtrodden masses against the palace walls, his right arm raised in the air, fist clenched, shouting slogans, while his left hand is on his smart phone checking his investment portfolio.
If all mass movements are confined to social media, then the poor are ipso facto excluded. it requires money (and time) to access and use social media.
1
How? The "poor" don't have cell phones? Aren't on Facebook? What are you talking about?
1
Social or political revolutions have always been fomented by the people who have the leisure and the social capital to organize. And that does not the descibe the poor. Not now, not in the past. That's not a criticism of the poor. It's simply a fact that living in poverty has the devastating effect of sapping one's energy, hope and even the ability to plan meaningfully for the future. An article in this very paper a few years ago reported research showing that the numerous micro-decisions a poor person has to make in the course of a day result in a kind of judgement fatigue, leading them to make poor decisions simply through exhaustion. When you're balancing decisions like walking to work to save money with the fear you'll be late because the pre-school program opens an hour later now because of budget cuts so you have to decide whether to drop the kids off alone to wait for the doors to open or wait with them and risk being late for work, which means you definitely have to take the bus, which means no money for that treat you promised the kids after dinner...And that's before the work day starts. The poor are tired.
4
They don't rise up because it is an exercise in futility. They know that Lord Acton was right: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They know that we have the most liberal American president in history in Barack Obama, and that there will never be another more liberal than he is. Meanwhile, they see the fruits of that liberalism. The 1% get richer, the 99% are more stuck than ever, banks and corporations make out like bandits, and bromides issue from the White House about evening the playing field and playing by the rules. Even a rat stops trying to get out of the box when he realizes the walls are too high.
3
I'm so weary of hearing people say this about Mr. Obama. It's nothing but a Fox News talking point, but there will always be those who agree to carry water for the GOP and Fox. He is ANYTHING but a classic liberal, and I know this because I am a classic liberal; I just want Gitmo closed, our global military footprint reduced, the drone strikes curtailed, etc. etc. etc. Mr. Obama will not be the one who does any of those things. A classic liberal would.
Americans have bought the conservative, individualistic narrative since Reagan so effectively sold it in the 1980's. For example, both parties supported deregulation and free trade at the expense of the middle and lower classes, driving household debt up and creating the fragile system that collapsed in 2008.
It will take a new narrative to reverse this. Bernie Sanders is the messenger; let's see if Hillary takes up the call as well. To move the country back to the middle from the rightward shift of the past 30 years, we're all going to have to pull very hard towards the left. Being a centrist will mean being a far lefty for the next couple of decades to reverse the damaging trends conservatism has wrought.
It will take a new narrative to reverse this. Bernie Sanders is the messenger; let's see if Hillary takes up the call as well. To move the country back to the middle from the rightward shift of the past 30 years, we're all going to have to pull very hard towards the left. Being a centrist will mean being a far lefty for the next couple of decades to reverse the damaging trends conservatism has wrought.
9
If you remember the "Occupy" movement, you know that the system, for the most part, works for the "haves".
Greed is a very strong motivator.
And the greedy and selfish are like sharks when it comes to protecting what they perceive to be theirs, which is EVERYTHING, thank you very much.
The poor often have circumstances which make it difficult to fend for themselves, which make them prime targets for financial predators. This includes elderly, infirm, mentally ill, etc., and predators often have no qualms about taking everything from them.
The poor often aren't greedy - they find other things in life are sometimes more important than money, a mindset that is often ridiculed in our culture.
Protection of all Americans needs to come from a government of, by, and for the We the People.
Republicans have successfully changed it from "We the People" to "survival of the fittest".
Greed is a very strong motivator.
And the greedy and selfish are like sharks when it comes to protecting what they perceive to be theirs, which is EVERYTHING, thank you very much.
The poor often have circumstances which make it difficult to fend for themselves, which make them prime targets for financial predators. This includes elderly, infirm, mentally ill, etc., and predators often have no qualms about taking everything from them.
The poor often aren't greedy - they find other things in life are sometimes more important than money, a mindset that is often ridiculed in our culture.
Protection of all Americans needs to come from a government of, by, and for the We the People.
Republicans have successfully changed it from "We the People" to "survival of the fittest".
6
Most poor people have simply given up protesting. Unfortunately, the country is now more a civil oligarchy than a representative democracy with elections bankrolled by billionaire plutocrats. We owe much to our Supreme Court and their profound collective wisdom for this change. Even voting for change (especially in general elections) has become a futile exercise.
5
Most of the comments suggest good reasons to the proffered question as to why the poor don't rise up, including the simple fact that they are poor. But I'd like to ask a different question. Why are those who have more means than they can possibly use so indifferent to a whole class of people? Then again it may not matter why. With more and more middle class people entering the world of the poor the dynamics are sure to change.
4
I always marvel at France when 40,000 march in Paris at the drop of a hat because of a prospective law increasing weekly hours of work. Here I think it takes a national implosion like The Great Depression to propel the lower income strata to protest. It'll be interesting if people will pay attention to Bernie Sanders' stance on income inequality.
1
Not to mention the fact that low income families do not have time to be citizens. If you are living paycheck to paycheck you are full steam ahead on just getting by, often working multiple jobs and getting the kids where they need to go. Not much time left to just enjoy life or, critically, invest in the kind of effort and action that solidarity would take. People are still capable of coming together in common cause but modern life makes it a very heavy lift.
5
Fixing the economy right now might prevent a future second American Revolution.
The USA is approaching that point of no return, which I define as the point where America has lost the economic and intellectual capability to re-industrialize.
After both US political parties totally and completely destroy the US economy with their deficit spending, and when the vast majority of US citizens are unemployed and starving with no prospects of any future employment, the US citizens have no confidence in the US government and US citizens might listen to a charismatic politician who will promise the nation a new government (similar that proposed by Adolph Hitler in Germany after WWl) that will correct all of the real and imagined injustices that are hurting the US citizens in return for absolute political power and suspension of the US Constitution.
The USA is approaching that point of no return, which I define as the point where America has lost the economic and intellectual capability to re-industrialize.
After both US political parties totally and completely destroy the US economy with their deficit spending, and when the vast majority of US citizens are unemployed and starving with no prospects of any future employment, the US citizens have no confidence in the US government and US citizens might listen to a charismatic politician who will promise the nation a new government (similar that proposed by Adolph Hitler in Germany after WWl) that will correct all of the real and imagined injustices that are hurting the US citizens in return for absolute political power and suspension of the US Constitution.
1
Poor working people's lives have become more precarious by design at the top. Alan Greenspan spoke of how increasing insecurity for employees means more gains in the stock market. Longer hours, less pay, and less job security mean working people are too tired to pay attention to news and information. This is especially true with today's incompetent, kowtowing generation of journalists. This manufactured cynicism is great for those wealthy owners of the political system. Lower turnout favors the 1%.
And who told you that being poor is so much easier today? That's just incompetent reporting of some random person's generalization. It's bad editing, as well.
And who told you that being poor is so much easier today? That's just incompetent reporting of some random person's generalization. It's bad editing, as well.
5
Individualism and creative aspiration are not the scourge of economic oppression. Supremacy is. White supremacy was a national motto for centuries, that trumpeted compassion for poor whites and reproduction. Even the Civil War was turned into helping poor white people who had been unable to compete in a slave dominated culture. Let's not even start with the numbers of children born to mentally ill, or criminal parents. How many children are born and delegated by society, to care for these mentally ill?
Whitewashing (pun intended) the grievous consequences of ego gone awry can't be limited to to individuality, capitalism, tyranny or genocide. Rising up, must sidestep the image of a slandered salivating Pitt Bull and call society to a higher purpose. This is mission that requires every once of individuality and creativity our collective spirits can muster.
The demon is trying to heal the world through punishment, boredom, limitations and prison.
Disclosure: I have a slandered Pitt Bull rescue. He's really very sweet and well behaved.
Whitewashing (pun intended) the grievous consequences of ego gone awry can't be limited to to individuality, capitalism, tyranny or genocide. Rising up, must sidestep the image of a slandered salivating Pitt Bull and call society to a higher purpose. This is mission that requires every once of individuality and creativity our collective spirits can muster.
The demon is trying to heal the world through punishment, boredom, limitations and prison.
Disclosure: I have a slandered Pitt Bull rescue. He's really very sweet and well behaved.
This article ignores the huge social pressures and political forces that act against class-based social movements. Occupy Wall Street was, unlike the laughable assertion in the article, not given favorable coverage and did not "dissipate," it was actively smashed by the American government which coordinated police actions against the Occupy groups nationwide. This was admitted very shortly afterwards by those in power. Labor solidarity has been destroyed by planned outsourcing of jobs, intense anti-union laws like Taft-Hartley and by the complicity of union bureaucrats in purging their ranks of radicalism and dissent for decades, as well as donating strictly to the Democratic Party and its neoliberal agenda rather than working to build a multi-party, class-based electoral system like many other countries have. Look at other nations with better (less oppressive) labor laws and class-based political parties: they have higher rates of unionization, class struggle protests and broad safety nets (though these have come under attack in the neoliberal era).
There is broad support for a more equitable, fairer society in the United States, but the electoral has become apathetic or narcotized by successive administrations at every level of pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans who say one thing and do another for the poor. Remember the movements of the 1930s-60s relied on socialist and communist parties that had decades of institutional memory and struggle behind them, unlike now.
There is broad support for a more equitable, fairer society in the United States, but the electoral has become apathetic or narcotized by successive administrations at every level of pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans who say one thing and do another for the poor. Remember the movements of the 1930s-60s relied on socialist and communist parties that had decades of institutional memory and struggle behind them, unlike now.
7
Violent armed riots and insurrections are predictable, ala the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, when income inequality becomes rampant, when the majority of the people are starving and they find their situations economically hopeless.
Mass unemployment will foster the mass civil unrest, crime, anger, riots, revolution, starvation, etc. as required for starting a revolution.
Conditions for riots and insurrections are approaching because some people are beginning to find their situations totally hopeless economically.
If any future US revolution to overthrow the US government occurs, maybe to change the economic situation, where will all of the food, fuel, water, sanitation, medicine, and other necessities to support the population come from during and after the revolution?
These necessities will not exist within hours after the revolutionary hostilities start.
We are approaching that point of no return, which I will define as the point where we have sold all of our privately owned assets to foreign owners to pay for our various wealth consuming US government services and also to pay our imported products that we need to consume in order to maintain life.
After foreigners own all of our wealth and US located businesses and other assets, we will no longer have any economic or intellectual resources available for re-industrialization.
Mass unemployment will foster the mass civil unrest, crime, anger, riots, revolution, starvation, etc. as required for starting a revolution.
Conditions for riots and insurrections are approaching because some people are beginning to find their situations totally hopeless economically.
If any future US revolution to overthrow the US government occurs, maybe to change the economic situation, where will all of the food, fuel, water, sanitation, medicine, and other necessities to support the population come from during and after the revolution?
These necessities will not exist within hours after the revolutionary hostilities start.
We are approaching that point of no return, which I will define as the point where we have sold all of our privately owned assets to foreign owners to pay for our various wealth consuming US government services and also to pay our imported products that we need to consume in order to maintain life.
After foreigners own all of our wealth and US located businesses and other assets, we will no longer have any economic or intellectual resources available for re-industrialization.
1
FDR's New Deal during the Great Depression put this nation on the road to becoming an industrial giant that literally became the "arsenal for Democracy" in the fight against fascist Germany and Italy and imperial Japan during World War II. Up until Pearl Harbor, many Republicans, already the party of the wealthy with little regard for the ideals of its anti-slavery founders, were isolationists.
In 1946, Republicans captured control of Congress, and they set out to neuter labor with the Taft-Hartley Act. Senators overrode Truman’s veto with the help of 24 Democratic votes, 17 from the former Confederacy. Since then, 24 states have passed so called "right-to-work" laws, which don’t provide jobs, but do cripple unions. All 11 former Confederate states are among this number. When the veto was overridden, 25% of the American workforce was unionized.
Fast forward to the air traffic controllers ill-advised strike in 1981, President Reagan's first year in office. Reagan broke their union when controllers broke the law by striking against the federal government.
Union membership now is at an historic low of 11%. It is under 7% in the private sector, but about 35% in the public sector, such as teachers, are unionized. Republican heroes such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, richly supported by the owners of non-unionized Koch Industries, are now going after the public sector unions.
The billionaire class thrives as the working class struggles. When they came for the unions, did you care?
In 1946, Republicans captured control of Congress, and they set out to neuter labor with the Taft-Hartley Act. Senators overrode Truman’s veto with the help of 24 Democratic votes, 17 from the former Confederacy. Since then, 24 states have passed so called "right-to-work" laws, which don’t provide jobs, but do cripple unions. All 11 former Confederate states are among this number. When the veto was overridden, 25% of the American workforce was unionized.
Fast forward to the air traffic controllers ill-advised strike in 1981, President Reagan's first year in office. Reagan broke their union when controllers broke the law by striking against the federal government.
Union membership now is at an historic low of 11%. It is under 7% in the private sector, but about 35% in the public sector, such as teachers, are unionized. Republican heroes such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, richly supported by the owners of non-unionized Koch Industries, are now going after the public sector unions.
The billionaire class thrives as the working class struggles. When they came for the unions, did you care?
5
When workers at Volkswagen's plant in Tennessee sought union representation Volkswagen management took a neutral stance. Volkswagen pledged to abide by the wishes of its employees in the plant. Republican Senator Bob Corker and the state governor attacked Volkswagen management before undertaking a media campaign to discourage the workers from forming a union. The elected representatives of Tennessee would not tolerate a workforce with a lawfully mandated say in their wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Business interests in Tennessee, who call the tunes for the politicians in Tennessee to sing, didn't want a contingent of uppity workers who might spread a contagion of empowerment among their compliant and terrified state workforce. Workers in Tennessee cower to the whims of their employers because elected representatives in the state are there to keep employees on in their place. A plantation mindset is in the DNA of workers from the south. That mindset is finding it's way north and west as elected officials across the country learn how good things can be when they serve the power elites.
20
What a bunch of rubbish, comparing SOPA to Occupy Wall Street. SOPA had specific elements that could be easily quantified and explained to the average citizen (middle class or otherwise), who could then explain their disapproval and get elected officials to listen - especially because action was as simple as blocking a proposed law. Occupy Wall Street had no specific solutions to income inequality that they could coherently explain to average citizens in a way that people could do something about it - and there were no proposed laws to block or embrace by voters and their elected officials. Camping out in public parks for weeks at a time didn't buy much goodwill from the general public either.
5
Not on one word about globalization and the ease in which jobs can now be exported. This more than any sociological factor has made it much more difficult for unions to organize workers in order to create the conditions by which workers can band together. As a result "individual contracts" is much more prevalent.
14
American workers merely need to shift tactics. The federal government has surrendered to southern state influences and shifted from the pro-unionization purpose of labor law that is recited in the legislation to an approach that recognizes business interests ahead of the interests of workers.
American workers are America's consumers. The internet and the consumer boycott can more than compensate for the loss of worker influence on a picket line.
American workers are America's consumers. The internet and the consumer boycott can more than compensate for the loss of worker influence on a picket line.
It may be hard to rise up against oppression because it would involve admitting victimization or a current state of powerlessness. If people struggling to survive are only struggling because the deck is stacked against them, then they would have to adopt a mindset that they are destined to fail as long as current institutions are in place (necessitating revolt against it). Furthermore, it can be difficult to the message from others that essentially, "you are in a socioeconomic rut and will die in that rut, as will your children because you are incapable of overcoming the societal forces keeping you there." For some, it's the kind of motivation needed to protest against unfair institutions. For others, it's an attack on their personal agency. After all, a good work ethic is usually grounded in the idea that hard work will have a meaningful, positive effect on one's life. Revolutions of the kind the author mentions are not powered by hope, but by absolute despair. If people feel their failure is preordained, they have nothing to lose by attacking the system. People who still feel they can succeed or at least make progress will strive for that until they lose hope (or actually succeed). At this time, it would seem most people have not reached the level of abandon necessary to support the socioeconomic uprising some members of society would like to see.
3
Straight truth right here. I agree with every word.
Because the most powerful form of "speech" in America is money, and the poor generally opt for food and shelter
27
I think it is because many Americans just don't realize it doesn't have to be this way. There are fewer and fewer Americans today who lived through the 50's and 60's and saw the quality of life our middle class once enjoyed.
One middle class earner was able to provide for his entire family, owning a home, two cars, annual vacations, 100% medical coverage, college educations for their children and lifetime pensions. I know because that was my family. My father a high school dropout and factory worker provided these things, as did nearly everyone else in my small town in Michigan.
And, that was when we had less wealth and income per capita than we produce today.
One middle class earner was able to provide for his entire family, owning a home, two cars, annual vacations, 100% medical coverage, college educations for their children and lifetime pensions. I know because that was my family. My father a high school dropout and factory worker provided these things, as did nearly everyone else in my small town in Michigan.
And, that was when we had less wealth and income per capita than we produce today.
27
Ron Mitchell,
I believe that the US capitalist system previously provided the US citizens with the highest standard of living in the world until the US government created the “Free Trade Agreements” in the last twenty years that economically requires that US businesses take advantage of less expensive foreign labor and less expensive environmental compliance costs or face bankruptcy if those businesses kept their manufacturing jobs in the USA.
I believe that the US capitalist system previously provided the US citizens with the highest standard of living in the world until the US government created the “Free Trade Agreements” in the last twenty years that economically requires that US businesses take advantage of less expensive foreign labor and less expensive environmental compliance costs or face bankruptcy if those businesses kept their manufacturing jobs in the USA.
1
To me the fundamental contradiction is that is true that both (a) our economy is a more or less (on a big picture level) a meritocracy where the better candidate gets the job, the better value product has the most sales, the most efficient business has the highest profits, etc. and (b) our society is unfairly unequal because some of the poor never get a fair chance to develop their human capital potential and so will be sidelined from the economy because their skills are not competitive.
So I basically disagree that our society is unfair in the sense that there are rocket scientist caliber employees currently working at McDonald's and no one will give them a break. But it is also true that some of those McDonald's employees never were educated or trained in a manner that allowed them to be competitive in what has become a global economy.
From that perspective, straight wealth transfer-style redistribution is always going to be resisted as reallocating wealth to the "less deserving". What would be better is more investment in early child education, parental skills and training, child nutrition, liberal maternity leave policies etc. etc. to help people reach their full potential.
So I basically disagree that our society is unfair in the sense that there are rocket scientist caliber employees currently working at McDonald's and no one will give them a break. But it is also true that some of those McDonald's employees never were educated or trained in a manner that allowed them to be competitive in what has become a global economy.
From that perspective, straight wealth transfer-style redistribution is always going to be resisted as reallocating wealth to the "less deserving". What would be better is more investment in early child education, parental skills and training, child nutrition, liberal maternity leave policies etc. etc. to help people reach their full potential.
3
All three of your points in paragraph one are demonstrably not true.
Since day one, the USA has not been a meritocracy.
Since day one, the USA has not been a meritocracy.
Poverty and a lack of education often go hand in hand these days. It seems to me that in Wisconsin at least, the very people who vote for the likes of Scott Walker or don't vote at all are the ones most harmed by the policies that are then enacted. This can only stem from ignorance of the causes of the situations in which they find themselves. An educated electorate is no friend to any politician.
6
Mr. Edsall's column is timely and sound, with the exception of this statement:
"Compare the SOPA protest to the sole organized attempt to challenge the flow of wealth to the top 1 percent and the profits funneled to the finance industry: Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage."
I would characterize the media coverage as befuddled, at best. Much of it tried to jam the Occupy movement into the "hippie" meme, or faulted it, as Mr. Edsall seems to here, for not immediately producing clear alternatives at the polls for voters.
"Compare the SOPA protest to the sole organized attempt to challenge the flow of wealth to the top 1 percent and the profits funneled to the finance industry: Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage."
I would characterize the media coverage as befuddled, at best. Much of it tried to jam the Occupy movement into the "hippie" meme, or faulted it, as Mr. Edsall seems to here, for not immediately producing clear alternatives at the polls for voters.
2
"Compare the SOPA protest to the sole organized attempt to challenge the flow of wealth to the top 1 percent and the profits funneled to the finance industry: Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage."
