Re:What happens when a culture is driven by the need for mon...
by coldtea on Wednesday November 11, 2015 @09:17PM
(#10550877)
>If upward mobility to achieve great wealth is your concern, surely this means we're heading in the right direction.
No, "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment.
Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns.
To which "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority.
>I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.
What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference though between:
"we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today".
Which might be all well and good, but this "upward mobility" only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy "upward mobility" and social stability for the large masses.
No, "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" is not my concern -- I think I made that clear in the comment.
Upward mobility to middle class, middle class stability (to going back to poverty), and upward mobility from middle class to upper middle class are my concerns.
To which "upward mobility to achieve great wealth" could even be working against -- while itself concerning a very tiny majority.
>I don't think the system is rigged towards benefiting those with already great wealth, but markets have expanded and entrepreneurship has a bigger upside than it has in the past. You don't have to take the analysis I quoted at face value, but just take a look at the richest Americans. No Vanderbilts, Rockefellers or Carnegies.
What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference though between:
"we could only make 10 non-rich people ultra-rich in 1950, whereas we have 1000 non-rich made ultra-rich today".
Which might be all well and good, but this "upward mobility" only concerns a tiny minority, and having a healthy "upward mobility" and social stability for the large masses.