Isolated POLITICAL blurt thread

gauchecritic said:

Theodore Dalrymple maintains through every point, by omission, that all the wrongs (in this country at least) are in no measure the effects of a previous government.

Upper-middle-class aspiring to upper, popularly uninformed, half-cocked opinion. With emphasis on the word opinion

Click to expand...

No substance in the post, but lovely vituperative language in the slur here. Especially since I know you could really let if flow if you wanted, and this was just tossed off.

That still gets you no points though.

Substance Score:

Dalrymple 1
Gauche 0
Geronimo -1 (he lost me and has been without substance ever since, poor boy)

gauchecritic said:

Theodore Dalrymple maintains through every point, by omission, that all the wrongs (in this country at least) are in no measure the effects of a previous government.

Upper-middle-class aspiring to upper, popularly uninformed, half-cocked opinion. With emphasis on the word opinion

Click to expand...

No substance in the post, but lovely vituperative language in the slur here. Especially since I know you could really let if flow if you wanted, and this was just tossed off.

That still gets you no points though.

Substance Score:

Dalrymple 1
Gauche 0
Geronimo -1 (he lost me and has been without substance ever since, poor boy)



(PS. I'm sure Dalrymple had no more regard for the Major government, or the current crop of 'conservatives' - Burke in his grave must be spinning at high revs.)

geronimo_appleby said:

you are so easy to tweak. go home. tosser.

Click to expand...

Moron. You're already twinked. Why don't you brag some more about how superior you are to US Marines and Royal marines.

LovingTongue said:

Moron. You're already twinked. Why don't you brag some more about how superior you are to US Marines and Royal marines.

Click to expand...

sure. why not? 'tis fact.

april - june 1982.

geronimo_appleby said:

sure. why not? 'tis fact.

april - june 1982.

Click to expand...

Is that how long you were in the hospital after the first time you called them 'darling'?

PS: you're getting your ass handed to you

LovingTongue said:

Is that how long you were in the hospital after the first time you called them 'darling'?

PS: you're getting your ass handed to you

Click to expand...

obviously you have no idea about royal. you take it waaaaaaay to seriously.

roxanne,

if you like mr dalrymple's essay or admire his thinking, that's a good sign.
very intelligent and thoughtful. somewhat in the line of George Will, another genuine conservative intellectual, whom I admire.

i think his central narrow thesis is wrong, and it has a lot in common with the less gifted Mr. Murray, but at least he writes well. the thesis is that the 'underclass' are mainly that way, and stay that way, because of their problematic thinking and, not to put too fine a point on it, moral defects.

his central broad thesis is likely wrong, too, but it's interesting: that the vices of a society/culture are because its citizens have moral defects, failings of (personal) virtue. "nobody takes any responsibility these days, and the world would be a whole lot better if they did."


his proposals about how Brits have lost freedoms is refreshing; you hardly ever, until the undoing of GWB, heard a US conservative talking about Bush's 'surveillance society' and promulgation of measures to justify arbirtrary arrest and indefinite imprisonment. if, as D says, Blair is Mussolini, who is GWB?

Roxanne Appleby said:

No substance in the post, but lovely vituperative language in the slur here. Especially since I know you could really let if flow if you wanted, and this was just tossed off.

That still gets you no points though.

Substance Score:

Dalrymple 1
Gauche 0
Geronimo -1 (he lost me and has been without substance ever since, poor boy)

Click to expand...

The only substance that Dalrymple shows the least inkling of is his own naivete about how society turns. He is saying no more than your Great Aunt Fanny who expounds with utter conviction that 'It's not like it was in my day'.

How much more tossing off do you require? He says nothing of merit and exposes his self aggrandising ego and temerity by dressing up an old conservative's catchphrases with rhetoric and unfounded and frankly unbelievable 'statistics'. I give him short shrift and nul point.

hey, he's a 'values' or 'cultural 'conservative. bound to sound a bit stuffy.

but nice NOT to hear that the 'free market' is the solution to everything,

and to hear that freedom is under threat in Britain, and by implication, the US.

he also has a critique of egotism/self-seeking, and the 'rights-based' approaches to social living. a nice change from the US 'natural rights' folks who teem on this forum.