Ok, I'll compare them. The SOPA protests have pretty much vanished now that they've achieved their goal of stopping that bill. As near as I can remember, SOPA and the protests weren't in the news for more than a couple months and were limited mainly to the US given this is where the bill would have had its biggest effect. The Occupy Wall Street movement/protests occurred for a couple of years in most cities around the world. Today, we still talk about income inequality but this is the only article in recent memory to bring up SOPA. I don't understand the implication that SOPA was successful while Occupy wasn't. Bring a bill before Congress guaranteeing a tax rate of 0% to people with incomes greater than $1 billion and I can assure you that there will be an organized response that will put the SOPA protest to shame.
The problem Occupy faced was defining a specific response to a complicated and potentially open-ended problem. Lots more people are working on countering various contributors to inequality now which is a reasonable solution to the type of problem inequality is. How is that not a success?
Ok, I'll compare them. The SOPA protests have pretty much vanished now that they've achieved their goal of stopping that bill. As near as I can remember, SOPA and the protests weren't in the news for more than a couple months and were limited mainly to the US given this is where the bill would have had its biggest effect. The Occupy Wall Street movement/protests occurred for a couple of years in most cities around the world. Today, we still talk about income inequality but this is the only article in recent memory to bring up SOPA. I don't understand the implication that SOPA was successful while Occupy wasn't. Bring a bill before Congress guaranteeing a tax rate of 0% to people with incomes greater than $1 billion and I can assure you that there will be an organized response that will put the SOPA protest to shame.
The problem Occupy faced was defining a specific response to a complicated and potentially open-ended problem. Lots more people are working on countering various contributors to inequality now which is a reasonable solution to the type of problem inequality is. How is that not a success?
2
Have you thought of this? Now more than ever, the US is a land of opportunity. Millions of illegal immigrants who risk life, limb, and liberty to come here prove that. And the poor in the US can look back generally on a lifetime of declining to do what it takes to be middle or high-middle income. Schoolwork is the prime example.
Also, the tax system is more progressive than ever, including when the top marginal rate was 90% in the 1950s.
And, we've seen redistribution in action ... Detroit, Michigan. No one wants that. Redistribution makes the poor worst off at a marginal expense to the rich. That's because Democrats waste it or spend it on destructive factors in society.
Also, the tax system is more progressive than ever, including when the top marginal rate was 90% in the 1950s.
And, we've seen redistribution in action ... Detroit, Michigan. No one wants that. Redistribution makes the poor worst off at a marginal expense to the rich. That's because Democrats waste it or spend it on destructive factors in society.
1
You don't know anything about immigrants moving here, at least not on a large-scale, quantitative basis re: home ownership vs. renting, salary, single-family dwelling vs. extended-family dwelling, savings investments for retirement or college, etc.
Show us the figures.
Show us the figures.
1
We need to pay attention to how the word "redistribution" is used. We have seen a "redistribution" of wealth over the past 40 years in this country, from the bottom to the top. How about a "restoration of fairness", by making the tax rates what they were under that closet communist, Dwight Eisenhower?
2
It is not so much a question of why the poor don't rise up, the poor will never rise up, it is a question of why a political party does not craft its policies to attract the votes of the poor.
The answer to the question is that policies designed to attract support from the poor may well cost the candidate who advocates those policies more votes than they will gain. There are many reasons for this, i.e. the poor are unreliable voters, the poor are disproportionately black or Hispanic and there are those who will not support candidates who advocate policies that assist those groups, and perhaps the individualism referred to in the article is also a factor.
But America is showing poor economic growth because there are too many people with too little money. The wealthy are playing the stock market or sitting on the cash or investing in a manner that pushes up values but does not create jobs or investing abroad. A redistribution of incomes from the top quartile to the bottom three quartiles would help this situation immensely. The beneficiaries of such a redistribution would spend rather than invest in a manner that does not help the economy, and the spending would be a stimulus. The redistribution could occur in a number of ways. Higher interest rates would put more money into the hands of retirees. Fix the loopholes and inequities in the tax code. Increase tax rates on higher income earners, reduce tax rates on lower income earners. Increase the minimum wage.
The answer to the question is that policies designed to attract support from the poor may well cost the candidate who advocates those policies more votes than they will gain. There are many reasons for this, i.e. the poor are unreliable voters, the poor are disproportionately black or Hispanic and there are those who will not support candidates who advocate policies that assist those groups, and perhaps the individualism referred to in the article is also a factor.
But America is showing poor economic growth because there are too many people with too little money. The wealthy are playing the stock market or sitting on the cash or investing in a manner that pushes up values but does not create jobs or investing abroad. A redistribution of incomes from the top quartile to the bottom three quartiles would help this situation immensely. The beneficiaries of such a redistribution would spend rather than invest in a manner that does not help the economy, and the spending would be a stimulus. The redistribution could occur in a number of ways. Higher interest rates would put more money into the hands of retirees. Fix the loopholes and inequities in the tax code. Increase tax rates on higher income earners, reduce tax rates on lower income earners. Increase the minimum wage.
1
Bring back the WPA. That would be a great help.
4
If the powers that be eliminated SNAP benefits, (formally known as food stamps), it'd take about a week to a month before some sort of revolt.
Keeping the poor basically fed usually diverts their minds off of this idea.
Usually hunger will increase a human's urge to do whatever it takes.
Survival instincts can be brutal and the ruling class knows this.
Therefore they keep the SNAP program solvent.
This is the 'bread' part. I believe the other half is called 'circuses'.
Keeping the poor basically fed usually diverts their minds off of this idea.
Usually hunger will increase a human's urge to do whatever it takes.
Survival instincts can be brutal and the ruling class knows this.
Therefore they keep the SNAP program solvent.
This is the 'bread' part. I believe the other half is called 'circuses'.
4
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us." Dostoyevsky
1
Excellent piece, thank you, Thomas.
- from the SF Bay Area, where you can hardly tell the difference between the liberals and the libertarians anymore.
- from the SF Bay Area, where you can hardly tell the difference between the liberals and the libertarians anymore.
2
The bottom line: Poor Americans don't revolt because their bellies are full.
4
Really? If you want to see poor why doesn't the writer visit any street in Mexico to see real poor or for that matter, hundreds of nations around the world where the real poor live. Sure the U.S. has income inequality but to call that inequality "poor" is just an entre into raise somebody else's taxes for another transfer payment tax to somebody else.
I shouldn't say this but will:
One half of the country is paying for the taxes received by the other half and yes Romney was right in that statement even though Americans don't want to admit it. That's why the poor don't rise up b/c others are footing part of their tab and they know no place else on earth does that happen.
I shouldn't say this but will:
One half of the country is paying for the taxes received by the other half and yes Romney was right in that statement even though Americans don't want to admit it. That's why the poor don't rise up b/c others are footing part of their tab and they know no place else on earth does that happen.
3
America: not as bad as Mexico.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Glad we got that cleared up.
1
A million man march is needed to show politicians that they need to deal with the issues of the 1% vs. not just the poor but the middle class as well. The leadership position for such a march is an opportunity for an honest politician who actually cares enough to take the risk.
Our heyday of solidarity was fairly brief in our collective history. The culmination of those movements resulting in, "The New Deal." After setbacks to this deal in the seventies, Reagan and other GOP members push from the old rhetoric of rugged individualism to the real isolation of individualism have put forth the new order outlined in this column. The results of this are clearly seen throughout our society, poorer educational system, poorer populace, poorer tolerance for our fellows.
The consolidation of power is nothing new in the modern world and the more division throughout the easier the control of a population.
The consolidation of power is nothing new in the modern world and the more division throughout the easier the control of a population.
It think that Mr. Edsall pretty well nails it here. "The answer is that those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are irrelevant to the agenda-setters in both parties." I would argue that this situation is not new. A recent research project on an entirely different subject led me to the 1927 US Supreme Court Decision Buck v Bell in which Oliver Wendell Holmes writing for the majority wrote "Three generations of imbeciles is enough". Buck v Bell affirmed the state's right to forcibly sterilize the feeble minded, insane, epileptics and other undesireables. Buck v Bell was never over-ruled and the practice continued into the late 70's. The people affected fell outside the sphere of consideration for those in power. Nobody cared. When it comes to the big decisions affecting our economy and the sharing of wealth among the classes, the poor or even the middle class have no place at the table among the current play makers. Until that changes, the poor will remain disenfranchised and the concentration of wealth among the powerful will continue unabated.
3
I too have constantly wondered why the poor haven't organized for change.
But as you say, if one doesn't have an organization to join (eg, unions), many can't simply launch one if their lives are so encumbered by daily obligations and simply the struggle to survive. Oh, I'm sure they're angry (unless they're too tired to be angry), but if you're working several jobs, or living in a horrible neighborhood, you have other things on your mind.
It's really sad this country has lost its sense of community, shared sacrifice, and collective good. The right's quixotic Ayn Rand focus, denounces big (or even medium-sized) government. it rails against social assistance, and unions, and tears them down. It praises individualism and entrepreneurship, while fully exploiting every tax benefit and loophole the nasty federal government gives them. As you point out, its triggered a hostile competitiveness among peers all fighting for the same rung up the ladder, not seeing the ladder is about to depart for some overseas location.
We've forgotten we're all in this together. Instead, people look over their shoulders fearing what I have means I've robbed from you.
The other nasty fact about inequality is it more and more depends on the fact that the more wealth you have, the more it grows. Those who have trouble saving even a dime, are at risk for losing that, with no netting underneath them, and no wherewithal to fight to get a chair at the table.
But as you say, if one doesn't have an organization to join (eg, unions), many can't simply launch one if their lives are so encumbered by daily obligations and simply the struggle to survive. Oh, I'm sure they're angry (unless they're too tired to be angry), but if you're working several jobs, or living in a horrible neighborhood, you have other things on your mind.
It's really sad this country has lost its sense of community, shared sacrifice, and collective good. The right's quixotic Ayn Rand focus, denounces big (or even medium-sized) government. it rails against social assistance, and unions, and tears them down. It praises individualism and entrepreneurship, while fully exploiting every tax benefit and loophole the nasty federal government gives them. As you point out, its triggered a hostile competitiveness among peers all fighting for the same rung up the ladder, not seeing the ladder is about to depart for some overseas location.
We've forgotten we're all in this together. Instead, people look over their shoulders fearing what I have means I've robbed from you.
The other nasty fact about inequality is it more and more depends on the fact that the more wealth you have, the more it grows. Those who have trouble saving even a dime, are at risk for losing that, with no netting underneath them, and no wherewithal to fight to get a chair at the table.
13
"Instead, people look over their shoulders fearing what I have means I've robbed from you."
Ironically, your solution is more progressive taxes, which is just another form of robbery. And I'm not sure where this "we're all in this together" meme comes from, but I'm not sure what "this" is and I'm certainly not in it - and don't desire to be in it - with anyone other than my own family.
Ironically, your solution is more progressive taxes, which is just another form of robbery. And I'm not sure where this "we're all in this together" meme comes from, but I'm not sure what "this" is and I'm certainly not in it - and don't desire to be in it - with anyone other than my own family.
1
DRS,
When the richest Americans paid a tax rate of 90% during the Eisenhower administration, our economy did just fine. Where is the evidence that more progressive taxation will destroy our country? We are "all in this together." Remember, the taxpayers paid for the schools you went to and the roads you drive on, and lots of other things. We've all been subsidized by the taxpayers.
Haiti and Somalia are what small government gives you.
When the richest Americans paid a tax rate of 90% during the Eisenhower administration, our economy did just fine. Where is the evidence that more progressive taxation will destroy our country? We are "all in this together." Remember, the taxpayers paid for the schools you went to and the roads you drive on, and lots of other things. We've all been subsidized by the taxpayers.
Haiti and Somalia are what small government gives you.
1
"Bottom quintile" for household is rather misleading and shouldn't be used for "working poor" research. It blends together retirees, people on social assistance, people on disability/unemployment, students and more.
If you want to define "working poor", look at actual working poor. Exclude non-working households from the equation and you'll have your answer.
Or the author doesn't believe that a huge wave of baby boomers hitting retirement age won't gradually change the structure of households, the income distribution and the like in a systemic time-dependent way?
If you want to define "working poor", look at actual working poor. Exclude non-working households from the equation and you'll have your answer.
Or the author doesn't believe that a huge wave of baby boomers hitting retirement age won't gradually change the structure of households, the income distribution and the like in a systemic time-dependent way?
3
There is no revolt, because there is no Left left. The two political parties and their new versions of "conservative" and "liberal" ideology advocate slight variantions on what was until recently considered right wing, even extreme right-wing, economics. Both sides accept that economic rewards are allotted according to individual merit by a magically moral & intelligent marketplace, and any manipulation of that marketplace--meaning any management of economic relations that promotes the dispersal rather than the accumulation of wealth--is condemned as as "redistribution." Poor and middle class people who are not victims of discrimination are told by Republican media and politicians that greedy or lazy minorities or poor people are standing in the way of divine market justice. Politicians on the left can make stands against the injustices of discrimination, and they can push for "safety net" measures for the desperate. But they don't dare stand up to the manipulation of markets and income distribution by corporations and the wealthy because alienating those forces means losing the their financial support. The poor and the middle-class are as angry as ever, but have been conned into directing their anger in ways that don't threaten the economic status quo in the slightest.
3
Conservatives have followed a very effective strategy since Ronald Reagan was first elected in 1980. Convince lower class whites that their problems are the fault of various undeserving groups like black "welfare mothers," Hispanic immigrants, and public sector workers with pensions and health insurance. This constant refrain is as popular today as it was 35 years ago. Mitt Romney's "47 percent", Paul Ryan's "culture of dependency", "makers and takers"--the list goes on, amplified by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other mouthpieces for the corporate-conservative complex. It may not be official government propaganda, but it's proven just as effective at pitting citizens against one another and ensuring the continued dominance of the ruling class.
3
Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up?
Because unlike many posters of comments to this space, they love America, believe it is the best country that ever was or will be and wouldn't dream of living anywhere else.
Because unlike many posters of comments to this space, they love America, believe it is the best country that ever was or will be and wouldn't dream of living anywhere else.
3
And because poor people believe that, on the worst days they ever have, they are getting more help here than they would be getting anywhere else.
2
"According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
Duh. There are 320 million Americans. By definition, the bottom quintile is 1/5 of them, i.e., 64 million Americans. Don't need the Census Bureau to figure this one out, and there is nothing especially "current" about it - the bottom quintile will *always* be 1/5 of the population, because this is what "quintile" means.
Duh. There are 320 million Americans. By definition, the bottom quintile is 1/5 of them, i.e., 64 million Americans. Don't need the Census Bureau to figure this one out, and there is nothing especially "current" about it - the bottom quintile will *always* be 1/5 of the population, because this is what "quintile" means.
If the idea that "You're on your own" is a learned concept (admittedly reinforced by public policies), then "We're in this together" is also a learned concept. We -- all of us, not just those who are poor -- can unlearn the first and relearn the second.
But it will take a flood of messages from local community, state, and national political and religious leaders, as well as those from the mass media, to make this happen, then translate relearned ideas into new public policies.
But it will take a flood of messages from local community, state, and national political and religious leaders, as well as those from the mass media, to make this happen, then translate relearned ideas into new public policies.
Has anyone considered that the poor are so exhausted by working three minimum-wage jobs to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families that they have no time or energy for protest? "You're on your own", indeed!
1
Did you mention religion? Although it is still embraced by a majority in this country and might serve as the focus of group effort to achieve goals for the betterment of the group, it invarialbly seems to support the individualization that you are talking about.
The reason the poor don't rise is quite simple. Namely, except for a few truly dysfunctional individuals (mentally ill, drug addicted, homeless), there are no poor people in America.
What we call "poor" people or people living below the poverty line, are, by global and historical norms, incredibly wealthy. They have adequate shelter that are larger than middle-class European homes, cars, TVs, AC, computers, Xbox, Nike shoes, and well fed to the point of obesity, etc.
How can Americans revolt, when they see that the Chinese, through hard work and low pay, have in 2 decades created a middle-class of 400,000,000 people that is now twice as large as America's?
What we call "poor" people or people living below the poverty line, are, by global and historical norms, incredibly wealthy. They have adequate shelter that are larger than middle-class European homes, cars, TVs, AC, computers, Xbox, Nike shoes, and well fed to the point of obesity, etc.
How can Americans revolt, when they see that the Chinese, through hard work and low pay, have in 2 decades created a middle-class of 400,000,000 people that is now twice as large as America's?
4
I notice that several of the authors Mr. Edsall cites are German. Isn't it true that Germany and some other European countries (as well as Canada) are places where social cohesion has held up better? Those countries recognize the need for redistribution of wealth. Republicans would have us believe that if taxes are high on the wealthy, we will sink into the Third World. There's no evidence for that. Edsall seems to imply that this social atomization is inevitable in a modern, globalized society, but those countries seem to show it isn't. Or am I missing something here?
The last paragraph seems to say that dealing with the inequality problems isn't part of the "agenda" of the Democratic Party. Is he implying that social issues like gay marriage are all that matters to Democratic leaders? If that were true, why did they pass the Affordable Care Act?
The last paragraph seems to say that dealing with the inequality problems isn't part of the "agenda" of the Democratic Party. Is he implying that social issues like gay marriage are all that matters to Democratic leaders? If that were true, why did they pass the Affordable Care Act?
3
Television. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it. Look at the statistics on the number of hours televisions are on, in poor as well as wealthy households, and you'll see where a huge amount of people's spare time and emotional energy goes (if they're not working two jobs etc.) Your average TV junkie is far more emotionally invested in the lives of fictitious characters on television shows than they are in making acquaintance with their neighbors or building solidarity with co-workers. And what do people talk about when they're not actually watching? TV shows about amateur singers, dancers, and the Kardashians. Revolting in the streets isn't nearly as interesting or as fun. There will be no revolutions in the streets until the bottom quintile is actually living there - without their TVs.
7
Appliances may be cheaper but as another article in the Times states "More Americans Are Renting, and Paying More, as Homeownership Falls"
2
Household income for the bottom quintile may be just $11,651, but what is the value of the benefits those households receive. Also does that amount include the value of the EITC. I think that the SNAP benefits, housing benefits, and health benefits keep the poor from being in rebellion. If the poor were starving, homeless, sick and tired you might see bankers being dragged into the streets. They may not be happy with their lot at the moment, but it isn't so bad that they feel the need to march.
1
At this point there is an tacit alliance between the middle class and the wealthy. It is cemented by the wealthy's control of the news media. There is no cultural solidarity with the poor. Poor Whites have a tendency to support the tea party with its tendency to white supremacy. Poor Blacks are the scape goats for what is wrong with the USs supposed desire for social justice. Then one looks at the information revolution and we have the new opiate of the people.
3
This analysis is upside down. What additional and expanding rights is he referring to? Collective bargaining, voting and reproductive rights have all been severely restricted in the past 40 years by, ironically, a cohesive, organized coming together for a sole, stated purpose by the right called movement conservatism.
Edsall should have stuck with his previous theory to explain why there is no social revolution from the poor today; namely, that as income inequality grows the citizens becomes MORE conservative, providing fresh troops for the type of conservative movement that he says here no longer exists.
Edsall should have stuck with his previous theory to explain why there is no social revolution from the poor today; namely, that as income inequality grows the citizens becomes MORE conservative, providing fresh troops for the type of conservative movement that he says here no longer exists.
3
E pluribus unum went the way of representative democracy. Now it's "E pluribus unum per centum."
1
Which all leads to bank interest rates and the flowing on seemingly free money since the Democrats have been in office. You think things are bad now? Just wait another year or two when rates start increasing, the money flow lessens and then stuff is going to hit the fan. The truth is, as this article illustrates, goods are mostly dirt cheap these days. Blacks occupy the lower percentile of income by a wide margin. It's really no secret that the economically, these cheap goods are staving off the so called uprising this article depicts. It's a vicious cycle and something touched on by a few writers. It's terrible to say, but as long as the poor, mostly Blacks, continue to receive free goods or items that are accessible to them with whatever income they have, this holds these people over for the time being. It's the truth, whether people want to hear it or not.
3
But, the cheap goods are the result of U.S. manufacturing jobs diasppearing to low cost countries thereby eroding the ability of Americans to have decent incomes and making them even more dependent on government giveaways.
Thank goodness for these trends. There is nothing scarier to a successful American than the masses voting away their hard earned wealth.
3
One fact: More than 50% of the federal budget goes to the military; the budget for food stamps is 0.25%, one quarter of ONE PERCENT. Yet who gets demonized? Which one is going to get cut? Who is going to be termed a "moocher"?
Nations play such games at their own peril. They divide their people at their own risk. That never ends well. Who owns and directs the wealth of this nation? The "corporations" who are now known as "people". These corps have free speech. They even have religions that can be forced on biological people. That is no accident. But they will never use such terms as "social contract" or "socialist democracy". Why would they? They got you to buy "free trade" which is "privatize profits and socialize losses", if they win you get nothing, if they lose you pay the bill.
