Wealth : 9 out of 10 are wrong in their perception

[tenni]

This has been discussed before. People seem rigid in their beliefs but this is an interesting way of presenting perception of reality, ideal, and the reality of wealth distribution in the USA.

"This pretty much speaks for itself. At 1:05, I get a rude awakening. At 1:41, he starts talking about you. At 2:24, he says a "bad" word. At 3:50, he kind of breaks my brain. At 4:50, he lets you know how broke you really are. At 5:20, he rubs it in. And at 5:50, he points out that reality isn't close to what we think it is. "

Your thoughts?

Do you think this is valid for your country?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&feature=player_embedded

[Annika L]

This is the reality of it. Scary. Unpleasant. And yes, I'm sure some will call you anti-US for pointing it out. *rolls eyes*

Actually, I'd be curious to hear those from "socialist" countries comment...but what he calls "socialism" is what I always thought Communism was supposed to be. Socialism is a bit different, no? Not everyone having equal ownership...but everyone "invested socially"? Or how would you describe it?

[pepperjack]

This is the reality of it. Scary. Unpleasant. And yes, I'm sure some will call you anti-US for pointing it out. *rolls eyes*

Actually, I'd be curious to hear those from "socialist" countries comment...but what he calls "socialism" is what I always thought Communism was supposed to be. Socialism is a bit different, no? Not everyone having equal ownership...but everyone "invested socially"? Or how would you describe it?


George Orwell's Animal Farm; commandment created by the pigs, " All animals are created equal" later modified to " All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others..." Power corrupts...etc. etc.

[BiDaveDtown]

I'm sorry Tenni did you say something? I dozed off. I watched the video and is anyone actually surprised? People who have money should not be required to give it up or give it to random people who have done nothing to actually earn money. If you want money go find a fucking job and actually work.

[tenni]

This is the reality of it. Scary. Unpleasant. And yes, I'm sure some will call you anti-US for pointing it out. *rolls eyes*

Actually, I'd be curious to hear those from "socialist" countries comment...but what he calls "socialism" is what I always thought Communism was supposed to be. Socialism is a bit different, no? Not everyone having equal ownership...but everyone "invested socially"? Or how would you describe it?

Annika
I don't think that Canadians think that they live in a socialist country but we do expect demand certain things that people in your society consider socialism. What is uncomfortable is that we do not have the stats to back up whether we are the same economically or not. We don't have the studies. In the past seven or eight years, we have had a Bush like government that is silencing criticism about economic status of Canadians while the PM Harper preaches about how well he has fixed things. In reality, unemployment is high but not as high as your country. Our government has created the highest deficit in our history but says that it has a plan..none of this is really about wealth exactly though. Supposedly not as high debt or unemployment as the US or Europe. The staticians however are being muzzled but not as much as valid science so reports are slipping out.

There is more talk about inequity in Canada though. Even with what some in your country consider socialism, we still see inequality economically. We just do not have the evidence as far as I know. We did not suffer as drastic a drop in our housing. We have fewer people who lost their house but we do have a middle class on a downward slide..I think but have no proof. Our 1% are as quiet as they can be on their wealth.

What I found interesting is that the reality is even worse than people thought it was. The gap is so much wider than most think.

[BiDaveDtown]

Annika I don't think that Canadians think that they live in a socialist country but we do expect demand certain things that people in your society consider socialism. What is uncomfortable is that we do not have the stats to back up whether we are the same economically or not. We don't have the studies. In the past seven or eight years, we have had a Bush like government that is silencing criticism about economic status of Canadians while the PM Harper preaches about how well he has fixed things. In reality, unemployment is high but not as high as your country. Our government has created the highest deficit in our history but says that it has a plan..none of this is really about wealth exactly though. Supposedly not as high debt or unemployment as the US or Europe. The staticians however are being muzzled but not as much as valid science so reports are slipping out. There is more talk about inequity in Canada though. Even with what some in your country consider socialism, we still see inequality economically. We just do not have the evidence as far as I know. We did not suffer as drastic a drop in our housing. We have fewer people who lost their house but we do have a middle class on a downward slide..I think but have no proof. Our 1% are as quiet as they can be on their wealth. Ah Canada, the country where nothing gets done or acomplished, where your government is majorly corrupt and complacent, who is the bitch of the United States and who just wants to imitate the United States, where political correctness has gone amok, and where criminals including psychopathic and sociopathic teens and children, and adults get a slap on the wrist.