This refers to Shang's "Books We're At Home In" thread:

It's fascinating how Heinlein comes up so frequently in those kinds of threads, and is cited by individuals of wildly varying philosophical/political outlooks. That reminds me of something I've noted occassionally in political threads here: Notwithstanding those "wildly varying" outlooks, all of those on this site are liberals in the original sense of preferring toleration, the rule of law, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, etc. This reality has struck home to me in the context of dreary reminders that many people in many parts of the world explicitly do not share those values.

Roxanne Appleby said:

This refers to Shang's "Books We're At Home In" thread:

It's fascinating how Heinlein comes up so frequently in those kinds of threads, and is cited by individuals of wildly varying philosophical/political outlooks. That reminds me of something I've noted occassionally in political threads here: Notwithstanding those "wildly varying" outlooks, all of those on this site are liberals in the original sense of preferring toleration, the rule of law, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, etc. This reality has struck home to me in the context of dreary reminders that many people in many parts of the world explicitly do not share those values.

Click to expand...

That's what I always thought "Liberal" meant.

I suppose those of us who hold these values should come up with another word; "liberal has come to mean something utterly opposite, both by the demonising of the right and the insanities of control freaks who've called themselves libs for the past forty years.



Sorta like the way "Christian" has lost so much respect.

False and genuine income gap concerns; culture and education key

The Culture Gap
by Brink Lindsey

Cut through all the statistical squid ink surrounding the issue of economic inequality, and you'll find a phenomenon that genuinely deserves public concern.

Over the past quarter-century or so, the return on human capital has risen significantly. Or to put it another way, the opportunity cost of failing to develop human capital is now much higher than it used to be. The wage premium associated with a college degree has jumped to around 70% in recent years from around 30% in 1980; the graduate degree premium has soared to over 100% from 50%. Meanwhile, dropping out of high school now all but guarantees socioeconomic failure.

In part this development is cause for celebration. Rising demand for analytical and interpersonal skills has been driving the change, and surely it is good news that economic signals now so strongly encourage the development of human talent. Yet -- and here is the cause for concern -- the supply of skilled people is responding sluggishly to the increased demand.

Despite the strong incentives, the percentage of people with college degrees has been growing only modestly. Between 1995 and 2005, the share of men with college degrees inched up to 29% from 26%. And the number of high school dropouts remains stubbornly high: The ratio of 17-year-olds to diplomas awarded has been stuck around 70% for three decades.

Something is plainly hindering the effectiveness of the market's carrots and sticks. And that something is culture.

Before explaining what I mean, let me go back to the squid ink and clarify what's not worrisome about the inequality statistics. For those who grind their ideological axes on these numbers, the increase in measured inequality since the 1970s is proof that the new, more competitive, more entrepreneurial economy of recent decades (which also happens to be less taxed and less unionized) has somehow failed to provide widespread prosperity. According to left-wing doom-and-gloomers, only an "oligarchy" at the very top is benefiting from the current system.

Hogwash. This argument can be disposed of with a simple thought experiment. First, picture the material standard of living you could have afforded back in 1979 with the median household income then of $16,461. Now picture the mix of goods and services you could buy in 2004 with the median income of $44,389. Which is the better deal? Only the most blinkered ideologue could fail to see the dramatic expansion of comforts, conveniences and opportunities that the contemporary family enjoys.

Much of the increase in measured inequality has nothing to do with the economic system at all. Rather, it is a product of demographic changes. Rising numbers of both single-parent households and affluent dual-earner couples have stretched the income distribution; so, too, has the big influx of low-skilled Hispanic immigrants. Meanwhile, in a 2006 paper published in the American Economic Review, economist Thomas Lemieux calculated that roughly three-quarters of the rise in wage inequality among workers with similar skills is due simply to the fact that the population is both older and better educated today than it was in the 1970s.

It is true that superstars in sports, entertainment and business now earn stratospheric incomes. But what is that to you and me? If the egalitarian left has been reduced to complaining that people in the 99th income percentile in a given year (and they're not the same people from year to year) are leaving behind those in the 90th percentile, it has truly arrived at the most farcical of intellectual dead ends.

