I think your language, above, is very indicative of the inability to understand this set of choices. Why is the demand for equal treatment and respect "mere" ? Why is it not something that "actually counts" ?
Don't misunderstand me - I find myself confounded by a lot of these aspects of US culture and politics, but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
I would also like to take issue with the comparison between Larry Ellison and Louis XIV. Yes, LE is very rich and probably has a lot of hidden political levers that are meaningful but there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever and I really am taken aback by the confusion that people in this thread have between wealth and social class.
On the other hand, my entire thesis here is that given enough time, that distinction will blur - so perhaps your confusion doesn't matter.
I'm sure you have, but if you have not you should read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". The ideas you're presenting here may as well have been quoted from it.
Because "demanding" equal treatment and actually getting equal treatment is not the same thing at all. From their doctors, to their "local congressman", to the law, to the restaurants they go to, they'll get entirely different treatment.
Of course the point is moot because those working class american wont be able to afford the same doctors, lawyers or restaurants in the first place, much less make an appointment with their congressman.
>but I think it's worth trying to see something deeper at work than simply "they're dummies".
There is something deeper at work. Several decades of actively making the American public less independent and vocal about their rights (except token rights, like the right to bear guns and ideological issues related to religion etc.), and convincing them either that they are inconvenienced millionaires or that food stamps are the pinnacle of progressive policy.
No. Rights may not, by definition, require taking from someone else.
That's a limited and by no means universally accepted definition of rights, often employed by libertarians, which conveniently aligns with the objectives of the ruling class in the US.
Funny, also, how in your mind "good wages" implies taking from someone (the "job creator"?), while lower wages don't take anything from anyone?
Your wage (which you have a right to, as an employee) is already "taking from someone else".
The "right to work" (part of the universal declaration of human rights) includes taking a job that somebody else could take in your place.
And of course the whole idea that "sane work culture", "good wages" and "vacation days" are stolen from other people is inane. Who do you think the Swiss collectively stole them from?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US voted for, while the USSR, Saudi Arabia and others abstained) does contain the rights to work, leisure, education, among others.
And the European Court of Human Rights, and other legal institutions, make these rights enforceable, too.
So, just saying "there is no such right" falls short.
And that -- the mere demand for equal treatment and respect -- is the only kind of "flat hierarchy" in the US. In every other way, that is, in any way that actually counts, Larry Ellison and Joe 6pack are so different in assets, life prospects for them and their kids, influence, power, etc, that Larry might as well be Louis XIV. Heck, there are European nobles that are more approachable than US businessmen or third rate Hollywood stars in pragmatic terms. So, this flat thing is mostly a founding myth of the US, than any kind of reality.
>But J6P intuitively knows something else: asking for favors alters that relationship and establishes an explicit power balance (as opposed to the implicit one which was obviously there to some degree).
Good wages, sane work culture, vacation days, etc are not "favors". Those are rights. Nobody handed them down to the Swiss people, much less the rich.
That people would think of them as favors to be asked from the rich, as if those are Kings, once again shows how little flat the US system is.
What would be actually flat(ter) would be to have the people enjoy more of the freedom, security, etc that the rich do.