Truly, everyone knows this. We know we are on our own and have no "power", but here's where it gets interesting: The opposite of "love" is not "hate". It is "indifference". The corporations are indifferent as to whether the United States exists, except as a means for their end. But "indifference" breeds "indifference". Real, live human beings can become indifferent, too. When enough citizens of this country become indifferent as to whether this country will or should continue, it will fall. Will it fall in blood and ashes? Maybe. Or it could just run down like a watch and then just stop. Also possible. Or perhaps it has already fallen and no one has noticed...
Interesting article.
Nations play such games at their own peril. They divide their people at their own risk. That never ends well. Who owns and directs the wealth of this nation? The "corporations" who are now known as "people". These corps have free speech. They even have religions that can be forced on biological people. That is no accident. But they will never use such terms as "social contract" or "socialist democracy". Why would they? They got you to buy "free trade" which is "privatize profits and socialize losses", if they win you get nothing, if they lose you pay the bill.
Truly, everyone knows this. We know we are on our own and have no "power", but here's where it gets interesting: The opposite of "love" is not "hate". It is "indifference". The corporations are indifferent as to whether the United States exists, except as a means for their end. But "indifference" breeds "indifference". Real, live human beings can become indifferent, too. When enough citizens of this country become indifferent as to whether this country will or should continue, it will fall. Will it fall in blood and ashes? Maybe. Or it could just run down like a watch and then just stop. Also possible. Or perhaps it has already fallen and no one has noticed...
Interesting article.
9
None of this is news, though it's very well articulated here. But there is more activism along class lines than you are stating here. The movements of fast food workers and for immigration rights are essentially class-based movements, and while the traditional unions have declined due to the demise of the industrial economy, workers are finding new ways to organize despite the obstacles. The Occupy movement was in no way a failure, in that it articulated the 99% vs. 1% reality the captured the public imagination and fired up new organizing efforts in many localities and sectors that had not seen them before, and many are continuing even though that movement petered out. Movements for a fair economy among faith-based groups in coalition with labor have been around for years, doing the unglamorous work of organizing and building power with notable successes in places like NY and Los Angeles, among immigrant farm workers and in the service sector. They don't get much attention until a battle erupts. But the work is continuing apace.
1
"They are pushed to the periphery except for a brief moment on Election Day when one party wants their votes counted, and the other doesn’t."
Spare me your foolish apologies for your languid underclass. Your American Trogs refuse to "rise up" simply because they are fat and lazy, have plenty of food (obviously), shelter and a smartphone. It's as old as the "bread and circus" political strategy of Roman emperors. The poor revolt when they are starving and out in the cold. Period. @LordWestover
Spare me your foolish apologies for your languid underclass. Your American Trogs refuse to "rise up" simply because they are fat and lazy, have plenty of food (obviously), shelter and a smartphone. It's as old as the "bread and circus" political strategy of Roman emperors. The poor revolt when they are starving and out in the cold. Period. @LordWestover
4
Maybe because "the poor" doesn't exist. Instead, there are John, Alyssa, Mike, Maria....there are individuals.
2
So, one of the reasons we aren't yet seeing barricades in the streets stems from the poor not having the resources to organize, let alone lobby, for squat. Add to that their having had to learn how to cope, if not survive, in them midst of every change and adjustment required by the screws being turned tighter on them.
It's grant to talk about the poor rising up, but poor neighborhoods are so devastated and locked into survival mode they've generally got no choice but to tune the world out. Oh, and tighter voter registration laws haven't helped, either.
They know they're not being heard, that they won't be heard, that they can't be heard, so they've found ways to "go insular."
That's where we need to enter the picture and rise up on their behalf. And it's where individualization takes a its nastiest turn.
So we've got work we don't want to do, to do.
It's grant to talk about the poor rising up, but poor neighborhoods are so devastated and locked into survival mode they've generally got no choice but to tune the world out. Oh, and tighter voter registration laws haven't helped, either.
They know they're not being heard, that they won't be heard, that they can't be heard, so they've found ways to "go insular."
That's where we need to enter the picture and rise up on their behalf. And it's where individualization takes a its nastiest turn.
So we've got work we don't want to do, to do.
2
Who's going to earn the income, take care of the kids and aging parents, and pay the rent while the poor are rising up? Only an overprivileged white male would have the time, leisure, and six-figure income to sit around pondering that question. Here's a thought: Why can't the well-heeled take a few days out of their six-week vacations in the Hamptons or on the Outer Banks to call or write a few congressmen expressing support for increased education spending, universal health care, and a $17-an-hour minimum wage?
4
Cultural pressures are the driving force of inequality. The almost unanimous opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the left has been surprising to me. Good jobs have flowed out of the US since at least the 70s when they started moving from the unionized northern U.S. to the low wage and nonexistent benefits southern U.S. The jobs stayed but they no longer paid a middle class wage with benefits. It is still happening. Boeing is moving its union wage jobs from Seattle to North Carolina. It looks an awful lot like Wisconsin and Kansas are looking to compete for jobs by become more like the south in its treatment of workers. I would like an analysis by Robert Reich or Paul Krugman explaining what the U.S. would have looked like without NAFTA or what the future would hold for workers without the TPP. The cultural forces that drive up poverty have been winning for decades. The fight for closed borders might save jobs but will not save us from inequality as long as people support the low wages side of the cultural wars. Cultural pressures, not trade, have been the biggest driver of the loss of good jobs in America.
2
The left's embrace of identity politics has come at the cost of an effective class based struggle. And it allowed the right to cleave off the white lower and middle classes, preventing any type of class unity.
2
They're not desperate or technologically proficient enough to challenge the entrenched status quo. And, here in the US, we have built in 'pressure release zones' that constrain and contain the spread of the malcontent by turning it against itself.
Those 'pressure release zones' are called Wilmington, Newark, Detroit, Camden, and the like.
Turning people against themselves is the only successful right wing doctrine in the history of self serving, right wing governance.
Those 'pressure release zones' are called Wilmington, Newark, Detroit, Camden, and the like.
Turning people against themselves is the only successful right wing doctrine in the history of self serving, right wing governance.
1
It goes back to the role of the government. The government is more likely to listen to a protest than is private interest. The Vietnam war and Civil rights protests were effective; the Occupy Wall Street movement was ineffective.
The Reagan revolution said we should make government small and let the market decide. That movement silenced the voice of the people.
The Reagan revolution said we should make government small and let the market decide. That movement silenced the voice of the people.
The question is, why doesn't the 99% rise up in rebellion to the oligarchs and corporations and their shills from the congress to the white house to the supreme court who consistently oppress them and are systematically destroying the middle class out of pure, unadulterated GREED.
2
Simple answer. Too busy trying to survive on an $8.00/hr job that provides no hope for a better tomorrow. Food on the table and clothing on the kids back are all anyone in such a position has the time to focus on. It will take a real political leader to galvanize the public at large to rise up and fill the streets. Sadly there is no such person on the horizon today. Should any leader attempt to fill this void they will be systematically attacked and slimed by those in power as commies or some such. And the populace will buy the big lie stand down. We are doomed.
1
It is worth noting that the poor tend to be less individualistic as measured by sharing and personal donations compared to the wealthy http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129068241 Additionally, as documented by annette lareau in her excellent "Unequal Childhoods" the poor are much more likely to live with and communicate with a larger extended family whom they are unlikely to move away from for career opportunities.
Furthermore, while the wealthiest maybe able to weather the economic problems of the day better the social isolation that such individualism breeds has major psychological and emotional costs. Children from such households are increasingly suffering from mental illness and plan old loneliness.
Individualization is like a drug. I feels good focus on ourselves and sloth off social obligations and burdensome social ties but ultimately it is self-defeating addiction. We are social beings to our very core. We neglect this fact at our own peril.
Furthermore, while the wealthiest maybe able to weather the economic problems of the day better the social isolation that such individualism breeds has major psychological and emotional costs. Children from such households are increasingly suffering from mental illness and plan old loneliness.
Individualization is like a drug. I feels good focus on ourselves and sloth off social obligations and burdensome social ties but ultimately it is self-defeating addiction. We are social beings to our very core. We neglect this fact at our own peril.
2
Why don't the poor rise up?
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
--John Steinbeck
That is true. Lots of poor and lower middle class Americans vote against their economic interests.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
--John Steinbeck
That is true. Lots of poor and lower middle class Americans vote against their economic interests.
4
I suggest that, with all the mechanisms Republican legislators and leaders--without even a hint of statesmanship--are putting into place to keep the poor in their place (we don't need anymore uppity groups, thank you!), that if the Republicans are able to elect a president next year and maintain control of both houses, rebellion is more than likely. The French gave us a model and the basis for a hit musical about rebellion when French peasants could not longer find the cake their queen suggested they eat instead of bread they didn't have.
1
Part of if could be something as simple as the end of the draft. Military service for all (theoretically) brought people together from all walks of life in a common experience. They were drilled in things like unit cohesion, and leaving no one behind. (The draft and an unpopular war also energized group action.)
Today? The all-volunteer military has come with a price. When stories come up about really bad things happening to people in the military, A) too many people have zero personal connection, neither friends nor family, so there's a loss of empathy - and no need to think "That could have been me." B) You'll also hear "Well that's what they signed up for - they volunteered after all."
And of course the destruction of unions also deprives people of personal membership in a larger group for their own advantage. If you've never been in a union, never directly benefitted from union membership, you have no idea what it's like to know other people have your back.
Military service used to give the poor a common experience shared with the middle class, and even the occasional one percenter. Not any more. The rise of the Walmart economy means that their odds of getting a job with union membership is near zero. The message "You're on you own." gets rubbed in their face in a thousand different ways.
Today? The all-volunteer military has come with a price. When stories come up about really bad things happening to people in the military, A) too many people have zero personal connection, neither friends nor family, so there's a loss of empathy - and no need to think "That could have been me." B) You'll also hear "Well that's what they signed up for - they volunteered after all."
And of course the destruction of unions also deprives people of personal membership in a larger group for their own advantage. If you've never been in a union, never directly benefitted from union membership, you have no idea what it's like to know other people have your back.
Military service used to give the poor a common experience shared with the middle class, and even the occasional one percenter. Not any more. The rise of the Walmart economy means that their odds of getting a job with union membership is near zero. The message "You're on you own." gets rubbed in their face in a thousand different ways.
1
"Compare the SOPA protest to the sole organized attempt to challenge the flow of wealth to the top 1 percent and the profits funneled to the finance industry: Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage."
What generally favorable media coverage was that? Compare the media coverage of Occupy ("dirty hippies") vs. that of the Tea Party ("patriots") to get a sense of how vastly different they were. Plus, the movement did not "collapse" but was violently suppressed by coordinated police action across the country.
What generally favorable media coverage was that? Compare the media coverage of Occupy ("dirty hippies") vs. that of the Tea Party ("patriots") to get a sense of how vastly different they were. Plus, the movement did not "collapse" but was violently suppressed by coordinated police action across the country.
3
Sooner or later a leader will emerge who can galvanize the poor; those that lost their position in the middle class; the disaffected. This is not 1932. We are not in the middle of a Great Depression. But I'm convinced it's coming, and when it does a new FDR will figure out how to push the plutocrats out.
As our infrastructure collapses and decent jobs continue to simply go away, the economy will grind to a near-halt and the festering national sore will spread throughout the entire fabric of American life.
We simply can't go on this way indefinitely and conservatives simply refuse to acknowledge the reality our decline. A boss of mine once said, "Nothing happens until somebody buys something." When you can't buy anything for cash, you resort to credit. When you run out of credit, you stop buying.
Do the math.
As our infrastructure collapses and decent jobs continue to simply go away, the economy will grind to a near-halt and the festering national sore will spread throughout the entire fabric of American life.
We simply can't go on this way indefinitely and conservatives simply refuse to acknowledge the reality our decline. A boss of mine once said, "Nothing happens until somebody buys something." When you can't buy anything for cash, you resort to credit. When you run out of credit, you stop buying.
Do the math.
3
The "individualization" has been deliberately cultivated by those in power. They tell rank-and-file workers, "You don't need a union. We'll reward you based on your merits" and "If your economic lot is not improving, it means you're not working hard enough." So instead of a set salary or wage scale with a well-defined progression, workers are left to take the initiative in asking for their own raises without knowledge of what other people who do comparable work are making. Only workers who 1) aren't shy about asking for more money, and 2) have buttered up the right people receive raises.
Another factor is the extreme dumbing down of our mass media. Informative and intelligent programming has been exiled to PBS and the subscription-only channels. Since I no longer have cable, I see the rest only when I'm traveling, and there is little that is not stupid, gross, excessively violent, or full of hysterically proclaimed falsehoods.
Still another factor is social fragmentation. The countries with strong movements among the disadvantaged are those with stable neighborhoods where families have lived for generations and where there are natural gathering places where people socialize with one another regularly. I've seen arguments that suburbanization of the masses is the best thing that ever happened to the powers that be.
Another factor is the extreme dumbing down of our mass media. Informative and intelligent programming has been exiled to PBS and the subscription-only channels. Since I no longer have cable, I see the rest only when I'm traveling, and there is little that is not stupid, gross, excessively violent, or full of hysterically proclaimed falsehoods.
Still another factor is social fragmentation. The countries with strong movements among the disadvantaged are those with stable neighborhoods where families have lived for generations and where there are natural gathering places where people socialize with one another regularly. I've seen arguments that suburbanization of the masses is the best thing that ever happened to the powers that be.
1
As we approach Bastille Day, we’ll be told again that the storming of the Bastille marked the start of the French Revolution. This might lead some Americans to believe that all it takes to start a revolution is a mob. In fact, the French Revolution unfolded in stages. The feudal system divided people in three Estates. The aristocracy and the clergy paid no taxes. Within the third estate, many of the merchants managed to avoid taxes, putting the burden on farmers and peasants.
Taxes were heavy because of debt inherited from wars of Louis XV. The costs of French involvement in the American Revolution added to the burden. The extravagance of the royal court added to the tax bill.
Bad weather and bad harvests (due in part to a volcanic eruption in Iceland) led to widespread hunger throughout France, and to widespread riots (La Guerre du Blé). Louis XVI called the Estates, a form of parliament, into session. This, for some commentators, marked the beginning of the end for Louis. When the Estates did meet, the Third Estate was out-voted by combined clergy and aristocracy. The Third withdrew and set up a National Assembly. Now, that was revolutionary.
The French also had a ready supply of thinkers and writers. (Americans tend to despise both.) Leadership from outside the establishment was not wanting. The storming of the Bastille was simply a reflection of pre-existing revolution.
Taxes were heavy because of debt inherited from wars of Louis XV. The costs of French involvement in the American Revolution added to the burden. The extravagance of the royal court added to the tax bill.
Bad weather and bad harvests (due in part to a volcanic eruption in Iceland) led to widespread hunger throughout France, and to widespread riots (La Guerre du Blé). Louis XVI called the Estates, a form of parliament, into session. This, for some commentators, marked the beginning of the end for Louis. When the Estates did meet, the Third Estate was out-voted by combined clergy and aristocracy. The Third withdrew and set up a National Assembly. Now, that was revolutionary.
The French also had a ready supply of thinkers and writers. (Americans tend to despise both.) Leadership from outside the establishment was not wanting. The storming of the Bastille was simply a reflection of pre-existing revolution.
9
I'd point out also that debtors have fewer rights than accused criminals. In my state, at least, if you are summoned to small claims court for a debt, a corporation acting as plaintiff is REQUIRED to use an attorney to collect if the amount is between $1500 and $6000 (the latter being the limit for small claims). The defendant, even if they don't dispute the claim but simply can't afford to pay, is required to pay attorney's fees and court costs, thereby adding to the debt they can't afford. Talk about the upward redistribution of wealth! A person earning maybe minimum wage and unable to pay a debt is compelled by the court to pay an attorney who makes upwards of $200 an hour and who performs no service other than to say "this person owes money". Corporations have this privilege by law even though small claims court was created to resolve disputes (the debtor may not dispute that the debt is owed) without recourse to an attorney (if a debtor could afford an attorney, they probably wouldn't owe an amount that can be settled in small claims).
Unlike a person accused of a crime, the debtor is not provided with a public defender to advise on their behalf, but is put in the position of arguing against or negotiating directly with somebody with a law degree. I appeared in small claims court recently, and it was striking that the defendants were almost all people who looked poor, facing attorneys in suits. The display of inequality made me physically ill all day.
Unlike a person accused of a crime, the debtor is not provided with a public defender to advise on their behalf, but is put in the position of arguing against or negotiating directly with somebody with a law degree. I appeared in small claims court recently, and it was striking that the defendants were almost all people who looked poor, facing attorneys in suits. The display of inequality made me physically ill all day.
2
It has been the children of the professional classes that have started political change. The poor are too busy trying to survive and don't have lobbyists. Young educated people are supporting Bernie Sanders. If a few well-known and respected black people would join Bernie's campaign..the revolution will have begun. .
2
The very fact that left-wing Democrats lean toward a Presidential aspirant who isn't a member of their party confirms Edsall's point about the disappearance of long-term commitments and loyalties vs. web-based enthusiasms of the moment. Its the same lesson we see when you compare the economic status of folks in long-term marriages with others. Players who have a long-term commitment to achieve clear goals tend to win more often than ad hoc groups with a diffuse agenda like Occupy Wall Street.
The followup question is: is a society with 20-30% "les miserables" stable? Probably not. And when they rise they will do so as they live: chaotically.
Although title's question intriguing for an audience - generally affluent or at least with access to more than many others, serves to demonstrate the wide gap that still exists among "haves", "have-nots" and "havers" (those pretty much okay).
Most persons caught-up-in-the-struggle to survive have little time remaining to sip wine, eat brie and pose such hefty questions about uprisings. Likely most readers of this article can easily walk away from it - pondering the question, yet never lift a hand to spark an uprising of any kind, since they - individualized, have no need to change their status quo.
On the other hand most front-line warriors for change, smaller in number carry the burden of uprising the masses.
Perhaps the question "why don't the better off rise up to help the poor - beyond individualization?" might be interesting to explore in depth.
Most persons caught-up-in-the-struggle to survive have little time remaining to sip wine, eat brie and pose such hefty questions about uprisings. Likely most readers of this article can easily walk away from it - pondering the question, yet never lift a hand to spark an uprising of any kind, since they - individualized, have no need to change their status quo.
On the other hand most front-line warriors for change, smaller in number carry the burden of uprising the masses.
Perhaps the question "why don't the better off rise up to help the poor - beyond individualization?" might be interesting to explore in depth.
1
The poor are far too busy holding down multiple jobs at least six days a week to take time off to protest. Also, there is no effective way to fight the human greed that imprisons them.
1
I’ve always been wary of indiscriminately using Antonio Gramsci’s “hegemony” concept, but I certainly miss it in this discussion. Simply put, as I understand it, it’s the notion that the wealthy and powerful classes succeed at pushing their own self-justifying worldviews onto the rest of the population, thereby reinforcing the status quo. It seems to me that we’re truly seeing a successful wave of Gramscian hegemony washing over the American scene. I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s got to include some effective ways to challenge the notion that the wealthy are wealthy because they deserve it and the poor are poor because that’s what they deserve.
1
i note that the article started out by referring to the WORKING poor. if the working poor realized that they are worse off than the non working poor who received a myriad of government benefits they might revolt. single people on food stamps receive more money than I spend for food.
2
Because, if you rise up, you will be smashed down, and the rising up will become part of your record, which will keep you further out of work, housing, etc. And because, if you rise up, it is your own fault that you needed to. Finally, should push come to shove, what would gentlemanly columnists actually themselves do were they to behold revolution in the streets where they live? Go downstairs and join? Or call the police?
If Thomas Edsall traveled through America and actually asked the poor his probing question "Why Don't the Poor [you guys] Rise up?," the laughing would never stop.
1
Isn't the answer as old as the idea of bread and circuses? And don't today's circuses have the added advantage of being presented within the confines of individual living rooms - reducing the occasions for people to come together for common causes? ......... Now excuse me while I get back to House Hunters International.
Sounds like Ayn Rand's John Galt won, after all.
TO MY FELLOW RICH, THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS
The greatest irony, the most astounding paradox is before us:
We Americans in the top wealth and income group can increase our wealth only by increases in the monetary flow to the people who have less than we do.
