
Why Don’t the Poor Rise Up? - applecore
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/opinion/why-dont-the-poor-rise-up.html
======
bko
I think focusing on income disparity or income growth over time is missing the
point. I personally would rather be making 100k today than 100k in the 1950s.
Hell, I think you'd be better off making 50k today than 100k in 1950s.

Many people in the lower or lower-middle class don't feel that they are really
that bad off, despite what charlatans go on about. Sure, everyone complains
that they don't make enough money or they work too hard, but that's not unique
to any particular socio-economic class.

As Andy Warhol said:

"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where
the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can
be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke,
Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a
Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on
the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good.
Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know
it. "

~~~
Nadya
Andy Warhol's quote is misleading by using only a single example.

How about luxury cars? Multi-million dollar homes? Lobster and steak at a
5-star restaurant? $200,000 _dresses_? $14,000 jewelry? Affording a personal
makeup artist?

Is the average consumer drinking some Henri Jayer or Domaine? No. They aren't
drinking $5,000-$15,000 wine.

On another note - I had no idea there was a bottle of wine worth more than my
_car_. That's a little depressing.

~~~
unethical_ban
I've had the opportunity to taste from a $500 bottle of wine. It it not
substantially better than a $30 bottle. Same with a $150 steak vs. a $50 steak
at a good restaurant.

~~~
pp19dd
Hosted some guests the other night and made steak. They were amazed by how
well it tasted. I took that as a compliment, because they regularly eat
luxurious and expensive food (they work high up in the Cruise Line Industry.)
Was asked what I put in the steak to make it taste so good.

"Salt."

~~~
mikeash
I've had the same thing (although not with people so experienced with the
stuff as you). It's kind of funny how badly people want to season their steaks
when it just doesn't need it.

"How do you make that?" "Salt, cook one side, cook the other side, serve."

~~~
pp19dd
Yeah. Dry-brined the meat for 1 hour with kosher salt and then washed the
steaks right before grilling. Seared both sides for a minute a piece, then
cooked rest over low temperature. It was surprisingly good, even to me.

------
Aardwolf
"According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the
bottom quintile."

Given that there are 320 million Americans and 320/5 is 64, yeah, that
statement is mathematically true...

~~~
Chinjut
Perhaps this should be understood as "You already know, or have been/will be
convinced by the rest of this article, that in the current world, life for the
bottom quintile of Americans is not great. To give some sense of perspective
on just how many people suffer from the problems currently afflicting the
bottom quintile, that's a full 64 million people whose lives are not great."?

~~~
ryusage
I agree. As posted here, out of context, it sounds silly. But in context:

"For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted
dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013.
According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the
bottom quintile."

Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement.

~~~
friism
You're right, but still funny that the author feels the need to invoke the
Census Bureau to back up that piece of arithmetic.

~~~
mikeash
It's strange wording. It would be a lot smoother stated like, "According to
the Census Bureau, there are currently 320 million Americans, which means that
64 million live in the bottom quintile." They ultimately mean the same, but
one version takes a lot more effort to decode.

------
stephengillie
Let's rephrase this question: Why do people remain on the roadways during
traffic jams? Why don't people drive off the road and use the shoulder to get
around stopped traffic?

Why don't people with off-road equipped vehicles just drive thru others' yards
to get around traffic blockages?

Why don't we treat automobile traffic and congested roadways as damage and
route around it?

------
psaintla
I've gotten a lot of hell for saying this but the poor don't rise up because
the floor in the United States is typically not starvation. Social services
are not to help the poor, they are there to make sure the floor in the US is
high enough that the poor don't rise up against everyone else.

~~~
humbleMouse
I think the poor don't rise up because they don't have time. When they aren't
working/taking care of children they are probably relaxing. Ironically, poor
people value their leisure time much more than rich people I would argue.

source: hanging out with broke artists for years

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Ironically, poor people value their leisure time much more than rich people
I would argue.

That's because people tend to value things that are scarce and hard to get.
Leisure time is something rich people have in abundance, since the vast
majority of their wealth comes from land, properties and stocks, and they
don't really have to work to maintain any of it (other people do it for them).

Whereas if you're poor and are working three different jobs to make ends meet,
then you are going to appreciate those 2 hours on Sunday that you get to spend
with your family.

~~~
humbleMouse
Agreed. I would also add to your analysis by talking more about what I have
witnessed firsthand hanging out places like development projects with
subsidized rent.

I have found that if you are a low income worker, you likely don't have the
time/energy to build skills necessary for getting a "real" job.

Furthermore, many low income jobs are during evening hours/don't let you
interact with people that you could leverage to get a real job. As a result of
this everybody you know and are friends with work low income jobs, leaving
little hope for personal networking into a higher-paying "real" job.

Considering all of this, I have witnessed many situations in which people are
dishwashers working just enough hours to qualify for subsidized
housing/foodstamps/other gov cash. These people oftentimes smoke pot/hang out
all the time and their life is actually pretty nice, save fancy vacations and
other frivolous luxuries.

I am not saying this is good or bad, but I just wanted to shed light on the
fact that there are many poor people with plenty of highly-valued leisure
time. These people have no intention of getting a higher paying job because it
is much easier having 15k of w2 income washing dishes 30 hours a week with
some cash-labor work on the side + gov benefits.

MANY of these "poor" people bring in 1-2k/month selling pot and other things
on the side as well. It is EXTREMELY common.

Kind of rambling but I find "poor" people economics very interesting.