[Annika L]

If you want money go find a fucking job and actually work.

Hmmm...thought you said you watched the video. Those people at those companies who are earning as much in a month as their CEO makes in an hour (i.e., the average wage-earners at those companies) *have* a job, and *are* "actually" working. To reiterate the point, is the CEO really working 380 times harder than those people? Do you honestly believe that hard work in this country translates or leads to decent wages? The video does not present a problem with America's poor...it presents a problem with America's wealthy (or with every who isn't wealthy, depending on how you look at it).

I have a very hard time ingesting the notion that the pro sports player who earns 10x (or frequently much more) my salary is 10x more skllled or productive, or that he works 10x as hard, or does something that is 10x as valuable as I do. But my complaints aren't even about me...I'm reasonably comfortable. But many, many people are working their asses off and can barely hold their household together...often a single illness will sink them. Many of them found 3 jobs and are "actually" working around the clock, and still can't afford a decent life.

[jamieknyc]

Americans have a perception of Canada as being socialistic, even if it isn't. The province of Ontario runs an ad campaign in U.S. business and technology publications boasting that Canada has lower corporate taxes than the United States. But Homer Simpson doesn't read Bloomberg Business Week or MIT Technology Review.

[zigzig]

I heard that in these days the gap between the rich and the poor is much more bigger then it use to be in the past everywhere. Even in South Africa. The president Zuma has at least 7 wives, buys houses worth millions, but the educational system in this country is one of the worst in the world, and many teachers can't get a job here, since the positions are limited in the schools.

[darkeyes]

It does pig me off, Annika, when people who should be questioning what is being done and how, and what our governments do to line the pockets of their m8s...and themselves of course... since the crash the richest have become enormously richer, the banks who caused it have government in their pockets and and running scared, T

The greatest cuts are in the areas which the poor, and not just the unemployed poor need to not thrive, but simply survive... the poor and the sick and the disabled are under pressure as never before as our societies haul ever greater resources away from the poor and impoverished, the struggling and they are branded parasites when we all know just who the real parasites are.. unscrupulous, greedy parasites whose only wish is to keep a large unemployed sector and a massive poor sector just to intimidate every who is not wealthy and powerful into accepting ever greater cuts in their lifestyle and to channel their resources into the pockets of those greedy, nasty selfish parasites who have no more care for any outside of their circle than they do for an insect they may stand on inadvertently. All in it together my backside... it isn't them who are having to surrender their homes because they may have an extra bedroom or 2... who are being shipped into B&B's, whose living standards contract because pay or benefits are much less than inflation, and it isn't the poor and even reasonably prosperous that government move heaven and earth to line their pockets... in my lifetime the wealthy have become obscenely so and our societies much less fair and compassionate......

It is the wealthy and powerful who have garnered to their bosom a massively increased share of the wealth of our countries, and if most people haven't seen any decrease (until the last 4 years) neither has there been any increase... but most people excludes the millions in each of our countries who for the last 30 years have seen more poverty, greater hardship, less opportunity than at any time since the 1930s... most are not lazy or parasites as some would suggest.. most would just like some fairness and opportunity to rise out of their squalor..people should not be incensed about the "parasitical" poor. but they should get really worked up and place the blame fairly and squarely on those who are responsible and who have made it so... and they should get up off their arses and do something about it!!!

No one can tell me that keeping a family of 4 healthy and prosperous on a hundred or so quid a week is being a parasite... not when in the UK at least, the poverty level is considered to be at least twice as much.

[jamieknyc]

No one can tell me that keeping a family of 4 healthy and prosperous on a hundred or so quid a week is being a parasite... not when in the UK at least, the poverty level is considered to be at least twice as much.
What is the poverty level in the UK?