Which brings us back to the real issue: the human capital gap, and the culture gap that impedes its closure. The most obvious and heartrending cultural deficits are those that produce and perpetuate the inner-city underclass. Consider this arresting fact: While the poverty rate nationwide is 13%, only 3% of adults with full-time, year-round jobs fall below the poverty line. Poverty in America today is thus largely about failing to get and hold a job, any job.

The problem is not lack of opportunity. If it were, the country wouldn't be a magnet for illegal immigrants. The problem is a lack of elementary self-discipline: failing to stay in school, failing to live within the law, failing to get and stay married to the mother or father of your children. The prevalence of all these pathologies reflects a dysfunctional culture that fails to invest in human capital.

Other, less acute deficits distinguish working-class culture from that of the middle and upper classes. According to sociologist Annette Lareau, working-class parents continue to follow the traditional, laissez-faire child-rearing philosophy that she calls "the accomplishment of natural growth." But at the upper end of the socioeconomic scale, parents now engage in what she refers to as "concerted cultivation" -- intensively overseeing kids' schoolwork and stuffing their after-school hours and weekends with organized enrichment activities.

This new kind of family life is often hectic and stressful, but it inculcates in children the intellectual, organizational and networking skills needed to thrive in today's knowledge-based economy. In other words, it makes unprecedented, heavy investments in developing children's human capital.

Consider these data from the National Education Longitudinal Study, an in-depth survey of educational achievement. Among students who received high scores in eighth grade mathematics (and thus showed academic promise), 74% of kids from the highest quartile of socioeconomic status (measured as a composite of parental education, occupations and family income) eventually earned a college degree. By contrast, the college graduation rate fell to 47% for kids from the middle two quartiles, and 29% for those in the bottom quartile. Perhaps more generous financial aid might affect those numbers at the margins, but at the core of these big differentials are differences in the values, skills and habits taught in the home.

Contrary to the warnings of the alarmist left, the increase in economic inequality does not mean the economic system isn't working properly. On the contrary, the system is delivering more opportunities for comfortable, challenging lives than our culture enables us to take advantage of. Far from underperforming, our productive capacity has now outstripped our cultural capacity.

Alas, there is no silver bullet for closing the culture gap. But the public institutions most directly responsible for human capital formation are the nation's schools, and it seems beyond serious dispute that in many cases they are failing to discharge their responsibilities adequately. Those interested in reducing meaningful economic inequality would thus be well advised to focus on education reform. And forget about adding new layers of bureaucracy and top-down controls. Real improvements will come from challenging the moribund state-school monopoly with greater competition.

Mr. Lindsey is vice president for research at the Cato Institute and author of the just-published book, "The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture" (Collins, 2007).

Roxanne Appleby said:

Hogwash. This argument can be disposed of with a simple thought experiment. First, picture the material standard of living you could have afforded back in 1979 with the median household income then of $16,461. Now picture the mix of goods and services you could buy in 2004 with the median income of $44,389. Which is the better deal? Only the most blinkered ideologue could fail to see the dramatic expansion of comforts, conveniences and opportunities that the contemporary family enjoys.

Click to expand...

Slight problem here - those figures are not adjusted for inflation. The last study from which I heard that did adjust for inflation found that real earnings have actually dipped slightly in comparison to the 1970's. However, in fairness I must add that because I heard it on the radio and don't have the source to hand, I'm not certain if they were calculating per capita or per household.

The other interesting figure was the one citing the disparity between productivity and wages. Worker productivity continues to rise, and has been on a sharp increase since the 1970's, which makes an interesting partner to a slight drop in wages. That would seem to suggest that Marx was indeed right, and that worker productivity is not a guarantee of good wages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby

Hogwash. This argument can be disposed of with a simple thought experiment. First, picture the material standard of living you could have afforded back in 1979 with the median household income then of $16,461. Now picture the mix of goods and services you could buy in 2004 with the median income of $44,389. Which is the better deal? Only the most blinkered ideologue could fail to see the dramatic expansion of comforts, conveniences and opportunities that the contemporary family enjoys.

BlackShanglan said:

Slight problem here - those figures are not adjusted for inflation. The last study from which I heard that did adjust for inflation found that real earnings have actually dipped slightly in comparison to the 1970's. However, in fairness I must add that because I heard it on the radio and don't have the source to hand, I'm not certain if they were calculating per capita or per household.

