Back to comment on scabies post again... I think jealousy misdirects our focus. Instead of thinking of all the things we don't have and others do, people ought to appreciate what they do have. On Maslov's hierarchy, cable TV and a smart phone is not found. Nor are luxury cars, designer clothes, or iPads.
Our standard of living has grown significantly in a few decades, and even the worse off often have it better than average did in the 1950s.
The America we live in today assumes you have hot water, multiple bathrooms, air conditioning, and at least one car per person, a[n] [apple] laptop for each person, internet, as well as a cell phone with data, cable or dish, a flatscreen TV, blueray, and much larger house than previous eras. (1970s median house was 1400 sq ft, small compared to today's 2200) The average middle-class household is much better off than before, even if everyone will focus on how wages have been stagnant. With globalization and productivity increases, you can get a lot more technology and utility for the money. Sure, commodities have increased in price because of demand, but that is the result of the world economy consuming more to produce all of our toys.
Even the richest person in the 80s didn't have the internet. Nor did they have a phone they could put in the pocket, nor a personal computer. (Maybe a room-sized punch card machine). Yet we take for granted all of these things.
Few people these days understand what frugality is and how to live on less than $40k a year. And if kids understood the real meaning of 'need' vs. 'want', they would be capable of surviving on a lot less income. (Or have a better work ethic for earning what they want) But until people get an appreciation for what they have and what they need to do to get it, then they'll continue to protest the unfairness of the world... even if they enjoy luxuries they have grown accustomed to while many people in the world do without the basics, like clean water, a proper house, or enough food.
If everyone put a fraction of the energy they use up looking up and seeing who has cooler or better stuff than them, maybe a bigger house or newer / more expensive car, and spent it looking around them and volunteering to help the less fortunate... there would be a lot less strife in the country. I don't advocate forced re-distribution through taxes as that is heartless and voting for 'someone else' to help others, instead of doing it yourself.
If there aren't those with more money than they need to survive, then no one would be capable of giving. Socialism ensures equal suffering, while we are free in capitalism to use money as we desire. The less fortunate is not a government problem to solve necessarily, but rather a cultural problem of people too stuck on consuming more. I'd find it much more meaningful for people to donate rather than their money be taken from them as the government dictates. If people care, they should make it known with their own money, or if they don't have any to spare... with their time and effort.
Our standard of living has grown significantly in a few decades, and even the worse off often have it better than average did in the 1950s.
In the early 1950s, fully two fifths of American households had no automobile, about a third did not have a private telephone or a television, and the homes of about a third of all Americans were dilapidated or were without running water or a private toilet and bath. Only a small minority of families enjoyed such basics as a mixer or had a hot-water heater.
Even the richest person in the 80s didn't have the internet. Nor did they have a phone they could put in the pocket, nor a personal computer. (Maybe a room-sized punch card machine). Yet we take for granted all of these things.
Few people these days understand what frugality is and how to live on less than $40k a year. And if kids understood the real meaning of 'need' vs. 'want', they would be capable of surviving on a lot less income. (Or have a better work ethic for earning what they want) But until people get an appreciation for what they have and what they need to do to get it, then they'll continue to protest the unfairness of the world... even if they enjoy luxuries they have grown accustomed to while many people in the world do without the basics, like clean water, a proper house, or enough food.
If everyone put a fraction of the energy they use up looking up and seeing who has cooler or better stuff than them, maybe a bigger house or newer / more expensive car, and spent it looking around them and volunteering to help the less fortunate... there would be a lot less strife in the country. I don't advocate forced re-distribution through taxes as that is heartless and voting for 'someone else' to help others, instead of doing it yourself.
If there aren't those with more money than they need to survive, then no one would be capable of giving. Socialism ensures equal suffering, while we are free in capitalism to use money as we desire. The less fortunate is not a government problem to solve necessarily, but rather a cultural problem of people too stuck on consuming more. I'd find it much more meaningful for people to donate rather than their money be taken from them as the government dictates. If people care, they should make it known with their own money, or if they don't have any to spare... with their time and effort.
Comment