[darkeyes]

What is the poverty level in the UK?
Currently, Jamie, 27% of all children in the UK live in poverty.. 3.6 million children... Blair's government acted and introduced measures which reduced child poverty substantially and Brown continued that progress.. from 1997 until the fall of Brown's government in 2010, chid poverty reduced by over a million... since the present government came to power progress has come to an abrupt halt and been put into quick reverse.. it is also estimated that in households where at least one person in the home works.. 62% of children are in poverty. Quite frightening statistics don't u think? On current government projections child poverty is expected to increase to over 4 million by 2020..

Just by talking about child poverty u can get a pretty decent idea of just how bad poverty is in the UK...

[jamieknyc]

What income puts you at the poverty level in the UK?

[darkeyes]

What income puts you at the poverty level in the UK?What income puts people on the poverty level depends on circumstance.. location plays a large part in it and variations from region to region and country to country in the cost of living have different factors to be taken into account. SE of England cost of living is much greater in cost than for instance Bradford in Yorks, Edinburgh greater than Perth, Cardiff than Rhyl... London has greater cost than any, especially inner London.. So what is needed to avoid poverty varies depending on where one lives. Size of family has bearing as u would expect. Age, state of health and disability can also have real bearing.

This link http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/uk-poverty-line gives a general idea of what constitutes poverty in the UK.

The figures are slightly different now as a number of tax and benefit changes have taken pace since 2010, and pay has risen far less than inflation across the board(except the pay of the wealthy of course). Public sector pay has not risen at all. Since 2010 the pay levels in the UK have fallen faster than any other major developed country and this is set to continue. From next month major changes in benefits will take millions of pounds from millions of benefits claimants and no matter the inflation rate, government has decided that for some benefits, a ceiling of 1% increase will be imposed and for the remainder, no increase whatever will be allowed. For unoccupied bedrooms (the infamous bedroom tax) in a claimant's home may cost a claimant up to 600 pounds a year in their benefit from the present level and it is expected that many will consequently lose their homes. This will also affect many who are in work since the low paid can also claim housing benefit. The public sector pay freeze continues and in the private sector pay is not expected to keep up with inflation. For all groups there will be a continued slide in living standards and more children and their families will fall into the poverty trap.

Fyi Jamie, I am in a way one of the lucky ones. I am not yet at the top of the pay spine and neither is my partner at the top of her's.. this has sheltered us as it has many others from shrinking living standards.. our living standard has gotten better... but that in its own way means things are even more serious for those who are much less fortunate. For us, all things will change next year when we both reach that fabled maximum... and from 2015 should things continue as they are, just as they are expected to, then our living standards too will begin to fall... but we at least are far, far away from being in poverty...

[elian]

Yes, thank goodness that material wealth is not the only thing worthwhile about living.

[darkeyes]

Yes, thank goodness that material wealth is not the only thing worthwhile about living.
O I agree, elian, 100%.. but being able to keep a warm roof over our heads and those of our families, being able to eat,.. clothe and be shod, live decently and comfortably if not extravagantly, have a little left over to have some kind of life other than stress and struggle for the next penny, and have some opportunity to improve our lives helps. That isn't too much to ask is it? As the ole saying goes.. we can't live on love alone... but every day they seem to expect more of us so to do...

[jamieknyc]

How many people in the UK are on the dole?

[darkeyes]

2 many.. look it up...

[magari]

The point of the video is the drastic change in balance over 30 years. When so few have so much, they influence policy. It's no longer a democracy. The money also spreads fear and creates sheeple who end up trusting the corrupt.

[elian]

O I agree, elian, 100%.. but being able to keep a warm roof over our heads and those of our families, being able to eat,.. clothe and be shod, live decently and comfortably if not extravagantly, have a little left over to have some kind of life other than stress and struggle for the next penny, and have some opportunity to improve our lives helps. That isn't too much to ask is it? As the ole saying goes.. we can't live on love alone... but every day they seem to expect more of us so to do...

Yes, it is a concern that twists at my heart. There are a lot of basically good people in a world of hurt right now. Some of it because of mistakes they have made and others through seemingly no fault of their own. They played by the rules, but if the rules aren't written well to start with..