As a member of the most exclusive think-tank in America, I am amazed to report that after exhaustive mathematical analysis confirming the "trickle-up" dynamic of American capital in the 21srt century, the "trickle-up" velocity-multiplier-effect of money handed out to lower classes actually increases on our capital and our assets times twelve:...and every dollar spent on Social welfare, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment Insurance, Disability Payments, and Food Stamps makes us 12 times richer than a dollar issued to banks through Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing.
The "Velocity" of one US Dollar, the multiple transactions resulting from it being issued to the poor, the 99% below our levels of wealth and income, is 12, and nets us $12 in "trickle-up".
That means a dollar of untaxed profit added to our portfolios of equities is worth exactly one dollar added to our wealth.
That means 1 dollar given to anyone less wealthy will add 12 dollars to our private wealth, because that dollar given to poorer Americans is spent 12 times over the course of 12 months.
"Trickle up" from the poorer Americans to us is 3 to 12 dollars per each dollar the poor spend.
The greatest irony, the most astounding paradox is before us:
We Americans in the top wealth and income group can increase our wealth only by increases in the monetary flow to the people who have less than we do.
As a member of the most exclusive think-tank in America, I am amazed to report that after exhaustive mathematical analysis confirming the "trickle-up" dynamic of American capital in the 21srt century, the "trickle-up" velocity-multiplier-effect of money handed out to lower classes actually increases on our capital and our assets times twelve:...and every dollar spent on Social welfare, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment Insurance, Disability Payments, and Food Stamps makes us 12 times richer than a dollar issued to banks through Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing.
The "Velocity" of one US Dollar, the multiple transactions resulting from it being issued to the poor, the 99% below our levels of wealth and income, is 12, and nets us $12 in "trickle-up".
That means a dollar of untaxed profit added to our portfolios of equities is worth exactly one dollar added to our wealth.
That means 1 dollar given to anyone less wealthy will add 12 dollars to our private wealth, because that dollar given to poorer Americans is spent 12 times over the course of 12 months.
"Trickle up" from the poorer Americans to us is 3 to 12 dollars per each dollar the poor spend.
1
"Conversely, the less well off – from all backgrounds — have struggled with high levels of family dissolution, father absence and worklessness, leaving their own prospects, and those of their children, bleak."
There's your answer, right there. Educational achievement is abysmal, illiteracy and lack of self-control is widespread. Could such people organize a movement? If they could do that, then they could find a job, work, and make money.
There's your answer, right there. Educational achievement is abysmal, illiteracy and lack of self-control is widespread. Could such people organize a movement? If they could do that, then they could find a job, work, and make money.
7
"The answer is that those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are irrelevant to the agenda-setters in both parties." Precisely. We, those that do not donate to our elected officials, do not make millions, who need assistance more than the corporations, do not have any place in the political calculations of this country. We considered expendable, replaceable, irrelevant except as examples of moochers, etc. There are gated communities, private airports, private schools, private clubs, and other ways for the 1% to avoid seeing us.
We are fighting over very small pieces of the pie. And the politicians are playing divide and conquer by telling us that this or that group are taking from us which is not true. What is really happening is the wholesale destruction of the middle and working classes in America. We are seeing our jobs sent overseas, good jobs with good pay and benefits phased out by temp jobs with no security, increasing costs for housing, medical needs, education, and no concomitant increase in our salaries. We are struggling to survive. That's exactly how you keep people oppressed: make daily life so hard that they cannot do anything because it will cost too much in terms lost pay, lost time, etc. Furthermore, we're being told that we should be grateful to live in America and some of us still believe that. We're the greatest country on earth. Just ask Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker,: they're doing fine, it must be us.
We are fighting over very small pieces of the pie. And the politicians are playing divide and conquer by telling us that this or that group are taking from us which is not true. What is really happening is the wholesale destruction of the middle and working classes in America. We are seeing our jobs sent overseas, good jobs with good pay and benefits phased out by temp jobs with no security, increasing costs for housing, medical needs, education, and no concomitant increase in our salaries. We are struggling to survive. That's exactly how you keep people oppressed: make daily life so hard that they cannot do anything because it will cost too much in terms lost pay, lost time, etc. Furthermore, we're being told that we should be grateful to live in America and some of us still believe that. We're the greatest country on earth. Just ask Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker,: they're doing fine, it must be us.
9
The poor WILL rise up once they're joined by what remains of the middle class. At this point the latter are still buying into the canard that their economic problems are caused by the poor and by the tax revenues that are expended to keep them in alcohol and heroin. It's just a matter of time- and pink slips- before the middle class awakens to the fact that it's their own bosses (and the politicians whom they purchase) who are responsible for their stagnant wages and increasingly desperate circumstances. It's happening already but not yet at a pace necessary to move the masses towards insurrection.
87
In a situation you describe, historically the fallen in the middle class can turn to revolutionary or fascist leaders.
Guess which one would be most likely given American culture?
Yeah.
Guess which one would be most likely given American culture?
Yeah.
If you are talking about the working poor, the people who need to cobble together 2 and 3 jobs and hardly have time even to eat or sleep, let alone see their children or family.... Where is the time to more than just survive?
If you are talking about the homeless, who have trouble even finding food or a safe place to sleep or anywhere to safely stow their belongings... How are they in a position to organize and rise up?
If you are talking about the mentally ill, the disabled, the elderly poor, do they have the wherewithal?
Remember, we live in a near police state now. Especially the poor are likely to be hassled by the police. And how are the poor to run that gauntlet?
It is a very good question you are asking. Do you remember that lone person, recently, who got shot for "walking with purpose"? Even purpose can be a problem!
If you are talking about the homeless, who have trouble even finding food or a safe place to sleep or anywhere to safely stow their belongings... How are they in a position to organize and rise up?
If you are talking about the mentally ill, the disabled, the elderly poor, do they have the wherewithal?
Remember, we live in a near police state now. Especially the poor are likely to be hassled by the police. And how are the poor to run that gauntlet?
It is a very good question you are asking. Do you remember that lone person, recently, who got shot for "walking with purpose"? Even purpose can be a problem!
37
NYTimes:
Why don't the poor rise up? This is an excellent question. I think for millions fake "middle class" Americans, as long as they can project an unreal middle class Appearance, they would not rise up, otherwise it would blow up their shallow cover.
Here’s the bottom line: A recent Bankrate survey found that more than one-third of Americans ages 35 to 55 had more credit card debt than savings. Even though the financial security index has steadily risen over the past few months, Americans are still in a lot of debt.
Why don't the poor rise up? This is an excellent question. I think for millions fake "middle class" Americans, as long as they can project an unreal middle class Appearance, they would not rise up, otherwise it would blow up their shallow cover.
Here’s the bottom line: A recent Bankrate survey found that more than one-third of Americans ages 35 to 55 had more credit card debt than savings. Even though the financial security index has steadily risen over the past few months, Americans are still in a lot of debt.
8
I see the beginnings of new awakenings of solidarity. Have you been to a Bernie Sanders rally? There is a sense of a "we're in this together" attitude that I haven't felt since the Act 10 rallies on the capitol. Many of us are demoralized and nihilistic - or have been since that time. Suddenly it feels like there sparks of resistance and that 'fighting Bob La Follette' determination everywhere. I can feel change beginning!
29
Agree that Bernie could be a catalyst for change in the progressive direction. He has no hidden ulterior motive, talks reasonably about the economic situation in this country, and has specific legislative plans. I am sure that there are many who will try to silence him if he gets traction, but he offers a potential way out of a slowly building slide towards an open rebellion. And that rebellion will surely come at some point if there is no safety value, no change of course, individualization or not.
The author neglects to take in account entitlements. The value of myriad government programs increases the true wealth of the poor.
3
“America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves…. It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters.”
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five
112
You said it brother. RIP
1
Poor from around the world sacrifice and take great risks to migrate to the US. They don't come here for welfare type schemes described in the article. They come for the opportunity to work hard and earn a better life for themselves and their children. Lazy rich leftists still dream of revolutions. Most poor people understand you have to work to better yourself. They don't have time for pipe dreams!
3
Sad Taxpayer,
You and most conservatives are too influenced by stereotypes. You imagine the world is divided into two groups: the hard-working people who deserve what they get and the "welfare queens." There are in reality many hard-working people who can't afford to provide for their children.
Bill Gates deserves to have more than I. I assume he's a lot more talented and probably harder working. But a million times more? No one could be that talented and hard working. We must have some inequality to motivate people to work hard, but not as much as we have now.
Conservatives imagine that if we raised taxes on the wealthy, we would sink into the Third World. Successful capitalist countries like Germany, Sweden, and Canada give the lie to that claim. What small government gives you, in contrast, is Haiti and Somalia.
You and most conservatives are too influenced by stereotypes. You imagine the world is divided into two groups: the hard-working people who deserve what they get and the "welfare queens." There are in reality many hard-working people who can't afford to provide for their children.
Bill Gates deserves to have more than I. I assume he's a lot more talented and probably harder working. But a million times more? No one could be that talented and hard working. We must have some inequality to motivate people to work hard, but not as much as we have now.
Conservatives imagine that if we raised taxes on the wealthy, we would sink into the Third World. Successful capitalist countries like Germany, Sweden, and Canada give the lie to that claim. What small government gives you, in contrast, is Haiti and Somalia.
And avoid, at all costs, the statistics. Keep believing in your own private "American Dream."
1
I agree with most of this article. We are fragmented, yes, and poor families are oppressed by their economic and cultural circumstances.
However, many of the poor are white and identify with the power structures of the day. For them, cultural (tribal) and religious factors trump economics. Furthermore, let’s remember the pressures of immigrant labor. I’m an immigrant, and have seen the effects of unfair competition, and have been schooled in the effects of strike breakers, in different countries. In 19th century Wales, striking miners were forced to negotiate when ship-loads of starving Irish were brought in as strike-breakers. In the west of Ireland, also in the 19th C, one labor action gave us the term “boycott,” when the locals refused to harvest the crops of land managed by Captain Boycott. But that was part of a national campaign organized by the Land League. In that case, Unionists from Ulster were brought in to do the work.
Where I have greater reservation, however, is to the notion that it is today’s working poor who are quiescent. They always were, unless led by fire-brands in trade unions. The unions have been broken or have been Americanized beyond their original functions. The idea of “one out, all out” doesn’t hold in today’s selfish society.
However, many of the poor are white and identify with the power structures of the day. For them, cultural (tribal) and religious factors trump economics. Furthermore, let’s remember the pressures of immigrant labor. I’m an immigrant, and have seen the effects of unfair competition, and have been schooled in the effects of strike breakers, in different countries. In 19th century Wales, striking miners were forced to negotiate when ship-loads of starving Irish were brought in as strike-breakers. In the west of Ireland, also in the 19th C, one labor action gave us the term “boycott,” when the locals refused to harvest the crops of land managed by Captain Boycott. But that was part of a national campaign organized by the Land League. In that case, Unionists from Ulster were brought in to do the work.
Where I have greater reservation, however, is to the notion that it is today’s working poor who are quiescent. They always were, unless led by fire-brands in trade unions. The unions have been broken or have been Americanized beyond their original functions. The idea of “one out, all out” doesn’t hold in today’s selfish society.
8
This is exactly the type of population for which Republicans and Libertarians clamor. "Greed is good." Me, first.
7
The only thing good about this article was the link to the trailer for me and earl and the dying girl.
2
I don’t have a problem with people becoming wealthy by their hard work, imagination, and innate abilities. The problem is, in today’s America, the game is definitely fixed. Increasingly, those with the wealth are squeezing out good people who cannot get started or get ahead due to lack of opportunity. All I ask for is a leveling of the playing field so that everyone regardless of the situation they were born into, has a reasonable chance at success. From there it is up to the individual.
This means starting by providing the essentials – decent nutrition, access to health care, good K-12 education. And affordable access to college or trade schools. A person working one or more full time jobs should be able to afford this, and $7.00 per hour doesn’t come close to getting it done! Minimum wage jobs used to be a stepping stone for young people in decades past, now they are a rut that millions get trapped in for life.
We have the money to do this – we just need to stop wasting it on the war machine, and enact a more progressive tax code, similar to what was in place when this country was at its zenith 50 years ago.
This means starting by providing the essentials – decent nutrition, access to health care, good K-12 education. And affordable access to college or trade schools. A person working one or more full time jobs should be able to afford this, and $7.00 per hour doesn’t come close to getting it done! Minimum wage jobs used to be a stepping stone for young people in decades past, now they are a rut that millions get trapped in for life.
We have the money to do this – we just need to stop wasting it on the war machine, and enact a more progressive tax code, similar to what was in place when this country was at its zenith 50 years ago.
39
Until we get over the basic ideology that poor=failure and rich=success we won't get anywhere. We have placed moral value on generating wealth instead of actual accomplishments that better the lives of others, or improve the conditions of life on earth. That is why most of our best and brightest go to Wall Street and/or Corporate Law firms.
9
Air conditioners, Televisions and Computers are not the gadgets within the reach of poor even if the country under consideration is America. I think the writer got it wrong.
2
Hoover's rugged individualism has finally won out, a true victory for everyone wishing to poor and powerless.
With our total embrace of free market economics since the Reagan-Thatcher era we have more or less said: "If you don't have money, you don't count." Adam Smith noted that the only demand that matters is "effective demand." Although he didn't call it that, it simply means, as he put it: "There may be a great demand for a coach and four" but if you don't have the money for such an expensive rig, the market takes no account of you. Our market caters to those with money and the more money you have, the more it caters to you. If you have little or no money, you are of no importance in the free market. The poor and middle class realize this and have come to accept it. Thus the great demand for lottery tickets.
4
I commend Mr. Edsall on his incisive report. I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge the long prophetic history of writers who have tried, and failed to place these issues on the popular political agenda. If it is not palatable to mention Karl Marx or Aldous Huxley or even George Orwell, I am sure that Philip K Dick in his novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". would make uncomfortable bedtime reading. I might even say "You've read the book! You've seen the movie! Now, at last, we are bringing you the reality of social APOCALYPSE!
The latest and, to my mind, hardest hitting analysis of our present decline, is the recent book by the historian Yuval Noah Harari, "The History of Tomorrow". I think that his thesis is probable. We are no longer in the realm of fantasy. The post apocalyptic images leaping out at us from our virtual reality devices may be only a way of accustoming us to the new era, perhaps even an evolutionary change in human society.
The truth may turn out to be that the Poor will Never Rise Up because that option will have been bred out of them.
The latest and, to my mind, hardest hitting analysis of our present decline, is the recent book by the historian Yuval Noah Harari, "The History of Tomorrow". I think that his thesis is probable. We are no longer in the realm of fantasy. The post apocalyptic images leaping out at us from our virtual reality devices may be only a way of accustoming us to the new era, perhaps even an evolutionary change in human society.
The truth may turn out to be that the Poor will Never Rise Up because that option will have been bred out of them.
2
David,
I agree with Michael Harrington's analysis in his book Socialism (about 1970) that the poor were never really a revolutionary class. Any appeals for redistribution have to be stated as ethical goals rather than some sort of "dialectical materialism." Not something the poor will inevitably carry out because of their social situation.
When we look at countries like Canada, Germany, and France, we can see that the ethical arguments for redistribution can be successful. This article seems a little too pessimistic in assuming that the tide of increasing maldistribution can't be stopped.
In spite of what has happened, I'm still skeptical of the idea of "class." Class is really a medieval concept if you mean a station in life that is set at birth. Working people don't want to take over the world: they just want a fair deal and a chance at social mobility. Right now they're not getting that in America.
I agree with Michael Harrington's analysis in his book Socialism (about 1970) that the poor were never really a revolutionary class. Any appeals for redistribution have to be stated as ethical goals rather than some sort of "dialectical materialism." Not something the poor will inevitably carry out because of their social situation.
When we look at countries like Canada, Germany, and France, we can see that the ethical arguments for redistribution can be successful. This article seems a little too pessimistic in assuming that the tide of increasing maldistribution can't be stopped.
In spite of what has happened, I'm still skeptical of the idea of "class." Class is really a medieval concept if you mean a station in life that is set at birth. Working people don't want to take over the world: they just want a fair deal and a chance at social mobility. Right now they're not getting that in America.
in other words:
1. People are too scared, and too busy chasing their own private carrots.
2. Too many people agreed to take the toys--you know, TVs, cellphones, cute cars--as substitutes for a good life.
3. The Right did a pretty good job of convincing people that a) the economy wasn't at the root of their problems, b) the politicians and intellectuals who explained what was going on and maybe even tried to help them were all Commies who hate jesus and christmas.
4. The economy and the world got so complex and fragmented (on the surface of things; in fact, it's really got simpler) that people couldn't see social classes very clearly, let alone see why they should do stuff like join a union or form one.
5. We got more xenophobic, so we can't see our common ground with, say, poor Mexicans.
1. People are too scared, and too busy chasing their own private carrots.
2. Too many people agreed to take the toys--you know, TVs, cellphones, cute cars--as substitutes for a good life.
3. The Right did a pretty good job of convincing people that a) the economy wasn't at the root of their problems, b) the politicians and intellectuals who explained what was going on and maybe even tried to help them were all Commies who hate jesus and christmas.
4. The economy and the world got so complex and fragmented (on the surface of things; in fact, it's really got simpler) that people couldn't see social classes very clearly, let alone see why they should do stuff like join a union or form one.
5. We got more xenophobic, so we can't see our common ground with, say, poor Mexicans.
39
The poor don't rise up because they're not poor enough yet, it's as simple as that.
4
I think the poor are smarter than you think. They know the rich will never redistribute their wealth. Redistribution of wealth is a wonderful theory that never works. You cannot change the natural order of things with theories.
24
Actually, it is not at all natural for 1% of a population within the animal kingdom to control more resources than all the rest combined.
In January, Oxfam issued a report that by next year, the richest 1% will have as much wealth as the other 99% combined.
"The richest 1% have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014," the report said, and estimated that would increase to 51% by next year.
Even if these precise numbers are open to challenge, there's nothing "natural" about that degree of inequitable distribution of resources. It doesn't happen in the "natural order" without catastrophic losses to the overall health and numbers of the given population. It's natural for some to have more than others because of their prowess in acquiring resources. This degree of inequality, however, happens only among humans when a greedy elite hoards resources. It can't be sustained for more than a generation or two without severe destabilization, like the Great Depression, because it creates an elite who don't work to resolve social problems that have broad impact.
In January, Oxfam issued a report that by next year, the richest 1% will have as much wealth as the other 99% combined.
"The richest 1% have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014," the report said, and estimated that would increase to 51% by next year.
Even if these precise numbers are open to challenge, there's nothing "natural" about that degree of inequitable distribution of resources. It doesn't happen in the "natural order" without catastrophic losses to the overall health and numbers of the given population. It's natural for some to have more than others because of their prowess in acquiring resources. This degree of inequality, however, happens only among humans when a greedy elite hoards resources. It can't be sustained for more than a generation or two without severe destabilization, like the Great Depression, because it creates an elite who don't work to resolve social problems that have broad impact.
2
How pathetic education is in the United States. Almost nobody commenting here gives any indication that they are aware that European nations feel a moral and financial obligation to the poor and routinely see that government assistance is available, education and health care is, usually, free and accessable to all and a path to progress is available. Workers are paid a living wage and corporations and the wealthy are taxed to pay for this. You can choose this path or you country can start discussing revolution. America has made a choice, obviously.
2
Much of the wealth of the 1% was the result of very favorable tax policies. Increases of productivity also flowed upward in the shape of increased profits. Full time workers with competitive benefits became part time workers without any. Outsourcing jobs to poorer areas of the world benefitted corporations which tended to be people who were on the Boards of enough of them to make the famous statement of Governor Romney: " Corporations are people, my Friend" more true than not especially when it seemed they had religious rights as well. Are we seeing a new world wide permanent Aristocracy rising out of the plutocracy of the West?
1
The answer to Tom's question could be that traditional American values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are as strong among the working poor as they are among most of us.
It might also be that a lot of the working poor don't expect to be so for a lifetime, but find themselves defined so temporarily, as a result of setbacks or because they're young and lack skills for the present to vie for higher-paying jobs. The notion that there's an immense class out there of people permanently locked in poverty as a consequence of immutable economic factors is a liberal one that is finding less and less representation in our elective institutions.
Tom's, and Genov's and Beck's, concept of "individualization" is a force that has been present in the American psyche since there WAS an America, and hardly some new trope to use as excuse to rationalize why their theories of class struggle don't manifest here as they do in Italy or Greece.