~~~
dreamfactory2
given that the bottom quintile is by definition the bottom quintile, what kind
of lifestyle would these people lead in your ideal world?

------
murbard2
Way to overlook the glaring, obvious, collective action problem.

All political power, even that of a dictator with an army of henchmen is held
as the result of a game theoretical equilibrium.

~~~
krmmalik
Genuine question. Can you give me an ELI5 version of your statement? I don't
quite follow the point you're making.

~~~
mikeash
The short version is:

If you stand up and rebel individually, all you accomplish is getting thrown
in jail.

If a million people stand up and rebel one after another, all _they_
accomplish is getting thrown in jail.

If a million people stand up and rebel _together_ , only then do you
accomplish anything.

Getting a million people to rebel together is really hard, because each one is
fearful of running into one of the first two situations instead.

~~~
krmmalik
Ah yes. That completely makes sense. I have been thinking this separately
already. Thank you for explaining it though. I appreciate it. More to the
point I agree with you.

~~~
murbard2
Regarding the second part of the statement...

Take Kim Jong Un. He holds considerable power, yet he is probably not
particularly physically strong. Of course, he could use a firearm, but even
then, he would be fairly easy to stop. However, he has body guard. Besides
loyalty, a good reason for these body guards to obey his orders is that
otherwise they will be arrested and executed. The people carrying out the
arrest will also act on the same incentives.

In the end, there is nothing intrinsically powerful about Kim, there just
happens to be a complex meta-stable equilibrium of incentives which gives him
considerable power.

------
o_nate
I think the more pertinent question is: Why don't the poor vote? Voting rates
in the US are highly correlated with income levels. Apart from blocking
obvious attempts to disenfranchise the poor (such as unnecessary voter ID
requirements), one solution might be to make the election day a national
holiday.

~~~
c22
But many of the places the poor work (retail, restaurants, etc) are open all
year round. It's mostly office workers who get a three day weekend to
celebrate George Washington's birth.

------
Shivetya
Because those who fret over the poor never likely were that poor themselves.
You would be surprised at the contentment you can have when you make very
little as long as the basics are there, a roof, water, food, and TV. Been
there done that.

Seen it too in my professional life when I was doing work for a rent a cop
place. I remember the amazement at the low pay that we paid a good many
guards; being responsible for payroll programming it was a never ending
struggle to make sure you had it all correct. Still the majority of them I met
in my working career there were just fine, some thought it funny they could
get paid to sit in a booth all day let alone be given a uniform.

The media needs truly mad people, politicians need them, and regardless of how
well both segments try to create them they cannot even make people mad or
storming the walls even with calls of racism.

Some of this has to do with the fact that people want to fix things and not
burn it all down to do so. We have matured past that point, namely because
even the poor have a lot to lose now. Old days if you were poor you might not
have much more than what you were wearing so where was the value in that,
today you might have a home, a nice phone, even a ratty car, but they are
yours!

As for OWS, the reason it died out so fast DESPITE the "intense" media
interest was because it was fake, unlike the Tea Party which in many areas is
still as active as day one, OWS was manufactured, made for media, and not some
ground swell of people who truly wanted to change things and put effort
towards that.

------
nyolfen
"This is a world in which the neoliberal ethic of intense possessive
individualism and financial opportunism has become the template for human
personality socialisation. This is a world that has become increasingly
characterised by a hedonistic culture of consumerist excess. It has destroyed
the myth (though not the ideology) that the nuclear family is the solid
sociological foundation for capitalism and embraces, however tardily and
incompletely, multiculturalism, women’s rights and equality of sexual
preference. The impact is increasing individualistic isolation, anxiety,
short-termism and neurosis in the midst of one of the greatest material urban
achievements ever constructed in human history." \--David Harvey

------
SandersAK
Ah the poor, yes, I forgot about that monolithic entity. Individualism you
say? All these poors want to be individuals? Well that doesn't make them very
individual now does it?

The ivory tower is a strange place.

------
kstenerud
Because the poor never lead the charge; the middle class do, once their status
is sufficiently threatened.

------
code_reuse
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing:_The_Science_of_T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing:_The_Science_of_Thought_Control)

an epic science book which attempts to grapple with some of these questions.

from the Wikipedia page:

"Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are
similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar
totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies. These techniques
include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information,
challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages
in a pressurized environment."

It's my view that ^ is generally what is at play with regard to the lower and
middle classes in the United States.

------
peacetreefrog
This is what discussions like this remind me of:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmZRLxnXamM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmZRLxnXamM)

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
Why don't the rich rise up? It's not like they can't notice injustice too.
Unless they are all evil. Is that the tl;dr? Man that's really stupid, because
its really poor thinking, poor thinking that encourages more poverty.

Edit: For example Paul Fussell, a rich kid with anglophilia, rose up and
fought in WWII.

~~~
cobralibre
It's almost as if the rich have other means at their disposal of effecting
change in their interests, whether those interests be in the pursuit of
justice or otherwise.