This world is all about suffering, although I don't quite know what the intent of that truly is. To some point I can understand - it can be a powerful motivator but after that it seems very senseless. I don't know how much suffering the world must endure and to what end. I can't tell you what the point of "just surviving" really is but life seems bent on survival at all costs.

The buddhist says that suffering is optional - I haven't quite figured that out myself either. One of the teachers I had an oppertunity to listen to insisted that we get into trouble when we start to tell a story. Instead of just living in the present and experiencing "now" we start to imagine something other than reality..we tell ourselves a story - and buy into the story - and cause ourselves to potentially become very unhappy.

People laugh at native cultures but I think there really is some wisdom to be found in the Native American customs and the African principle of Ubuntu. It is okay to be successful, but we need to have an eye toward helping our communities grow as well. People in so-called "developed" nations scoff at how anything could be better than protecting the wealth of their own nation. I AM thankful that I have the right to question my own government without the fear of death - I do believe that people should be rewarded if they take a risk and succeed but I also think that the system breaks down when you start treating human beings as just another commodity in an equation.

We are now post-industrial and we have been for a while, I hope that someone figures out what to do with so many displaced workers. Infrustructrure is actually falling down in this country, we need another massive public works program but I don't know if it will ever happen because everyone only has a limited view of the short term. No one wants to invest in the future any more..what can we do this quarter? What can we do (or prevent our opponent from doing) this term? That is what sickens me - we squander the power, energy and wealth we do have.

As much as I hate to say it, a paradigm shift may be due (sighs) - we need to start thinking globally, and in the long term .. so far thinking globally has only been in terms of how can "X" group profit? Wrong approach, hopefully caring for people fits in there somewhere too.

I stumbled into this talk by accident, which sort of hints at some of the issues, I'm still not convinced that there are any "easy answers" ..


http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/en//id/972

[elian]

I have to admit that as I grow older I can also see the appeal of "now". It's all well and good and extremely important to plan and dream about what could/might/should/oght to be. However, I am reminded that in the blink of an eye I have lost family and friends that are very dear to me. It seems that 5, 10, 15 years can go by very quickly. People you love are here one minute and gone the next. I guess it's sort of a balancing act - yes, it is important to stand for what you believe in but don't get so caught up in the story that you miss out on appreciating what you have right now. There are good things in every walk of life, as well as incredible hardship at times.

The world is constantly flowing and changing. We have a lot of fancy technology to try to cope with change and shield ourselves from reality but nothing can shield any of us from the inevitable fact that we must deal with change. Maybe that is the point of suffering, life INSISTS that we learn to dance with it because nothing in this world is permanent. Our bodies are built to either move or atrophy.

Ah, now I see better - the buddhist isn't trying to deny that suffering exists, but trying to find a way to respond to it so that we don't get bound up in our own story so much that we are paralyzed.

[elian]

Every sentient being that is a part of creation can exert their intention upon the Earrth, At least in a capitalist economy money, at its core is a force multiplier for intention (I didn't say WEALTH because I believe a person's WEALTH is more than just their money).

So if we don't have money we need to convince others we have good ideas worth investing in. Most investors are interested in getting a good return for their investment. It's just a slight change to see that the return doesn't necessarily have to be driven by pure economic profit.. Crowd-sourcing over a large enough pool of people (like kickstarter) is kind of neat because the investments do not have to be particularly large - if enough people believe in an idea and the team to raise enough capital to get it off the ground then it is possible.

The stock market is a whole other thing - people literally speculating and hoping to profit off of intention and popular opinion.. wierd.

[tenni]

"At least in a capitalist economy money, at its core is a force multiplier for intention (I didn't say WEALTH because I believe a person's WEALTH is more than just their money)."

I do not understand what this underlined part means to you?

"Most investors are interested in getting a good return for their investment."

I think that you need to view the video again. Most investors lost while the very wealthy gained in the past 30 years...in particular the past five years. Even the rich came no where near the very wealthy in their gains. Look at the charts again.

[elian]

Said another way, people with money can use it to get their way in the material world.

There is a baseline of intention that every person can exercise but there are limits to the power of a single person. If a group of people get together and decide that they want to purchase and rennovate a building to serve as a community center they can motivate people to contribute and although as individuals none of us may be extraordinarily flush with cash we could still accomplish the goal.