But Tom's sense of dismay is valid. The whole BASIS of American progressivism is that "collective action on behalf of the poor requires a shared belief in the obligation of the state to secure the well-being of the citizenry". When you find yourself part of a culture that places that obligation not on the state but the INDIVIDUAL, it's understandable that you wonder at what you've believed for a lifetime.
But, of course, Tom's answer is that they're ignored. And so he goes on ... believing.
It might also be that a lot of the working poor don't expect to be so for a lifetime, but find themselves defined so temporarily, as a result of setbacks or because they're young and lack skills for the present to vie for higher-paying jobs. The notion that there's an immense class out there of people permanently locked in poverty as a consequence of immutable economic factors is a liberal one that is finding less and less representation in our elective institutions.
Tom's, and Genov's and Beck's, concept of "individualization" is a force that has been present in the American psyche since there WAS an America, and hardly some new trope to use as excuse to rationalize why their theories of class struggle don't manifest here as they do in Italy or Greece.
But Tom's sense of dismay is valid. The whole BASIS of American progressivism is that "collective action on behalf of the poor requires a shared belief in the obligation of the state to secure the well-being of the citizenry". When you find yourself part of a culture that places that obligation not on the state but the INDIVIDUAL, it's understandable that you wonder at what you've believed for a lifetime.
But, of course, Tom's answer is that they're ignored. And so he goes on ... believing.
26
"The notion that there's an immense class out there of people permanently locked in poverty as a consequence of immutable economic factors is a liberal one that is finding less and less representation in our elective institutions."
I believe this statement could be clarified in this way: "Elected officials have become so insulated from the lives and situations of the majority of Americans (due to gerrymandering, big money in politics, and voter ID laws) that they will not even consider doing anything to address the fact that 'socialist' European countries show greater economic mobility than the United States."
I believe this statement could be clarified in this way: "Elected officials have become so insulated from the lives and situations of the majority of Americans (due to gerrymandering, big money in politics, and voter ID laws) that they will not even consider doing anything to address the fact that 'socialist' European countries show greater economic mobility than the United States."
2
Some scholars say that massive changes in the direction of greater equality do not come without war, revolution, pandemics, great depressions, etc.
web.stanford.edu/~scheidel/Leveler.pdf
tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/Scheidel.pdf
web.stanford.edu/~scheidel/Leveler.pdf
tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/Scheidel.pdf
If one assumes that individual responsibility is key in one's life, then the least society could do is to guarantee that equality of opportunities exist on the starting line. Seeing how badly America treats poor children, one is compelled to be skeptical about your individualism "uber alles" dogma.
I've made this comment before, but why is "redistribution" a word used to describe distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor? The redistribution that is contributing to inequality is the distribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. Where do we suppose the rich get their wealth? I would really like to see someone write about that.
760
I was in a consulting business that catered mostly to the wealthy, and my colleagues and I would grumble about the richest folks being the slowest paying. My explanation was that that's why they're rich and we aren't.
Of course, by ordinary standards, I was pretty well off, too, just not in the league of clients with Picasso and Jasper John paintings in their elevator lobbies. And no, I am not exaggerating. I can't and don't complain.
Of course, by ordinary standards, I was pretty well off, too, just not in the league of clients with Picasso and Jasper John paintings in their elevator lobbies. And no, I am not exaggerating. I can't and don't complain.
2
Molly, people who write about the distribution from the poor and middle class to the rich are ignored. The question is how do we get attention. You are technically correct, but the word "redistribution" serves the political process. Truly, the wealth of society is a joint product of all of society, and how it is divided up is a matter of politics and power. It is poorly and unfairly distributed. It will get worse as wealth is ever more concentrated and work is ever more automated. As Thomas Piketty noted in his book, the richest person in France is a woman who has never worked, yet her wealth has increased over her life at the same rate as Bill Gates while he was working, which is the same rate as after he quit working. The division of wealth and income has little to do with "earnings." Those who benefit from their chance ownership of capital have no incentive to change the system, just as the beneficiaries of Trade Agreements have no incentives to share the gains. As Muriel Spark, no liberal she, has written "All the nice people were poor; at least, that was a general axiom, the best of the rich being poor in spirit." There was also that Karl Marx fellow who wrote a bit about this. If you really want to see people who have written about this, you may have to look hard, but it is there.
4
I think that mostly they got their wealth the old fashioned way: they inherited it.
The tax laws of this nation are skewed toward the wealthy, especially in the inheritance taxes. We are creating our own monarchy, and it will take significant effort to remove it.
The tax laws of this nation are skewed toward the wealthy, especially in the inheritance taxes. We are creating our own monarchy, and it will take significant effort to remove it.
5
Maybe the poor don't "rise up" because it is utterly unclear what advantage "rising up" would have? A more relevant question would be why the poor don't vote for higher marginal tax rates, single payer health care, and greater access to quality education. Maybe the majority don't spend much time thinking about these things and/or don't vote?
24
The rich people have been smart to do everything they can to destroy unions. There really isn't any other institution that could stand up to them, and even the unions were fighting a losing battle. Too bad all these people who claim to be Christians don't organize in their churches. Ain't gonna happen.
2
Everything including Support and Solidarity are for those who can afford it. To put it another way, the wealthy have many (paid) friends, the poor are alone.
3
The poor rise up behind and follow the socioeconomic political educational elite leadership.
Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln, Jefferson, Lenin, FDR, Nixon and Castro were all lawyers. Like many of America's Founding Fathers who were also plutocrats no matter their birth circumstances. King, like Douglass, DuBois and Washington, was black socioeconomic political educational elite. The Marxist myth of the working class and poor proletariat rising up is belied by human history. Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Reagan, Clinton and Obama were plutocrat by nature regardless of their poor nurture start.
Middle class and hopeful is the nurturing environment for revolution. Generations of hopeless status breeds mental emotional physical stagnation. Particularly among a physically identifiable colored ethnic sectarian minority. Scripture says that the poor will always be with us.
Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln, Jefferson, Lenin, FDR, Nixon and Castro were all lawyers. Like many of America's Founding Fathers who were also plutocrats no matter their birth circumstances. King, like Douglass, DuBois and Washington, was black socioeconomic political educational elite. The Marxist myth of the working class and poor proletariat rising up is belied by human history. Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Reagan, Clinton and Obama were plutocrat by nature regardless of their poor nurture start.
Middle class and hopeful is the nurturing environment for revolution. Generations of hopeless status breeds mental emotional physical stagnation. Particularly among a physically identifiable colored ethnic sectarian minority. Scripture says that the poor will always be with us.
3
A large portion of the poor in America are non-whites who have been weakened in their voting influence by GOP gerrymandering and voter ID legislation. Nine martyrs may have given Charleston Christians a little traction in initiating symbolic changes in the Southeast. But Luke 23:34 gets them just so far (roughly Father, forgive them because they do not know jack about Jesus). There is a significant segment of non-whites who have tremendous clout that, so far, has not yet been tapped: college and pro football players. If non-white players in the SEC and ACC set up a boycott on the weekend of something like September 26 demanding changes in legislation that favors white supremacists and their guns, the economic bust might provide the great awakening needed for the law makers. A similar boycott could follow the next day in the NFL. Boycotts worked in the 1960s and can work again.
1
So in spite of Facebook, twitter, smart phones, the internet and 24 hour cable news we are less connected than we were before. Maybe the 1% have been very successful at distracting us all from the issues that confront us.
5
Congratulations, Mr. Edsall, for one of the best essays that I have seen on a crucial topic. The first nine comments are extraordinarily thoughtful as well. They give me hope that social conscience is not yet dead in this country.
1
I was never part of the Occupy movement, and am not surprised it petered out as it was always quite small.
Nevertheless, I rate it a success simply because, despite being small and relatively short-lived, it actually accomplished something: it moved the Overton window on inequality. This column is itself evidence of inequality's acceptance as a legitimate subject of public discourse.
Nevertheless, I rate it a success simply because, despite being small and relatively short-lived, it actually accomplished something: it moved the Overton window on inequality. This column is itself evidence of inequality's acceptance as a legitimate subject of public discourse.
2
Among my friends there are two different groups of "poor."
One is the working poor. They have two jobs. They have few skills. They are not educated. These folks would not know how to "rise up" and fear losing their menial jobs if they do.
One is the welfare poor. They play the system. They are in relationships with the fathers of their children but don't marry so they can benefit from single motherhood (tax breaks, refunds, scholarships). They have children and get them easily diagnosed with ATD so they will receive a monthly SSI check for them. The checks don't go to help the child with ATD, however. These folks don't "rise up" because they live comfortably on the system.
One is the working poor. They have two jobs. They have few skills. They are not educated. These folks would not know how to "rise up" and fear losing their menial jobs if they do.
One is the welfare poor. They play the system. They are in relationships with the fathers of their children but don't marry so they can benefit from single motherhood (tax breaks, refunds, scholarships). They have children and get them easily diagnosed with ATD so they will receive a monthly SSI check for them. The checks don't go to help the child with ATD, however. These folks don't "rise up" because they live comfortably on the system.
8
Nobody anywhere lives comfortably on welfare or public assistance subsidies. The amounts are a pittance.
And then here's a 3rd category. People who are broke but not poor.
All over these United States, millions of poor people are blatantly denied health coverage by Republican legislatures and governors. Why don't these convert into millions of anti-Republican voters? In Florida, Charlie Crist ran for governor against Rick Scott and lost, even though there are far more Democrats registered than Republicans. Never once did Crist attempt to recruit voters from the 800,000 persons denied health insurance by Rick Scott. Why why why?? I thought the election should have been a slam dunk for Crist. Exactly the same thing happened in Texas and Kentucky. The Republicans have just done it again in the most recent Florida legislative session. The means for overthrow of the Republicans is at hand in most red states, yet no Democrat seems smart enough to go after this voting block, which is now non-voters. Wake up, you guys!! How much more power is just waiting to be handed to you!!
5
As another commentor said, Americans are a docile people. As long as they have cable tv and don't get too fat to get themselves to Walmart, they don't care. And there's always the emergency room for health care. They don't seem to see anything wrong with taxpayers footing the bill for that, but do object to AHCA as a form of "socialism".
There is an old theory in history: revolutions only happen when things start to get better. When things are getting worse, most people are so busy trying to keep their head above water that they have no time or inclination to work for change.
To the extent this theory is correct, it would explain why the people controlling the direction we have been headed have to keep things getting worse.
To the extent this theory is correct, it would explain why the people controlling the direction we have been headed have to keep things getting worse.
3
The sad truth is that Americans are very docile people. I know that we like to thump our chests and put "Don't Tread On Me" bumper stickers on our trucks as we go shopping at Wallmart, but we've really been raised to "Get 'Er Done" and to please our bosses whatever is asked of us. The dirtier the job the better, the lower the pay the better --- it just gives us better characters and allows us to criticize others who complain about their lives.
Plus, the Industrial Revolution has been around for a long time, and the managerial class has decades and decades of crowd-control research and methods to put into play. Now the airlines are telling us we have to throw out all our carry-on luggage as what was once standard carry-on size is now inconvenient and "over-sized." So we now have to buy the smaller size until that is deemed too large. We are a docile people.
Plus, the Industrial Revolution has been around for a long time, and the managerial class has decades and decades of crowd-control research and methods to put into play. Now the airlines are telling us we have to throw out all our carry-on luggage as what was once standard carry-on size is now inconvenient and "over-sized." So we now have to buy the smaller size until that is deemed too large. We are a docile people.
27
When there is a burgeoning middle class in America we have seen greater access to wealth and upward mobility. The second half of the 18th Century and the second half of the 20th Century both saw historic revolts against the aristocrat class.
The aristocrat class doesn't like this kind of thing one bit and have always fought back; this time they have convinced the poor working white stiff that the poor working black stiff is the enemy, not just competitor but enemy.
And enough under-informed white (mostly) men bought the line and the aristocrats are winning again.
Europe went through its throes of fascism in the first part of the last century and with our help threw off the yoke eventually. I hope we here in America are just sniffing fascism around the edges and are not going to take the big bite of it. Fascism usually doesn't go away with a ballot once it is voted in...it usually takes bullets.
The aristocrat class doesn't like this kind of thing one bit and have always fought back; this time they have convinced the poor working white stiff that the poor working black stiff is the enemy, not just competitor but enemy.
And enough under-informed white (mostly) men bought the line and the aristocrats are winning again.
Europe went through its throes of fascism in the first part of the last century and with our help threw off the yoke eventually. I hope we here in America are just sniffing fascism around the edges and are not going to take the big bite of it. Fascism usually doesn't go away with a ballot once it is voted in...it usually takes bullets.
61
When the vast majority of us have nothing left to lose, there will be a reckoning. What you have described is a very bleak, frightening and maybe not so distant future that previously has only been the subject of fiction, depicted in movies, novels, etc. It feels very much like we're about to live the story in real time, and fills me with dread. It didn't have to be this way.
4
In other words . . .
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. (Note the word "transitional")
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. (Note the word "transitional")
Have you noticed that countries that profess to be communist, like China, and places that used to profess to be communist, like Russia, have economic systems today that are very much like a country that professes to be capitalist, like the United States? All are governed by leaders who are very much tied to a system of oligarchy that appropriates wealth and opportunity for benefactors while suppressing the impulse of the citizenry to share in the prosperity. I'm less afraid of communism than I am of people who would suppress our people because of their conditioned fear that the bogey man of communism beckons.
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
― Leon Trotsky
― Leon Trotsky
The process of increasing individualization is certainly being promoted by the American right-wing's emphasis on a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest worldview. The irony, of course, is that those who reject biological evolution are now the strongest advocates of social Darwinism.
35
When people lose hope they are not inclined to take action to improve their lot. In America today, nearly all of the cards of power are in the hands of the wealthiest among us. The middle class and poor don't feel they have any way to improve things for themselves. They don't have time to revolt, and they don't think it would do good anyway. They don't think that their vote counts. Sadly, their lives will need to get much worse before they act, and that act will be out of desperation.
3
For the same reason most (but not all) "poor" don't try to succeed in school, fail to seriously seek employment and advancement, allow others to provide a marginal level of subsistence for them and blame someone else for their dissatisfactions. Doing nothing is easier then actually doing something for yourself. Just not as rewarding.
5
"According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
Even the Census Bureau cannot change the fact that one fifth of the population occupies the bottom fifth, income wise. I think this is a perfect place to utter "Duh".
Even the Census Bureau cannot change the fact that one fifth of the population occupies the bottom fifth, income wise. I think this is a perfect place to utter "Duh".
5
This article is the reason I buy the Times. It is too bad that Cable News, could not take time out from covering jail breaks, plane crashes, Trump, and the latest shooting to give 10 minutes to some serious analysis of social, economic, and political trends. Even when they try, they turn the analysis over to a group of pundits who are permitted to tell us how they think the world works, followed by their prediction of the day, based on nothing more then their credential as a pundit.
2
For years I have been saying this nation needs an employee revolution.
I guess the closest we could get was Occupy Wall Street and that didn't go so well. No real leadership. The leaders who were so instrumental in charge of yesteryear are gone, or old, and it just seems there is no one to take their place.
Think about it - if even elections are bought and paid for by the rich - what chance do the poor have????
I guess the closest we could get was Occupy Wall Street and that didn't go so well. No real leadership. The leaders who were so instrumental in charge of yesteryear are gone, or old, and it just seems there is no one to take their place.
Think about it - if even elections are bought and paid for by the rich - what chance do the poor have????
3
Increasingly people have value to the corporations only to the extent that they provide cheap labor and consume things. The poor are worthless, or less than worthless to the extent that they impose uncompensated costs on the corporate system. Anyone who can't see what's coming as the corporate need for people is reduced by growing computer power and robot sophistication is a Pollyanna. Get used to stepping over the sick and dying in the streets because the rich will not care as they fly over in their helicopters on the way to their private jets to be whisked away to their guarded compounds around the world. As wealth and power worldwide becomes concentrated in the hands of a few million people all the rest of us will be free to enjoy our "individuality" as long as we don't make a fuss.
3
I spent years organizing the poor and homeless. Despite some success in the end class struggle was impossible to pull off for several reasons. One, the poor are divided by race and that is a significant hurdle in a multi-ethnic society where different ethnic groups seldom cooperate. Second, the welfare state has we know it has changed substantially since the Reagan administration in the 80's. The massive HUD cuts forced thousands of people into homelessness. Many of whom I worked with in the nonprofit world of providing emergency social services. Unbelievably, the bread crumb assistance provided by charities and churches did pacify the vast majority of homeless people from protest and organizing. Third, at the same time Reagan was gutting social programs in the 80's the crack epidemic swept across urban America and diverted the urban poor into the criminal justice system. Its effects are still seen today in urban violence, poverty and nihilism.
In sum, race, poverty pimps (charities), and drugs have thwarted class struggle more than Senator McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and the Red Scare of the 50's.
In sum, race, poverty pimps (charities), and drugs have thwarted class struggle more than Senator McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and the Red Scare of the 50's.
9
What this article still doesn't answer is why the poor don't vote. For all of its flaws, US democracy gives the poorest citizen the same vote as the wealthiest. But they are marginalized in politics because they don't actually use that power, even though they have it. If the poor voted at the same rates as the more fortunate, the political system would respond much more to their needs.
287
When one works 2 or 3 jobs, then needs to give the rest of themselves to the welfare of their children, taking time off on a Tuesday to vote is no little matter.
Automatic registration at birth, as with a SS #, combined with online voting, call in voting (easy to verify who's on the line BTW), voting booths at work places, et al and the official day of voting a Sunday, would offer equal opportunity at the ballet box for all our fellow citizens.
Blaming the poorest citizens for not voting is somewhat akin to blaming the slaves for not rioting – the 2nd Amendment as written, was in large part a compromise with the slave owners who wanted to be certain their employees could always be fully armed to make certain the slaves knew a revolt would result in their immediate death by gun fire.
Automatic registration at birth, as with a SS #, combined with online voting, call in voting (easy to verify who's on the line BTW), voting booths at work places, et al and the official day of voting a Sunday, would offer equal opportunity at the ballet box for all our fellow citizens.
Blaming the poorest citizens for not voting is somewhat akin to blaming the slaves for not rioting – the 2nd Amendment as written, was in large part a compromise with the slave owners who wanted to be certain their employees could always be fully armed to make certain the slaves knew a revolt would result in their immediate death by gun fire.
3
plus, republicans are using gerrymandering and voting restrictions in the name of "fraud" to keep people from voting
3
There haven't been candidates who have both a message that resonates with poor and the resources of media access and media exposure to instill confidence that circumstances can change. The poor don't worry about capital gains tax rates or carried interest treatment of unearned income.
There isn't much of a change of an "uprising" to succeed. Local police departments, which take direction from the wealthy and powerful, are armed to the teeth with military weaponry. Action against any kind of "rebellion" would result in any number of American Tiananmen Squares.
4
The demonstrations for raising the minimum wage is an example of working poor trying to improve their lives. The attempts at unionization is another example. There are powerful forces working against these efforts.
29
47% of the population in the south before the civil war were slaves. Why was there no uprising to gain their freedom? Obviously, they did not enjoy slavery. It was fear and intimidation. We have massive incarceration of the working poor. To suggest that the working poor are really happy with their lives is patently absurd.
418
...and what about the loathsome "47%" comment that was instrumental in Mitt Romney's loss in 2012? It goes far further than Hitler, because it implies that 47% of Americans--some 150 million people--somehow deserve to vanish at no cost to the rest.
I hope Americans realize they are being gamed, and get out and vote this time. The candidate whose comments best address their concerns--and the blunted promises of the Constitution and Amendments--is Bernie Sanders. I hope he blows away the cobwebs in the Democratic Party, and that a refreshed Democratic Party flushes out the hate, greed, and Axis-like nastiness that the GOP has become.
I hope Americans realize they are being gamed, and get out and vote this time. The candidate whose comments best address their concerns--and the blunted promises of the Constitution and Amendments--is Bernie Sanders. I hope he blows away the cobwebs in the Democratic Party, and that a refreshed Democratic Party flushes out the hate, greed, and Axis-like nastiness that the GOP has become.
1
There is no suggestion in this article that working poor people are happy with their lives. In fact, the writer seems clearly to assume that they are not. The question posed is: why haven't the working poor done more collectively to do something about their plight?
Many, many, uprisings -- even with fear and intimidation. No one accepts their enslavement.
The collective social action is still alive and well in the plutocracy. Large numbers of people are consciously organized and acting in union to trod on the downtrodden.