Oh wait, did I say "community center" I mean "bathhouse" - this is bisexual.com after all ..

Of course that is what taxes are supposed to be for, right? Everyone pays a little and it is invested in things that promote the common welfare, national defense, public infrustructure, etc. I'm not quite sure where we went wrong - maybe it's because the special interest lobbies have all day and tons of cash to bother my elected political representatives while I am busy working full time just to pay the bills

On the second point, You don't think that the very wealthy also have investments? How do you think they manage to avoid paying taxes? Oh wait, that's right, some of them (indirectly) write the law too. All those pesky reg-u-lations getting in the way of being able to do business and compete effectively.

That's the funny thing, we have too much regulation in some areas and not enough in others. What a fun world, trying to consider how all of these variables work together to infulence the way we live.

A long time ago, I think during the last depression some very smart and/or influential people convinced the "very wealthy" that it was in their best interest to help society grow - nowadays I'm not so sure we'd have anyone that would stand up and do that again.

No, I don't think it is right just to take what someone else has earned through hard work but one cannot survive without community.

In other societies and religious/spiritual institutions "giving back" to the community is expected. The Native Americans had the potlach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlach). English settlers had to put a stop to that, can you imagine just giving away your wealth? Barbaric! (Even if it meant heading off a bloody war). "Charitable Giving" is one of the pillars of islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam) and of course some Jews and Christians have tithing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe) down to an actual percentage of income (although there is some debate about how "mandatory" it truly is.)

To be honest, like the TED video says, I'm not so sure that "growth" just for the sake of growth is going to be sustainable in the future. I guess the old idea was that as long as we could keep the economy spinning like a top, growing, then eventually all people in society would experience some level of "success" - I suspect that never really happened all the way from top to bottom. We really need to find smarter ways to invest resources.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if EVERY country aspired to and achieved the level of consumption that is present in the US? We discard more "stuff" in the trash than some people will ever see in a lifetime. My grandfather works as a heavy equipment operator and mechanic for a county dump - he sees the TRUCKLOADS of (more or less new) stuff that the local department stores throw out when the sale is over, they can't move the merchandise and it's time to make room for the next big promotion!!

Quite frankly, "too much stuff" just for the sake of having "stuff" .. our heart is in the wrong place.

[Gearbox]

Well to be fair, employers would be wise not to pay employees £1,000000 ph even if they could aford it. They need to keep workers poor enough to keep working. There must be poverty for capitalism to work. The higher the rich get, the lower the poor get. We are not able to equal. It just wouldn't work out, sadly. BUT there can be limits set for each end of the scale. Taxes are supposed to aid that (I naively believe). Trouble is, the rich want to be richer and pay less than they can aford. So the poor have to be poorer and pay more than they can aford. Thats how it seems to be in the UK. The government are in the process of creating a subclass out of the poor, unemployed, sick and disabled. In April, shit will hit the fan. Human Rights violations will be law, and access to Legal Aid for the poor will be made unobtainable. Both in the same month? Well at least we KNOW we are slaves.

[elian]

I guess I should say that there probably are wealthy people who are very generous as well. i know a lot of people who invest in SOME sort of charitable giving .. not that the folks I know personally can give a tremendous amount of money. "Evil" (suffering) in the world makes a lot of noise - you never seem to hear much at all from the "good" although it certainly is out there. US tax code provides an incentive for charitable giving by allowing you to offset the amount of income you pay tax on by the amount of donations to a registered charity.

One other thing that nagged at me with this statement:


I suspect that never really happened all the way from top to bottom.

..was that not everyone buys into that definition of "success" as economic prosperity. There are fringe elements of society that never will be a part of the model that economists use. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know - it just is. Until we adjust our thinking to account for the value of PEOPLE as well as THINGS I'm not sure much will change.

[darkeyes]

Well to be fair, employers would be wise not to pay employees £1,000000 ph even if they could aford it. They need to keep workers poor enough to keep working. There must be poverty for capitalism to work. The higher the rich get, the lower the poor get. We are not able to equal. It just wouldn't work out, sadly. BUT there can be limits set for each end of the scale. Taxes are supposed to aid that (I naively believe). Trouble is, the rich want to be richer and pay less than they can aford. So the poor have to be poorer and pay more than they can aford. Thats how it seems to be in the UK. The government are in the process of creating a subclass out of the poor, unemployed, sick and disabled. In April, shit will hit the fan. Human Rights violations will be law, and access to Legal Aid for the poor will be made unobtainable. Both in the same month? Well at least we KNOW we are slaves.

They may consider us skivvies, peasants, serfs or slaves, but we r not, Gear dear... and every so often the people of this poor downtrodden place remind governments of that fact.. in fact they are overdue a good ole fashioned reminder now.. let's hope for nice long hot summer weather wise an' a healthy dose of reminder!!!

[jamieknyc]

I guess I should say that there probably are wealthy people who are very generous as well. i know a lot of people who invest in SOME sort of charitable giving .. not that the folks I know personally can give a tremendous amount of money. "Evil" (suffering) in the world makes a lot of noise - you never seem to hear much at all from the "good" although it certainly is out there. US tax code provides an incentive for charitable giving by allowing you to offset the amount of income you pay tax on by the amount of donations to a registered charity.


The problem with charity is that the donor is under no obligation to give, and next year may have business reverses or decide to give to any of the many other charitable causes that are soliciting them. Charities can be very effective at providing assistance and can usually do it more efficiently than government, but they can't be a substitute for public services.

[elian]

The problem with charity is that the donor is under no obligation to give, and next year may have business reverses or decide to give to any of the many other charitable causes that are soliciting them. Charities can be very effective at providing assistance and can usually do it more efficiently than government, but they can't be a substitute for public services.

Yeah, maybe that's what's sad about it, the corporations leave the social work to religious institutions. The people in this part of the state demonize social services. I'll tell you that my mom was a success story - we grew up poor, to the point that she was on welfare. The state retrained her, she finally got a good paying job - it was what was needed at the time.

What is so infuriating to me is that for-profit corporations want all of the benefits of being recognized as an entity with almost the same rights as an individual person, but they fight tooth and nail against the responsibilities that come with being a good citizen.

Human life seems worth very little when it is a part of a weighted average model formula that predicts profit. We worship celebrities - anyone who has enough talent to rake in some revenue is held up on a pedestal - the rest just sort of blend into the background I suppose.

[elian]

Human life seems worth very little when it is a part of a weighted average model formula that predicts profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

..instead of citizens with rights and responsibilities we are now consumers with choices.. ?

What counts is not what I do, what I believe in or what God I pray to, but how much money I want to spend and "what's in it for me" ??

Very "smart" people thinking they know better than you do?

---

“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/rwemerson/bl-rwemer-conduct-9.htm

[jamieknyc]

Slow down, a business has no obligation to do social work. That is properly for public agencies, charitable and religious organizations. Remember that in most communities in the United States, business taxes (which here are the highest in the world) are subsidizing the school system and municipal services and that residential owners pay a lot less as a result.

[darkeyes]

Subsidise? Not a word I would use for coughing up to the State (or state) what is due in accord with tax law.. or are business taxes voluntary? "Subsidise" (Brit spelling) makes it sound as if business pays its taxes out of the goodness of its heart... which of course, I am sure is the case Jamie...;)

[elian]

Business has no obligation to do social work but they sure do exert their political influence over society when it affects the bottom line.

You are right, I need a time out.

Here in PA we have a tax for everything, they even tax your estate after you are dead. Roughly 75% of the individual real estate taxes paid every year go directly to the school district nearest your locality. A lot of people here think the taxes are quite high, but I have relatives in NJ so I know what "high" really is. I know at least one gay friend who thinks it is rude of the school district to tax his house when he has no children.

I tried to point out that giving all children a general education is good for society but he seems unswayed.

Not all businesses are bad - I know lots of people who have taken a talent or a passion and turned it into useful goods or services that people in the community can genuinely use. I am proud of those success stories. I just don't ascribe to the philosophy of growth simply for the sake of growth. Blind greed and profit serve no one well.