Why no "movement" from the poor? The entertainment industry that includes the news media has become a far, far better "opiate of the masses" than religion ever could have been with magical thinking. Paradoxically, for a Marxist, if a collective action for the poor was to emerge it would come from religion. On a global scale, that is the economic story of Islam. In the USA, a new Pope is being heard to speak about the poor.
Think about this for a moment. Could there be a "Bill Maher" type entertainer that rallies laughter on behalf of the poor? The environment, the LGBT movement, the daily knuckleheadedness of D.C. are easy targets for collective guffawing. But the poor? What dreamy demographic audience is available for that program? All television is really "pay per view" in the end, and the poor just can't pay...and to your point, they would probably not want to watch.
Why no "movement" from the poor? The entertainment industry that includes the news media has become a far, far better "opiate of the masses" than religion ever could have been with magical thinking. Paradoxically, for a Marxist, if a collective action for the poor was to emerge it would come from religion. On a global scale, that is the economic story of Islam. In the USA, a new Pope is being heard to speak about the poor.
Think about this for a moment. Could there be a "Bill Maher" type entertainer that rallies laughter on behalf of the poor? The environment, the LGBT movement, the daily knuckleheadedness of D.C. are easy targets for collective guffawing. But the poor? What dreamy demographic audience is available for that program? All television is really "pay per view" in the end, and the poor just can't pay...and to your point, they would probably not want to watch.
10
The corporate state tolerates some forms of protest but not others.
Protest groups and movements centered around racial identity, gender, and sexual orientation are tolerated. The best example is the LGBT community, who have made enormous progress over the past couple decades in their battle for equal rights. Many corporations have actually been supportive of LGBT rights (Disney comes to mind).
Workers rights, however, is a direct challenge to the corporate state and is not tolerated at all. Labor unions have declined, and corporations will remind their employees that their jobs can be sent overseas if the employees organize and protest. And, even if the employees behave, their jobs are often sent overseas anyway.
When there is a case of discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, there is an immediate expression of outrage from the media and many politicians and business leaders. However, when a thousand people get laid off and their jobs are sent overseas, there is barely a wimper, perhaps a small blurb on the Bloomberg and CNBC news tickers.
Protest groups and movements centered around racial identity, gender, and sexual orientation are tolerated. The best example is the LGBT community, who have made enormous progress over the past couple decades in their battle for equal rights. Many corporations have actually been supportive of LGBT rights (Disney comes to mind).
Workers rights, however, is a direct challenge to the corporate state and is not tolerated at all. Labor unions have declined, and corporations will remind their employees that their jobs can be sent overseas if the employees organize and protest. And, even if the employees behave, their jobs are often sent overseas anyway.
When there is a case of discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, there is an immediate expression of outrage from the media and many politicians and business leaders. However, when a thousand people get laid off and their jobs are sent overseas, there is barely a wimper, perhaps a small blurb on the Bloomberg and CNBC news tickers.
40
The poor and the middle class need to recognize the false dichotomy of the two party system. They are both wholly allied in preserving and strengthening the structures that provide the plutocracy with power and wealth. They are allied in tax code, labor law, trade agreements, banking regulations, campaign finance, etc. These are the levers that maintain their power and wealth.
Instead the middle focuses on canards designed to divide people who otherwise might be allied. Abortion, race, gender, guns, sexual orientation etc. These are meaningless issues to those in power except that they are very powerful tools to divide people. See how many comments a column about abortion in Texas gets compared to comments on the inefficacy of the FEC in ensuring a fair election. It is pathetic. Abortion rights are meaningless to these people. But abortion sure distracts everyone from hedge fund carried interest.
Make no mistake, the GOP and Dems are united in what really matters to them. Vote for Hillary or Jeb - your choice. But don't think you are voting for actual change to the things that maintain the status quo.
Instead the middle focuses on canards designed to divide people who otherwise might be allied. Abortion, race, gender, guns, sexual orientation etc. These are meaningless issues to those in power except that they are very powerful tools to divide people. See how many comments a column about abortion in Texas gets compared to comments on the inefficacy of the FEC in ensuring a fair election. It is pathetic. Abortion rights are meaningless to these people. But abortion sure distracts everyone from hedge fund carried interest.
Make no mistake, the GOP and Dems are united in what really matters to them. Vote for Hillary or Jeb - your choice. But don't think you are voting for actual change to the things that maintain the status quo.
328
Thank you, CassidyGT, for getting deep to the roots of the "presenting problem" in Edsall's essay. The political structure of society in the USA since ratification and implementation of the constitution has resisted any change that would help produce more flexibility in policy-making, legislation and enforcement for the betterment of the needy. Our president is an elected king (maybe queen in near future) for 4 or 8 years and our congress the nobility that essentially supports that monarch, while arguing with him/her over secondary issues. Politics in the USA is a way for cynically ambitious people to achieve the good life, and good luck to everybody else.
1
Well put!
It sounds a bit like nostalgia for mass movements, mass protest, revolutions, economic ideologies about class, labor, 'El Pueblo Unido', marching in the streets.
A few things have changed: Mass protest simply doesn't work anymore, they don't care. We protested in the streets in unprecedented numbers prior to the Iraq invasion/occupation, yet nothing changed policy, electorate retreated to 70% complicity with the new Vietnam, & went back to their martinis.
Another is that ideologies have been categorically proven wrong. There simply is no overarching doctrine that people have fought for in the past which has worked. The one good idea that has come out of all the revolutions, empires & production labor struggles, is individual liberty. And when that became law, it was never the rule. Even Liberty has been abused by fear-mongering ideologues for twisted agendas.
The myth of 'Labor', as in 'Jobs, jobs, jobs', organizing big labor against abusive Big Business became irrelevant when production was outsourced & automated.
But we do have suddenly the tools for a new kind of liberty, the technological geniuses have offered individuals the means for true self-determination. Whether we can each use those tools to make a real living remains to be seen, but this is an unprecedented option.
As for mass movements of the poor, perhaps they're not yet poor enough. When Famine sets in, then there may be bread riots, and the aristocracy sent to the Guillotine.
A few things have changed: Mass protest simply doesn't work anymore, they don't care. We protested in the streets in unprecedented numbers prior to the Iraq invasion/occupation, yet nothing changed policy, electorate retreated to 70% complicity with the new Vietnam, & went back to their martinis.
Another is that ideologies have been categorically proven wrong. There simply is no overarching doctrine that people have fought for in the past which has worked. The one good idea that has come out of all the revolutions, empires & production labor struggles, is individual liberty. And when that became law, it was never the rule. Even Liberty has been abused by fear-mongering ideologues for twisted agendas.
The myth of 'Labor', as in 'Jobs, jobs, jobs', organizing big labor against abusive Big Business became irrelevant when production was outsourced & automated.
But we do have suddenly the tools for a new kind of liberty, the technological geniuses have offered individuals the means for true self-determination. Whether we can each use those tools to make a real living remains to be seen, but this is an unprecedented option.
As for mass movements of the poor, perhaps they're not yet poor enough. When Famine sets in, then there may be bread riots, and the aristocracy sent to the Guillotine.
3
Maybe because the majority of the poor realize that class mobility is still possible through hard work, education, and good decision making. Most of those who qualify as poor today are not the same people who are poor tomorrow due to mobility.
The real question is why is there a group of poor who despite trillions of dollars being spent on the War on Poverty can't seem to care for themselves and get trapped in a generational cycle of poverty and despair? What are they doing differently from those who do not remain poor?
How is that some immigrants barely speaking English go from taxi cab driver to doctors or business owners in one generation, but you can have three generations of a family living in a housing project?
I suspect liberals don't want to delve deep into the these questions because to do so requires a lot of self reflection on the policies they promote and if they may actually be the root cause.
The real question is why is there a group of poor who despite trillions of dollars being spent on the War on Poverty can't seem to care for themselves and get trapped in a generational cycle of poverty and despair? What are they doing differently from those who do not remain poor?
How is that some immigrants barely speaking English go from taxi cab driver to doctors or business owners in one generation, but you can have three generations of a family living in a housing project?
I suspect liberals don't want to delve deep into the these questions because to do so requires a lot of self reflection on the policies they promote and if they may actually be the root cause.
5
"The answer is that those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are irrelevant to the agenda-setters in both parties."
Those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are on the edge between the comfortable who earn enough to get by and grow 401Ks, and the working poor who qualify for supplements like the earned income credit. They feel shame compared to the former for not having bettered themselves and resentment compared to the latter for paying taxes without the benefits they see others getting. You may find them working between middle management and the cleaning staff, hearing life-style stories from both. The working class is subdivided. Expectations that their elected officials or anyone else will hear them is non-existent. Organize? Connections among disparate groups hanging by their working fingertips must first be developed. If they could just let go of one hand to reach out to another group, then maybe... .
Those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are on the edge between the comfortable who earn enough to get by and grow 401Ks, and the working poor who qualify for supplements like the earned income credit. They feel shame compared to the former for not having bettered themselves and resentment compared to the latter for paying taxes without the benefits they see others getting. You may find them working between middle management and the cleaning staff, hearing life-style stories from both. The working class is subdivided. Expectations that their elected officials or anyone else will hear them is non-existent. Organize? Connections among disparate groups hanging by their working fingertips must first be developed. If they could just let go of one hand to reach out to another group, then maybe... .
1
In other words, be careful what you wish for. You have to pay for it.
Americans value independence over almost everything else. It's who we are. That's a statement, not a criticism. It's allowed us to be one of the most innovative and wealthiest nations on earth for over a century.
But that comes with a price. People are expected to act independently, and are looked down upon when they don't. Social welfare is seen as an admission of defeat rather than a right. Those who can't, or won't, make their own decisions can't keep up with those who thrive in the face of uncertainty and risk.
Americans value independence over almost everything else. It's who we are. That's a statement, not a criticism. It's allowed us to be one of the most innovative and wealthiest nations on earth for over a century.
But that comes with a price. People are expected to act independently, and are looked down upon when they don't. Social welfare is seen as an admission of defeat rather than a right. Those who can't, or won't, make their own decisions can't keep up with those who thrive in the face of uncertainty and risk.
1
Excellent column Mr. Edsall. While the less well off are alienated from each other, the affluent are very organized. The corporation is the dominant organization form of our age. The outcome of the competition between business organizations and individuals has been a total rout.
Why don't the poor organize? One factor has been the conversion of our national dialogue into a monologue, from the one to the many. Television, which belongs to the wealthy, talks to you, it doesn't listen. People don't debate issues among themselves today, they just repeat broadcast memes they have ingested in the way they eat fast food without considering what's in it. The dominance of broadcast media may prevent the formation of a nucleus of dissent. The internet may change that, but so far it seems to be an agent of fragmentation rather than organization.
Why don't the poor organize? One factor has been the conversion of our national dialogue into a monologue, from the one to the many. Television, which belongs to the wealthy, talks to you, it doesn't listen. People don't debate issues among themselves today, they just repeat broadcast memes they have ingested in the way they eat fast food without considering what's in it. The dominance of broadcast media may prevent the formation of a nucleus of dissent. The internet may change that, but so far it seems to be an agent of fragmentation rather than organization.
1
It would appear that we rise up over issues we are lead to protest. The unseen hand herds all us individuals into a protesting group, leads the cheers, and succeeds in getting us do the work of knocking down policies and legislation those unseen hands don't like. Apparently, the myth of individualism has not died. It's been co-opted. On the other hand, we choose to be lead to issues that will, ultimately, benefit us somehow. How do we convince the herds that poverty at one end of the spectrum and obscene wealth at the other is not a good situation?
What good does protest do? If you don't have the proper permit, you are arrested. Witness the massive protests against the Iraq war and the protests at the Republican convention in NYC: protesters were either ignored (former) and relegated to pens far from any meaningful message (latter).
People can be arrested for nothing (your word against an untruthful policeman) and it takes a great deal of time and money to extricate yourself, something poor people have in short supply.
The Occupy Wall Street protests were promising, but in the end police brutality won out. Wait for the dead of night and then roust and confiscate everything while the cameras are off. The only real concrete thing people can do is register to vote and then vote their consciences. But both parties have been co-opted by the one percent, so that avenue has been largely muzzled.
What is an honest citizen to do?
People can be arrested for nothing (your word against an untruthful policeman) and it takes a great deal of time and money to extricate yourself, something poor people have in short supply.
The Occupy Wall Street protests were promising, but in the end police brutality won out. Wait for the dead of night and then roust and confiscate everything while the cameras are off. The only real concrete thing people can do is register to vote and then vote their consciences. But both parties have been co-opted by the one percent, so that avenue has been largely muzzled.
What is an honest citizen to do?
2
Let's go back to the most fundamental reason that social action is not present - "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses). We don't have large masses starving in the streets, and we do have mass entertainment. We also have the perfection of turning one group of the poor against another, instead of against the plutocracy. Finally, when one is economically threatened, one turns to the right instead of the left (until having nothing more to lose).
It took an army of homeless, starving, unemployed in the 30s to get the New Deal. What will it take now?
It took an army of homeless, starving, unemployed in the 30s to get the New Deal. What will it take now?
22
When have the poor ever risen up?
Most movements are fomented by groups of educated people of means who see themselves as deserving more influence than they have.
Look at the American Revolution, for example. Hancock, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were not peasants.
Simon Bolivar came from an aristocratic family. Castro's father was a well to do sugar cane farmer. Lenin's father was a Russian nobleman and his mother came from a wealthy family.
Even Cesar Chavez came from a family that had owned property and businesses, before losing them during the Great Depression.
The poor don't rise up. They either lash out in unproductive ways, or suffer. Some improve their lot over time, though. How about some stories about the latter group?
Most movements are fomented by groups of educated people of means who see themselves as deserving more influence than they have.
Look at the American Revolution, for example. Hancock, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were not peasants.
Simon Bolivar came from an aristocratic family. Castro's father was a well to do sugar cane farmer. Lenin's father was a Russian nobleman and his mother came from a wealthy family.
Even Cesar Chavez came from a family that had owned property and businesses, before losing them during the Great Depression.
The poor don't rise up. They either lash out in unproductive ways, or suffer. Some improve their lot over time, though. How about some stories about the latter group?
3
Yes, you're right. The poor don't want to take over the world: they just want to get a fair deal and a chance at social mobility. They're not getting that in America right now.
I believe the whole concept of "class" is rather medieval, if understood in the sense of a fixed position you are born into.
I believe the whole concept of "class" is rather medieval, if understood in the sense of a fixed position you are born into.
I think that all of the hopeful thinking about people banding together to show economic solidarity and to force some positive change or better distribution of income is, for the moment, unfortunately, just wishful thinking.
I was very much persuaded by Picketty - in a part of the world where population growth is slow, economic dynamism suffers and more people wind up in the same general percentile of income distribution as their parents. Meanwhile, if returns on capital exceed the economic growth rate, wealth begins to concentrate. This further constrains economic dynamism.
Wealth and power go together. In a nation with a less opportunity and more concentrated wealth, individuals, naturally, seek to protect their own progeny from the possibility of sliding down the income scale and become really unwilling to band together with those below them for overall group improvement.
If we could band together, better taxation policy could radically improve our economic dynamism and better distribute income gains in the next generation. The wealthy would still be wealthy and we would still have strong incentives to work hard and earn more, but the rules would, at least by my definition, be more fair and share the spoils across generations according to our own contributions (by skill, luck, hard work, whatever).
Then we would all feel better about building our economic platform to support everyone and we could show solidarity.
I was very much persuaded by Picketty - in a part of the world where population growth is slow, economic dynamism suffers and more people wind up in the same general percentile of income distribution as their parents. Meanwhile, if returns on capital exceed the economic growth rate, wealth begins to concentrate. This further constrains economic dynamism.
Wealth and power go together. In a nation with a less opportunity and more concentrated wealth, individuals, naturally, seek to protect their own progeny from the possibility of sliding down the income scale and become really unwilling to band together with those below them for overall group improvement.
If we could band together, better taxation policy could radically improve our economic dynamism and better distribute income gains in the next generation. The wealthy would still be wealthy and we would still have strong incentives to work hard and earn more, but the rules would, at least by my definition, be more fair and share the spoils across generations according to our own contributions (by skill, luck, hard work, whatever).
Then we would all feel better about building our economic platform to support everyone and we could show solidarity.
1
Might it be because the average lower-middle class person (who has benefitted least from the asset-inflation-driven, Potemkin recovery) understands that simple redistribution is never the answer. Real economic growth, built on a foundation of savings and investment, rather than debt-fueled "spending" for spending sake, is what makes prosperity. Keynesian "demand" management and ever increasing government intervention and regulation of the economy and business has never been, and never will be, the answer, and people know it.
It would seem then, given the challenging new conditions that this piece lays out with admirable clarity, that if simply voting is the highest form of self-advocacy activity it's reasonable to expect of today's American poor, then voter turnout drives might be the most efficacious place for interested folks to apply their supportive energies.
2
The main point of this article is that the incessant push for equal rights for non-mainstream groups (e.g., gays, the overweight, the disabled, etc.) has resulted in the complete irrelevancy of the needs of the poor; however, with the advent of Obamacare, some of the poor, at least for now, have access to basic medical care (of course, the imminent Supreme Court decision on health insurance subsidies may change this in some states.) One possible factor leading to this phenomenon is most likely the continuing decline of religion in America. After all, the "eye of the needle" appears to be getting bigger with each passing year.
2
The poor are exhausted by simply trying to get by from day to day. With no extended family, cohesive neighborhoods or unions to support them they are drained of hope and energy. The poor have neither the time nor the energy to become involved in political activity or protests. With inadequate health care, lack of daycare, and often working multiple jobs when will they ever be able to find the time to rise up?
20
What is missing from this article is any mention of the outright violence used against those who seek to protest and change the current and continuing exacerbation of inequality. For example, Occupy was suppressed by the police and politicians (even liberal ones) because it it brought attention to the collusion between the rich, the justice system and politicians of all stripes to advance an agenda that disproportionately benefited the 1%. Nowhere in this article is there any real consideration of the impact of neoliberal capitalism as a system and the control of the media by a narrow band of the wealthy to promote their interests over those of the rest of the population.
6
"...64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
I know that you mean well, Mr. Edsall and I guess that your piece is otherwise useful but you lost me early on with this particular statistic. Not only do 64 million live in the bottom quintile, but a like number live in the fourth quintile, another 64 million in the third, 64 million in the second and 64 million in the first. That's what makes a quintile a quintile, each is a 20% slice of the population, in this case based on household income. When our population reaches 350 million the bottom quintile will have 70 million. That's not a prediction, just a math fact.
I know that you mean well, Mr. Edsall and I guess that your piece is otherwise useful but you lost me early on with this particular statistic. Not only do 64 million live in the bottom quintile, but a like number live in the fourth quintile, another 64 million in the third, 64 million in the second and 64 million in the first. That's what makes a quintile a quintile, each is a 20% slice of the population, in this case based on household income. When our population reaches 350 million the bottom quintile will have 70 million. That's not a prediction, just a math fact.
13
I know, right? What is the income/wealth cutoff for each quintile? What is the mobility between quintiles over an x year period? There are a lot of metrics one could provide, but that isn't one of them.
The idea of sacrificing a bit for the collective good is simply no longer common, and certainly not fashionable. Unions have been dismissed as irrelevant, now that we feel responsible only for our own job security and promotion. Most Americans think that pasting a yellow ribbon on the back of a car represents legitimate support for the young men and women who were sent to wars with no just cause other than profit for the military suppliers / contractors. We have become a selfish nation who simply cannot see beyond our own needs.
However, I think Mr. Edsall's conclusions are a bit premature. Historically, most voters felt there was a real choice between the two major parties----but recent years have demonstrated that this is simply a lie. Both parties are beholden to the same Wall Street / corporate interests, and the differences are purely cosmetic. When the vast majority of working Americans realize that they no longer have control of any aspect of life and work (not too far in the future), the people will rise up and demand justice. It will not be pretty, because most Americans no longer have any common cause or purpose beyond their own personal safety, and the NRA has made sure that almost everybody has a gun. I honestly hope that I am dead and gone before this happens----it tears my heart apart just thinking about the future my grandchildren will face.
However, I think Mr. Edsall's conclusions are a bit premature. Historically, most voters felt there was a real choice between the two major parties----but recent years have demonstrated that this is simply a lie. Both parties are beholden to the same Wall Street / corporate interests, and the differences are purely cosmetic. When the vast majority of working Americans realize that they no longer have control of any aspect of life and work (not too far in the future), the people will rise up and demand justice. It will not be pretty, because most Americans no longer have any common cause or purpose beyond their own personal safety, and the NRA has made sure that almost everybody has a gun. I honestly hope that I am dead and gone before this happens----it tears my heart apart just thinking about the future my grandchildren will face.
2
For all our strutting and posturing, the Average American is scared and alone. In part, it is due to the destruction of unions. An individual stands before his boss and has no bargaining power. And the ironic thing is that blue collar workers simply handed their lives over to the whims of the ownership class when they voted for Reagan and voted for right to work. The Democrats more or less abandoned them because they are instinctively Republican and constantly vote against their own interests.
4
There has always been a class that makes its living by extracting wealth from the general population through taxes. The biggest difference is that, historically, the serfs never called for higher taxation. They acquiesced. The great innovation in the US is that we have a segment within the masses calling for even greater exploitation to be imposed on themselves.
I'm not sure that the poor have ever risen up. They have joined uprisings of disaffected populations in the center; but they have always needed to be lead. The poor have always been too busy surviving to allocate time to civic demonstration.
Individualization is a symptom of working class and middle class malaise that is preventing energy for dynamic deliberation from taking root. Individualization, with its illusory payoffs, was sowed and nurtured by those at the top who like things just that way they are.
Individualization is a symptom of working class and middle class malaise that is preventing energy for dynamic deliberation from taking root. Individualization, with its illusory payoffs, was sowed and nurtured by those at the top who like things just that way they are.
2
Another thought: we thrive on tradition. The tradition of wealth is adored and protected. So, too, is the tradition of poverty. We tend not to consider it the same, way, but it is just as powerful--perhaps more so--than the practice of maintaining and supporting wealth.
The difference in "risk assumption" is not addressed. People with little to average income have been assigned far more risk, via the end of defined benefit pensions and extreme income distribution. The risk assumed by corporations and the ultra-wealthy has been socialized -- the government pays if/when they fail. At some point, perhaps after the next economic meltdown, that will spur a response. The power of the media as controlled by 20 second ads paid for by the select few will eventually fade as well.
3
The poor have not "risen up" because they are already benefiting from a wide array of govt safety-net programs to help them: Food Stamps, SS Disability, education benefits through today's scaled-down welfare program, public housing in many localities, Medicaid health benefits, etc.
There is widespread support for raising the minimum wage to enable the working poor to take care of their families without having to rely on Food Stamps. But there will never be a "shared belief", as Mr. Edsall terms it, in the "obligation of the state to secure the well-being of the citizenry". It's that kind of "communist-sounding" rhetoric that derails movements like Occupy Wall Street. When Democrats utter the word "redistributive" most people grab for their wallets to protect them and then go out and vote Republican in the next election. The phrases that reach Americans are "level playing field", "opportunity", "fair shot", etc. If the Democrats hadn't been so focused on redistributive language & policy the past 50 years, the 1% never would been able to steal the country right out from under us.
There is widespread support for raising the minimum wage to enable the working poor to take care of their families without having to rely on Food Stamps. But there will never be a "shared belief", as Mr. Edsall terms it, in the "obligation of the state to secure the well-being of the citizenry". It's that kind of "communist-sounding" rhetoric that derails movements like Occupy Wall Street. When Democrats utter the word "redistributive" most people grab for their wallets to protect them and then go out and vote Republican in the next election. The phrases that reach Americans are "level playing field", "opportunity", "fair shot", etc. If the Democrats hadn't been so focused on redistributive language & policy the past 50 years, the 1% never would been able to steal the country right out from under us.
117
That's it, honey, blame the victims! Buy into the demonization of all who are different or somehow "lesser."
The only way people like you learn their lessons--taught constantly in churches but falling largely on deafened ears--is to live in a place like Germany in 1945, which reaped what it had sown in other countries with compounded interest--ruin and rape.
The only way people like you learn their lessons--taught constantly in churches but falling largely on deafened ears--is to live in a place like Germany in 1945, which reaped what it had sown in other countries with compounded interest--ruin and rape.
.....and THAT appeasement has allowed entrenched interest to amass huge wealth and prosperity.
The problem with civilization is that it has to find a way to deal with the huge spectrum of human disparity that is driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.
Conservatives, approach this problem by trying to "correct" nature's error in producing people who are not like them. They do this by coming up with ever new ways to disenfranchise, suppress, and oppress such people.
On the other hand, the progressive, liberal, commies among us attempt to incorporate and leverage disparity on the premise that our historical success as humans has been built on the very disparity that conservatives would repress.
All success in life is a product of happenstance because that's the way that our Universe works. EVERY SINGLE MOLECULE IN OUR UNIVERSE is a part of a particle of matter or of a particle of energy depending on its happentantial time and place, and tomorrow it could be the opposite just because its happenstance has changed.
There is no perfection; there are no absolutes (except change); and, for humans, there is only the temporary pursuit of a better tomorrow in the hope of finding a place where perfection and absolutes might be possible.
Conservatives are just looking for shortcuts that allow them to avoid the work associated with the pursuit of that better place by imagining that their personal world is perfect and absolute.
The problem with civilization is that it has to find a way to deal with the huge spectrum of human disparity that is driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.
Conservatives, approach this problem by trying to "correct" nature's error in producing people who are not like them. They do this by coming up with ever new ways to disenfranchise, suppress, and oppress such people.
On the other hand, the progressive, liberal, commies among us attempt to incorporate and leverage disparity on the premise that our historical success as humans has been built on the very disparity that conservatives would repress.
All success in life is a product of happenstance because that's the way that our Universe works. EVERY SINGLE MOLECULE IN OUR UNIVERSE is a part of a particle of matter or of a particle of energy depending on its happentantial time and place, and tomorrow it could be the opposite just because its happenstance has changed.
There is no perfection; there are no absolutes (except change); and, for humans, there is only the temporary pursuit of a better tomorrow in the hope of finding a place where perfection and absolutes might be possible.
Conservatives are just looking for shortcuts that allow them to avoid the work associated with the pursuit of that better place by imagining that their personal world is perfect and absolute.
So wanting a fair share of the pie has caused the 1% to be even more greedy, and those with some wanted to keep what they have. Sounds like 1% logic to me.
1
The only real solidarity in the US is in its interlocked directorship.
4
Fundamentally, they don't rise up in this country because they don't see their shared interests with other groups of poor people. Particularly in the South, poor whites see government intervention that would create a more fair society as an unfair gift to black people. They don't see that they have more in common with blacks than the Republicans they support. And elsewhere, we fight about immigrants coming in and taking "our" jobs instead of wondering why, in a rich country, our lives hang by a thread, which our employer can take away at any moment.
682
As the article notes, there is a profound lack of solidarity among the several groups that make up the impoverished which precludes a violent insurrection from very real living conditions wherein I would expect it, based on historical events. The Latin American immigrants, which are now the dynamic community on the rise, have no solidarity with the blacks, a decliining forece, while poor whites, which in numbers (as opposed to per cent of population) are the largest group un poverty, are manipulated by the ruling classes, much like the majority of non-slave owning southern whites during the Civil War, by the canard that they are more like their wealthy bretheran racially and are led to believe that they have the opportunity to advance through work into the ruling class.
History also shows, as has been pointed out by commentators here, that the poor do not initiate or lead rvolution but that such are stirred up by the educated and professional classes just below the ruling class, almost always in the name of the "people." There are instances of peasant revolts throughout history, in the European middle ages through the precursors (Hidalgo and Morales) to the successful Mexican war of independence from Spain. which after some temporary success through murder and looting are brought to heel after the rulers organize and proceed to inflict horrible casualties on the mob.
Finally, the very poor are limited by the daily fight for survival.
History also shows, as has been pointed out by commentators here, that the poor do not initiate or lead rvolution but that such are stirred up by the educated and professional classes just below the ruling class, almost always in the name of the "people." There are instances of peasant revolts throughout history, in the European middle ages through the precursors (Hidalgo and Morales) to the successful Mexican war of independence from Spain. which after some temporary success through murder and looting are brought to heel after the rulers organize and proceed to inflict horrible casualties on the mob.
Finally, the very poor are limited by the daily fight for survival.
2
The only thing in common that any poor folks or even middle class folks have in common with Republicans is an empathetic response to Republican messages of hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry.
Other classes just vote for them because that's who they are!
Other classes just vote for them because that's who they are!
Good point. With such effective propaganda from such media outlets as fox "news", etc. We can be distracted from more fundamental, pocketbook issues.
The poor have never had the time, energy, education, health and of course money to better their lot. The current problem is they also have no leaders.
241
Obama is an example of an egalitarian leader. Note the helter-skelter, shot gun reaction that he got from entrenched interests and the malcontents who march to their divisive messages of hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry.
Egalitarian leaders are simply not welcome in a world of successfully entrenched interests, and must be exceptional to overcome the slings and arrows of self interested power.
The weakness of fairness is that it accepts and respects the rights of the unfair among us.
Egalitarian leaders are simply not welcome in a world of successfully entrenched interests, and must be exceptional to overcome the slings and arrows of self interested power.
The weakness of fairness is that it accepts and respects the rights of the unfair among us.
The middle class always leads in successful revolutions: France 1789, America 1776. We are reaching the point where the kids of the middle class will start the revolution the US needs to purge itself of the vestiges of the police state and plutocracy it supports.
Maybe the question is less "Why Don't the Poor Rise Up?" (because the poor rarely lead revolutions, since they're busy surviving) than "Where is the educated revolutionary elite?" Have they been scattered too by individualization?
39
Divide and conquer. Pit the scared middle class against the unfortunate poor. That's what the rich and business class, with the help of mostly republicans, has been so successful at doing. First they stripped away defined benefit pensions and started 401ks, etc to benefit the blood sucking investment banks. Heads we win, tails you lose!! Ordinary people are rightfully scared, who knows what rug will be pulled out next. Sadly, they have been stupid sheep, believing the likes of Fox News, blaming the poor instead of the wealthy and powerful. This country is on a downward arc with following the slow demise of the middle class. The fallacy of U.S. Exceptionalism will put the nail in the coffin.
133
The US is exceptional only in its production of weapons and its military budget. That is why it has been in multiple wars since its last win, WW II. No other country has over 735 military bases and hundreds of drone bases in over 120 countries.
1
Conservatives see any organized protests from the poor and working poor as a direct attack on them. When the right-wing smear machine springs into action any protests simply can't withstand the onslaught of demonization from FoxNews, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al and the local governments that take their marching orders from them.
5
Both arguments are, I think, compelling. What might have been considered luxuries at one time- cellphones and electronic equipment, for example, are abundant among people of all income strata, allowing a sense of participation in the material goods that are prominent in the culture. Such material participation offers an appeasement, even if others might have more "stuff."
But at every income stratum. as the author argues, lies a lack of willingness to forego personal gains for the public good or an inclination stronger than taking a principal stand to protect ones personal position while leaving others to take the risks. There is a lot of giving lip service to supporting risky and dramatic gestures but little of truly standing elbow to elbow, in fact and body rather than in commentary from the sidelines, with those taking the risks.
There is also the problem of people's undermining the effectiveness of protests when a few people use the situation opportunistically for private rather than collective ends. Those who turn serious protests into a carnival of violence and looting are examples. Serious people then stay away because they do not want to be associated with these actions or image.
But at every income stratum. as the author argues, lies a lack of willingness to forego personal gains for the public good or an inclination stronger than taking a principal stand to protect ones personal position while leaving others to take the risks. There is a lot of giving lip service to supporting risky and dramatic gestures but little of truly standing elbow to elbow, in fact and body rather than in commentary from the sidelines, with those taking the risks.
There is also the problem of people's undermining the effectiveness of protests when a few people use the situation opportunistically for private rather than collective ends. Those who turn serious protests into a carnival of violence and looting are examples. Serious people then stay away because they do not want to be associated with these actions or image.
A well written article and gathering of facts for evaluation. What seems clear is ,Obama was elected twicw by capturing this demographic being written about . Hope and change was but Rhetoric but it offered some hope for the non franchized. Now it is clear, Hillary is courting the same demographic. The issue of individualism is a powerful component for change. Our dysfunctional political system can only cope with special interest that in turn benefits them.
1
Dan,, Just hope those fooled by Obama twice and now being tried by Hillary think about what they were promised and what they got.
Yes some now have health care but they still don't have jobs.
I think a job is more important to a persons over all heath than a card in a wallet.
Democrats and Liberals talk about creating jobs and inequality but never do anything to make it better.
Yes some now have health care but they still don't have jobs.
I think a job is more important to a persons over all heath than a card in a wallet.
Democrats and Liberals talk about creating jobs and inequality but never do anything to make it better.
2
Police power might have a bit to do with it as well. SWAT teams, armored vehicles, jails and the problem of finding a job and having any kind of criminal record of any kind for any reason. "Man the barricades" also means living under a bridge for the rest of your life.
How many people got arrested for attending a Wall St. protest? Or for protesting nead a political convention?
Lots. Many simply rounded up for no more than being in the area.
Repression comes in many forms.
How many people got arrested for attending a Wall St. protest? Or for protesting nead a political convention?
Lots. Many simply rounded up for no more than being in the area.
Repression comes in many forms.
62
Ed, so true. Add to the fear of police, there was fear of retribution during Occupy, from employers. I was scared to death that someone from my right wing company would see me so I sat it out. I was scared to write letters to the editor in support of it for the same reason. I disagree with Mr. Edsell that press coverage was favorable of occupy-- i found it malicious and it ridiculed the participants.
Labor movements would now be very difficult to resurrect. The "low cost" of consumer goods in first-world countries is largely based on the global redistribution of labor under different legal regimes. Hence cheaper clothes, TVs, cells phones, etc., and quiescent populaces. Capital can mediate the dispersal with computers, but effectively organizing labor globally through computers is more difficult, perhaps impossible.
For equality today, the best approach would be twofold.
First, debt repudiation. Specifically among student cohorts. The debt repudiation must be coupled with radically progressive taxation of the sort proposed by Picketty. Phased repudiation of national debts should be coupled to a Tobin tax on global financial transactions. After all, money is a public utility owned by the taxpayers and citizenry.
Second, hacking. Information, including patents and copyrights, is still being privatized under 18th century land-based property laws. This is already constraining technology, research, and innovation in utterly irrational ways. The main "capital costs" of information technology is the legal cost of preventing free distribution.
Hacking, pirating, publicizing, and "deprivatizing" corporate information must become a priority for the young and able, as the value of their computer skills falls on the labor market. The aim should be make "information" impossible to "own." After all, as Wittgenstein noted, a "private language" is a contraction.
For equality today, the best approach would be twofold.
First, debt repudiation. Specifically among student cohorts. The debt repudiation must be coupled with radically progressive taxation of the sort proposed by Picketty. Phased repudiation of national debts should be coupled to a Tobin tax on global financial transactions. After all, money is a public utility owned by the taxpayers and citizenry.
Second, hacking. Information, including patents and copyrights, is still being privatized under 18th century land-based property laws. This is already constraining technology, research, and innovation in utterly irrational ways. The main "capital costs" of information technology is the legal cost of preventing free distribution.
Hacking, pirating, publicizing, and "deprivatizing" corporate information must become a priority for the young and able, as the value of their computer skills falls on the labor market. The aim should be make "information" impossible to "own." After all, as Wittgenstein noted, a "private language" is a contraction.
11
The poor do not rise up because they are of two camps. The one camp which strives through hard work to better their lives and their families and the other group which is addicted to Government handouts. The former group looks at the successful rich not as people to punish but emulate while the latter form the core of the Democratic party. This group's sole goal is to feed at the government trough and participate in such protests as Ferguson and Baltimore. In summary the first groups want to become makers while the second are just takers.
8
I've been to upstate New York. And the poor whites of that impoverished region, hiding behind the Finger Lakes and wineries, don't have any place to work. They're idle and heroin addicted. Are they the more deserving poor you're talking about? That dig at black people couldn't be more obvious. It's not so black and white as you think. Many white poor, tucked away in Appalachia, Pennsylvania, and other rural back waters, tell themselves they're superior because despite their deprivation, poor education, drug dependency, and joblessness, at least they're white.
4
I think that many of those you castigate as "just takers" have been beaten down for so long that they've given up . Others for various reasons have never had a chance.
There are also those among us who are brainwashed to vote against their own best interests by slick manipulation.
There are also those among us who are brainwashed to vote against their own best interests by slick manipulation.
2
Thanks for this well-reasoned article. The argument that collective action to advance the economic interests of the poor, and even the middle class, is inhibited by "individuation" in social structures and in the way most people perceive the world seems very plausible and it provides a powerful explanation.
As a contrasting point, however, many aspects of modern life (e.g., politics, religion, residential neighborhoods, sources of information) show that people tend to identify very strongly with their separate in-groups or tribes ("people like me as opposed to to the despised outsiders") and to adopt opinions on many issues that are in all line with the prevailing opinions in one of the opposing groups. This tendency to identify and conform seems to go against the individuation thesis, but still the question remains: Why do most people who buy into the white working class mindset adopt social and political attitudes that conform to the in-group norms but are contrary to an earlier-era broad working class solidarity?
As a contrasting point, however, many aspects of modern life (e.g., politics, religion, residential neighborhoods, sources of information) show that people tend to identify very strongly with their separate in-groups or tribes ("people like me as opposed to to the despised outsiders") and to adopt opinions on many issues that are in all line with the prevailing opinions in one of the opposing groups. This tendency to identify and conform seems to go against the individuation thesis, but still the question remains: Why do most people who buy into the white working class mindset adopt social and political attitudes that conform to the in-group norms but are contrary to an earlier-era broad working class solidarity?
4
A blizzard of sociological terms and scores of underlined links that glazes the eyes and confuses even a person who is sympathetic to the outlook. Is this a newspaper, or a college classroom where the students had better try intensely to ferret out what the professor is trying to say, or fail the course? Can't individualization be described more directly and understandably so it rings a bell in the average intelligent reader? And isn't the unorganized state of the millions of fast-food workers and other corporate serfs simply the result of lack of courage, fresh thinking and dedication by the traditional labor unions?
1
With regard to the comment about Occupy Wall Street, as the linked article makes clear, Occupy Wall Street lacked a goal/focus, with no action plan bringing on the same fate as that of water-cooler gripes at work.
The difference between SOPA and Occupy Wall Street is best understood by looking at 1%-ers' support of SOPA, which we know from empiric studies like Princeton's Gilens/Page paper:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer...
determines political/economic policy.
Our political representatives no longer represent anyone except their donors and their own personal interests, not even trying to hide the fact, proudly proclaiming self-interest as be-all/end-all nirvana.
The difference between SOPA and Occupy Wall Street is best understood by looking at 1%-ers' support of SOPA, which we know from empiric studies like Princeton's Gilens/Page paper:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer...
determines political/economic policy.
Our political representatives no longer represent anyone except their donors and their own personal interests, not even trying to hide the fact, proudly proclaiming self-interest as be-all/end-all nirvana.
15
i vote for the Stockholm Syndrome: victims identify with their oppressors. The "what's-in-it-for-me?" notion has replaced the "us" of labor, the war generation and even the hippies. The "us" is growing among blacks, hispanics, gays, women, and the 99%. We're here. The media just doesn't work for us.
30
All three reasons for a lack of protest have to do with consumerism.
1 - "Cost of many goods"
2 - "financial demands"
3 - "cost of goods"
The Romans had it figured out: "Bread and Circuses" (What major city does not have a HUGE football stadium? And baseball. And basketball. And now soccer is coming on strong.)
This handwringing simply masks a fundamental truth. People get the government they deserve.
1 - "Cost of many goods"
2 - "financial demands"
3 - "cost of goods"
The Romans had it figured out: "Bread and Circuses" (What major city does not have a HUGE football stadium? And baseball. And basketball. And now soccer is coming on strong.)
This handwringing simply masks a fundamental truth. People get the government they deserve.
17
I think that Mr. Edsall overstates the role of individualization in this phenomenon. Clearly the ideology of the individual has overtaken politics to a significant degree and it has massively influenced the political process--for the worst, I would argue. One of the outcomes of individualism is the idea that each of us is responsible for our own fate. Conversely, what each of us possesses we have "earned" thus those who are poor simply have not worked hard enough to earn enough. Does this sound familiar? Since, according to this ideology, there is no social responsibility for success (or failure to succeed) the poor are responsible for their own poverty and the rich have the right to defend themselves against the poor who might rise up. Of course, this "right" doesn't stop at the gated communities. It is carried into the political environment where a virtual police state has been erected in many poor communities. And as we know, racism is not dead; poor communities are inhabited disproportionately by racial and ethnic minorities and it is in these communities where we might expect the poor to rise up that the police state has oppressed far beyond what you might have read about in the newspaper or seen on TV.
9
A Republican won the race for the 11th Congressional District recently for the most part because blacks in the North Shore of Staten Island failed to vote despite the fact that the GOP candidate was the DA who allowed a grand jury to decide the fate of those who murdered Eric Garner rather than take action on his own. The day after the election, Garner's mother decried this lack of voter participation. So if the poor won't even bother to go to the polls in a situation as clear as this one, where the residual anger over Garner's death should have been a strong motivating factor, it's not surprising that actual rebellion isn't taking place.
Perhaps after the election of a black president and the resulting lack of positive change in their lives, poor blacks have simply given up.
Perhaps after the election of a black president and the resulting lack of positive change in their lives, poor blacks have simply given up.
234
See one of the other NYT Picks comments: poor people are working 2-3 jobs to try to stay out of poverty, which makes getting to the polls harder. Add in attempts to discourage them from voting (Voter ID laws), and voting can seem like a hopeless, pointless task.
1
Our system doesn't do much to keep the voting public motivated in the interest of the public good. In fact, most of our political dollars go to 'muck raking' dedicated to the denigration of the both the opposition and the system itself by people who are pursuing mammon. And most of our information sources (including the news itself) are dedicated to the delivery of negative information.
The underlying problem is the overall complexity of our current society, and that complexity is a direct result of our population density, our distribution of wealth, and the compounded effects of advances in communications, transportation (the effective reduction in the size of the planet itself). We now live in a the stress of a virtual world of continuous and instant negativity. We need more sources of enlightenment and hope (aka, REAL enlightenment and hope, not the 'fairy tale' mystical kind).
Back in the good ole days of 1776, all knowledge and consequences were local, and there was always the hope that something or somebody, somewhere would open new horizons. Now in the days of 2015, all knowledge and consequences are global, and the failures and despotism of human kind are 'in our faces' continuously.
Back in 2008, the essence of the 'Obama doctrine' was to bring new honesty, hope, and transparency to governance. He was, of course, instantly falsely condemned and denigrated for everything BUT hope, honesty, and transparency. We should revisit the spirit of 2008.
The underlying problem is the overall complexity of our current society, and that complexity is a direct result of our population density, our distribution of wealth, and the compounded effects of advances in communications, transportation (the effective reduction in the size of the planet itself). We now live in a the stress of a virtual world of continuous and instant negativity. We need more sources of enlightenment and hope (aka, REAL enlightenment and hope, not the 'fairy tale' mystical kind).
Back in the good ole days of 1776, all knowledge and consequences were local, and there was always the hope that something or somebody, somewhere would open new horizons. Now in the days of 2015, all knowledge and consequences are global, and the failures and despotism of human kind are 'in our faces' continuously.
Back in 2008, the essence of the 'Obama doctrine' was to bring new honesty, hope, and transparency to governance. He was, of course, instantly falsely condemned and denigrated for everything BUT hope, honesty, and transparency. We should revisit the spirit of 2008.
Your comment appears to conclude that the only poor people in this country are black.
Not so.
This kind of stereotyping might very well contribute to why "the poor" don't rise up. What is needed is for "the poor" of ALL stripes to band together in solidarity, in the realization that their plight is identical, and make their voices heard.
Not so.
This kind of stereotyping might very well contribute to why "the poor" don't rise up. What is needed is for "the poor" of ALL stripes to band together in solidarity, in the realization that their plight is identical, and make their voices heard.
1
Our economic and social system is all about competition. We teach our children at a very early age that they are in a "race to the top" against one another. You will find very little solidarity in that kind of climate.
41
The best I've yet seen to encapsulate the individualization trend is Jared Bernstein's formulation: WITT versus YOYO, that is, We're In This Together v. You're On Your Own. Usually this is used to explain the progressing breakdown of the social contract attendant on the right's insistence on YOYO, as a means to starve poor and working classes of support and to suppress unions. Liberals, including all the civil rights and union activists, all those espousing universal health care and a living wage, fall the in WITT camp.
It is understandable that with all the pressure from the YOYOs, the underpaid classes and unemployed simply don't have the wherewithal to participate in organized protest, let alone outright rebellion.
But we do have the model of Moral Mondays in North Carolina, now spreading elsewhere.
And Occupy Wall Street did all us WITTs the service of providing the indelible meme of the 1% and 99%. Some say OWS failed, but the truth is, it was the opening salvo.
It is understandable that with all the pressure from the YOYOs, the underpaid classes and unemployed simply don't have the wherewithal to participate in organized protest, let alone outright rebellion.
But we do have the model of Moral Mondays in North Carolina, now spreading elsewhere.
And Occupy Wall Street did all us WITTs the service of providing the indelible meme of the 1% and 99%. Some say OWS failed, but the truth is, it was the opening salvo.
75
No guts.
No REAL leaders in leadership positions.
No REAL leaders in leadership positions.
4
That's because someone killed all the leftist leaders or placed them in jail before they even got started. It used to be getting jailed for principle was revered, now being jailed for any reason except insider trading is reviled. Imagine if President Obama had been arrested for pot. Would he be a world leader today?
1
At first blush, the steady decline in union membership would account for the lack of rebellion against social and economic injustice. Certainly the aggressive attacks against unions by policy makers starting with President Reagan's dismantling of the air traffic controllers union have demonized "socialist" unions.
Equally important is the general shift in this country to the right and the emergence of libertarian thinking. There has been the steady drumbeat of personality responsibility for your life and its consequences, giving short shrift to institutional and social policies that block access to opportunity and basic rights. This dates back to President Kennedy's famous words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". President Obama has championed personal responsibility throughout his presidency as well, scolding black families and black men for their shortcomings, and telling them to rise above the economic and social inequities...if I can do it, so can you mentality. Which essentially denies the many resources available to whites, middle-class and upper-class Americans, that aren't available to the poor.
The notion that we are enjoying new personal freedoms and rights is all smoke and mirrors; the same rights and freedoms won by African American's, LBGT community, the disabled, etc. are the same rights enjoyed by white heterosexual god fearing Americans without any cost or risk, their rights came with privilege.
Equally important is the general shift in this country to the right and the emergence of libertarian thinking. There has been the steady drumbeat of personality responsibility for your life and its consequences, giving short shrift to institutional and social policies that block access to opportunity and basic rights. This dates back to President Kennedy's famous words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". President Obama has championed personal responsibility throughout his presidency as well, scolding black families and black men for their shortcomings, and telling them to rise above the economic and social inequities...if I can do it, so can you mentality. Which essentially denies the many resources available to whites, middle-class and upper-class Americans, that aren't available to the poor.
The notion that we are enjoying new personal freedoms and rights is all smoke and mirrors; the same rights and freedoms won by African American's, LBGT community, the disabled, etc. are the same rights enjoyed by white heterosexual god fearing Americans without any cost or risk, their rights came with privilege.
191
Unions killed themselves by turning leadership over to ineffective leadership (self serving, short sighted, despots and even crooks) who made it their job to loot the system, the employers, and the members.
The failure of Unions was due to a lack of effective leadership, a lack of government regulation, and/or a 'starve-the-beast-like' action of conservative interests determined to insure their demise through implosion.
In any event, it worked. Unfortunately, labor won't have much of a voice in the coming age of robots and artificial intelligence, but the broader impact on the population at large may provide incentive for a more honest approach to the representation and balance of labor against capital........and we all better hope that's true.
The failure of Unions was due to a lack of effective leadership, a lack of government regulation, and/or a 'starve-the-beast-like' action of conservative interests determined to insure their demise through implosion.
In any event, it worked. Unfortunately, labor won't have much of a voice in the coming age of robots and artificial intelligence, but the broader impact on the population at large may provide incentive for a more honest approach to the representation and balance of labor against capital........and we all better hope that's true.
3
"e pluribus Unum" has been replaced by "Egote meam habeo, ergo disistamus! "
or "I got mine, so let's quit"
or "I got mine, so let's quit"
10
After reading this article I was still left wondering why those suffering most, those in the lowest quartile of our economy, don't rebel. "The answer is that those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are irrelevant to the agenda-setters in both parties." That answer seems to raise the question, not answer it. If those in calling the shots are turning a deaf ear, wouldn't that eventually lead to, at least voices, of rebellion? What am I missing?
10
Agree. The article didn't answer the question clearly. Why don't the poor rebel, take to the streets and demand the attention of "those calling the shots?" I guess the obvious answer is that their lives aren't all that bad. Obviously not bad enough to rise up.
People rise up against what makes them angry, such as police treatment of black males. Apparently, their socio-economic position and opportunities don't make them angry enough to rise up in numbers that get the attention of the agenda setters. Maybe the reason is kind of hidden in the article. If you'll pardon the overgeneralization, they can get a 55" TV at Rent-a-Center. I guess they feel it's not so bad an existence.
People rise up against what makes them angry, such as police treatment of black males. Apparently, their socio-economic position and opportunities don't make them angry enough to rise up in numbers that get the attention of the agenda setters. Maybe the reason is kind of hidden in the article. If you'll pardon the overgeneralization, they can get a 55" TV at Rent-a-Center. I guess they feel it's not so bad an existence.
3
Many of the lowest quartile of our economy are African-American, and suffer the cultural heritage of passive resistance. Slaves didn't revolt because when they did the repression was savage and effective. They could, however, "go slow". drop the baby, spit in the soup, etc. So many readers of the recent novel "The Help" laughed when reading about the pie made with excrement. Now, this unconscious heritage is hampering economic progress of the individuals in the community. Disdain and active hostility for education. The incessant striving for transitory pleasure. Inability to defer gratification etc. Goals and hope are needed. People who want change for this group which urgently needs change need to provide more of that and secure attempts to achieve it.
1
What Edsall is talking about here - "you are on your own" - is the insidious, sweeping, ultimate success of conservative ideology and propaganda. The Kochs won, and they won a long time ago. All of society has been engineered to be an opiate of the masses.
45
They don't rise up because they are afraid. Afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of arrest (and possibly being killed in the process). They are also tired - they work all the time, then when they are home they are cleaning, shopping, cooking, helping their kids/parents, fixing the car, etc.
862
The focus has shifted from collective action to identity based movements (for example LGBT rights). Try talking about class consciousness to anyone who is not an egghead and you will certainly get a blank stare. One of the failures of the Occupy movement was an inability to articulate specific goals and a reluctance of organize into a movement. Again the culprit was, to no small extent, this notion of individualization that Edsall discusses in his excellent essay.
3
They know that their privations and misery are seen by the rich and the elites as a result of their own behavior and "poor choices". They have no advocates, no one as a group or entity that will stand with them. The politicians, corporations and governments are out to get them--to exploit their labor, steal their health and their time, destroy them with stress, and walk over them as they live on the streets. Poverty equals failure in a capitalistic world.
2
I am not poor, but that sounds like my life, my wifes life and my parents life.
The original state of man, working cooperatively together in small groups for survival, has been replaced by everyone for themselves. Which is more "civilized"?
91
what is a business, if not a small group (at least relative to the overall population), working together cooperatively for survival?
1
Or 'Christian'
2
"Everyone for themselves" is visible throughout corporate America; groups are evaluated and force-ranked on a curve; those on the bottom, whatever their abilities may be, are either fired, relegated to lower ranking and lower paying duties, or otherwise forced out. This policy was prevalent for some time at General Electric Company and popularized by the vaunted Jack Welsh. In such an environment, where is the incentive to help or assist your co-worker? At the same time, employers constantly advocate and preach "teamwork." The clear underlying message is "you're on your own."
1
Summing up, The United States of America as The Greatest Nation no longer is.
59
There is a cultural component to American individualization, as well. It's what Frankfurt School philosopher Theodore Adorno called "personalization." Instilled in us by mass culture, personalization compels people to believe that they can overcome great odds, meet great challenges, and accomplish great things entirely on their own. When he wrote this, Adorno was referencing the "Hollywood system" of the 1940s and 50s, where films centered around celebrities and the cult of the superstar. Today, however, even our fictional representation are deeply personalized. The biggest Hollywood films today are about superheroes, singular men or women who take on unfathomable evil and win, always.
The opposite of personalization is, of course, class consciousness, where people recognize their solidarity with others. There are signs that the middle class--not necessarily the poor--are becoming aware of their precarious position as a whole group. And remember, Mr. Edsall, it's not the poor who rebel. It's the disaffected middle--those who have the time and energy to theorize the corruption around them. History has shown that to be true again and again.
The opposite of personalization is, of course, class consciousness, where people recognize their solidarity with others. There are signs that the middle class--not necessarily the poor--are becoming aware of their precarious position as a whole group. And remember, Mr. Edsall, it's not the poor who rebel. It's the disaffected middle--those who have the time and energy to theorize the corruption around them. History has shown that to be true again and again.
131
"And remember, Mr. Edsall, it's not the poor who rebel. It's the disaffected middle--those who have the time and energy to theorize the corruption around them. History has shown that to be true again and again."
-- EXACTLY. I find it hard to believe that a man like Tom Edsall does not realize this. It is almost always the middle class that either leads these revolts or does the revolting.
-- EXACTLY. I find it hard to believe that a man like Tom Edsall does not realize this. It is almost always the middle class that either leads these revolts or does the revolting.
3
There is another example of personalization that is more specific, namely the hero entrepreneur job creator.
4
I guess the writer doesn't know any U.S. history.
The U.S. government has a long record of viciously and brutally suppressing discontent among the discontented.
Why would the poor want to worsen their already bad situation?
The U.S. government has a long record of viciously and brutally suppressing discontent among the discontented.
Why would the poor want to worsen their already bad situation?
69
People who New Yorkers consider to be "poor", in Red states, do not see themselves as put upon nor do they see themselves as poor. Those who do, blame New York, Washington and Wall St. for their difficulties, not their own politicians. It has always been this way in the US. Our federal system of separate state governments allows for it. This is why Europeans have such better living standards--they avoid the infighting that results from interstate disagreements.
2
Wise up, man! The viciousness was largely unleashed by big business. They controlled mobs of strike-breakers, they controlled the police, and they controlled Congress. Big Business!!
5
This is why, Mr. Edsall, "There is very little social support for class-based protest – what used to be called solidarity." It is very costly, socially and professionally, to speak up in America today. The backlash is immediate and vicious. In the 1960s it seemed that most major media supported average Americans and democracy and actually reported the news so we were knowledgeable about what is going on in OUR country. That changed when Ronald Reagan gutted antitrust laws and allowed the wealthiest to buy up their competition, the results of which is most evident in our right-wing news propaganda today. It has taken Americans a long time to wake up but we are in the dawn of a new awakening - that THIS is not the kind of America the vast majority of us want to live in and we are going to VOTE for Change on November 8 and in all elections in the foreseeable future.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-me...
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-me...
206
Ronald Reagan (or the people pulling his strings) gutted . . . the fairness doctrine under which the FCC required holders of broadcast licenses for the public airwaves to fairly present both sides of controversial issues.
1
I like the thought that soon we'll mount the barricades and sing the Marseilles, but I doubt we, as a society, are ready to accept how badly we've been used. Frankly, it's embarrassing, and we're in no mood for embarrassment. Better to ignore the problem, and wait for the better days that will never come if we don't act.
We are all sheep now.
We are all sheep now.
2
There are discrete groups of poor and marginalized rising up against inequality in violent paroxysms, e.g. Clive Bunden, Dylann Read, the couple who killed the policeman in Nevada, and Baltimore and Ferguson. The groups have yet to determine that the real fight is not among other marginalized groups for scarce resources but it is with the hoarders who control the scarce resources and dole them out.
And air conditioners may be a factor in suppressing revolution but the larger factor is more than likely drugs and alcohol.
And air conditioners may be a factor in suppressing revolution but the larger factor is more than likely drugs and alcohol.
25
And TV.
3
Individualization is the ultimate manifestation of divide-and-conquer. It's one thing to divide whole classes of people or interest groups against each other, but it's so much easier when we individuals are persuaded to see our neighbors or co-workers as rivals.
400
Historically, the poor have tended to suffer their condition rather than trying to change it. What they have done is tolerate oppression and hunger until they could no longer and then went on violent rebellions. They never tried to change the system that oppressed them, they simply sought a relief from their miserable condition. The reasons range from ignorance, to lack of means, to lack of education. Someone remarked once that a person remains poor because he doesn't know how to get out of poverty. I presume that this means that the person does not have the imagination, intelligence, opportunity, whatever to improve his condition. The improvement of poor people has always come about through the efforts of the middle class, that sector of society that came to understand that economic conditions are not divine injunctions but political and economic systems that can be altered. I don't know how much of this is still prevalent but it is evident that the decadence of the unions is another proof of the difficulty that the poor (that is, the poor as a group, not as single individuals) have in improving their condition.
I was amused to notice that in talking about poverty, the author mentions as palliatives the fact that air-conditioners, cellphones, and computers have come down in price. Compare this concept of poverty with real poverty, say the US poor in first part of the 20th century, not to mention the poor people in Latin-America and Africa.
I was amused to notice that in talking about poverty, the author mentions as palliatives the fact that air-conditioners, cellphones, and computers have come down in price. Compare this concept of poverty with real poverty, say the US poor in first part of the 20th century, not to mention the poor people in Latin-America and Africa.
206
It is true that the material lives of America's working poor are not typically as oppressive as those of past generations or of the urban poor in developing nations today. But if you try to get by in this country on an income of less than $1000 (or $2000 or even $3000, depending on location and family size) a month you quickly discover how difficult it can be to keep a roof over head and food on the table. The vast majority of poor people live lives of constant stress and desperation where even a small financial setback can quickly snowball into a major disaster such as lost employment, eviction, or incarceration. As a Federal reserve study revealed just last week, two thirds of Americans earning less than $40K/year would be unable to come up with $400 in an emergency without borrowing or selling something. And for the poor life is usually one emergency after another.
368
I would say that the poverty stricken in many areas have many forces at play keeping them poverty stricken. The glints of entrepreneurship shown by those who turn to marketing drugs, for example, is not taken as a sign of business skill. People will use the tools they are provided to make a living for themselves; the dominant society gets to determine if the tools are legal; if not, we get to stomp them out.
5
Yes, political systems can be altered. As a master level macro social worker, I find myself constantly repeating this fact to my friends and family in the middle class who despair that their vote does not matter since elections are all about money. I see the middle class and educated increasingly being lulled into the notion that they have no voice, no power to create change. When many don't vote, do not bother to engage in protest, or participate in letter writing campaigns or boycotts, I suppose they do not have a voice and that political systems are indeed intractable. This is very sad. I have seen unpopular decisions like SB 1062 in Arizona stopped in their tracks due to public outcry. In SC, the horrible confederate flag may come down and even the son of the late segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond now says he does not honor his southern heritage. The problem is that people stop protesting once they make the smallest gain. The confederate flag will come down but race and income motivated voter suppression will continue. Laws will continue to be passed that undermine the economic security of the poor and middle class (the TPP), and the few who do protest will be dismissed as leftists and professional aggitators.
181
As we gain in the freedom of choice, we lose in the abilities in making a good choice, because of the lack of the accessibility of information.
I do believe in Bayes' theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_efficiency ), if we have consecutive to chose between several option with incomplete informations, we do not multiply our winning options, but our failing options.
Our modern times gave us more freedom, that made us not just more diverge, but also gave us more possibilities to fail in an individual way. We are facing to many different problems to rally with.
Before we get back to a mass movement we need a more rigid live, but no one want's that too.
I do believe in Bayes' theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_efficiency ), if we have consecutive to chose between several option with incomplete informations, we do not multiply our winning options, but our failing options.
Our modern times gave us more freedom, that made us not just more diverge, but also gave us more possibilities to fail in an individual way. We are facing to many different problems to rally with.
Before we get back to a mass movement we need a more rigid live, but no one want's that too.
19
Isn't your message more simply stated that the rich have figured out the principle of "divide and conquer" ???
15
The poor have no voice. They are complacent because no one listens. They are listless rebels with no outlet, no hope and no future. The poor are quiescent because we strike them down if they rise up. Their means of protest can only be acceptance of welfare, crime, poor housing, food stamps and death at an early age.
The great problem is not the acceptance of poverty by the poor but OUR acceptance of the poor and tolerance of poverty. The poor have no power, no voice, no monied friends or lobby in Congress. They are displaced persons who are literally citizens without a country. There is no place for poverty except where we allow it to take hold.
Every exported job from America brings one more person to a life of poverty and hopelessness. When we bring back jobs and industry and create access to education and the middle class poverty will end. We create poverty.