The other interesting figure was the one citing the disparity between productivity and wages. Worker productivity continues to rise, and has been on a sharp increase since the 1970's, which makes an interesting partner to a slight drop in wages. That would seem to suggest that Marx was indeed right, and that worker productivity is not a guarantee of good wages.

Click to expand...

Inflation has averaged about 3% per year since the Forties. Using that figure, wages are still higher now than they were in 1979. However, that is an average, and I remember double-digit inflation in the Eighties, so a calculation using 3% may not be accurate.

Productivity has risen largely because of increased use of automation and computerization. People are probagby working less hard but are producing more.

Besides that, there are probably more two-income households now than there were in the Seventies.

BlackShanglan said:

Slight problem here - those figures are not adjusted for inflation. The last study from which I heard that did adjust for inflation found that real earnings have actually dipped slightly in comparison to the 1970's. However, in fairness I must add that because I heard it on the radio and don't have the source to hand, I'm not certain if they were calculating per capita or per household.

The other interesting figure was the one citing the disparity between productivity and wages. Worker productivity continues to rise, and has been on a sharp increase since the 1970's, which makes an interesting partner to a slight drop in wages. That would seem to suggest that Marx was indeed right, and that worker productivity is not a guarantee of good wages.

Click to expand...

Inflation, schminflation - the reality suggested by those numbers is no joke: Today's median income buys you a much more comfortable standard of living than 1970's median income.

Higher overall productivity is a guarantee of higher standards of living (the only guarantee, in fact), although the link may not always be direct, as you infer. If half the number of people can make twice as much stuff, there's still twice as much stuff, and the half who are no longer making it can do other things that add even more stuff, or more likely create more services (like an internet and all its content). We are heading toward a day when 10 to 15 percent of the population will be able to produce all the food, energy and manufactured products the entire world needs. You can spin that (or anything) into dark futurist scenarios, just as 200 years ago you could have done the same to predictions that 2 percent of the people would be able to grow all the food. That development was an unalloyed boon to humanity, and this one will also be.

Which doesn't mean there aren't some important social issues to figure out, as described by that Brink Lindsey piece, or that there won't be many dislocations along the path. We can afford the smooth the way for those affected by the latter, but we really need to get that first thing right - the culture and education issues that are holding so many people back. If that problem is solved then the rest is easy. The first thing there is the acknowledge the true nature of the problem, which is the point of that article.

evidence

LindseyWhich brings us back to the real issue: the human capital gap, and the culture gap that impedes its closure. The most obvious and heartrending cultural deficits are those that produce and perpetuate the inner-city underclass. Consider this arresting fact: While the poverty rate nationwide is 13%, only 3% of adults with full-time, year-round jobs fall below the poverty line. Poverty in America today is thus largely about failing to get and hold a job, any job.

The problem is not lack of opportunity. If it were, the country wouldn't be a magnet for illegal immigrants. The problem is a lack of elementary self-discipline: failing to stay in school, failing to live within the law, failing to get and stay married to the mother or father of your children. The prevalence of all these pathologies reflects a dysfunctional culture that fails to invest in human capital.

P: i see no evidence at all that lack of "self discpline" causes those in the "underclass" to remain so. regarding the one shred of alleged proof (bolded), i fail to see how the amount of illegal immigration proves or supports this claim. perhaps the simplest explanation might be that many illegal immigrant are hopeful--often correctly so-- that their children will be better off.

another point might be that some illegals are "willing" (so to say; in fact they may be compelled) to take virtual 'slave labor' positions, and some do take them.

IF we assume, ftsoa, that same position was available and offered to a native born American "underclass" person-- which is questionable-- that person's declining the alleged 'opportunity' has an obvious explanation
(she or he doesn't wish to be a slave, and there are alternatives).

it's not hard, for example, to imagine that this morally defective "underclass' person, on hearing of a job out of the city for $2/hour picking tomatoes, does not jump at the chance.

in fact, then the author is lamenting the fact that the "underclass" cannot be compelled or induced to take illegally low wages. it burns his ass, hence all the moral mudslinging at the refusers.

in hailing the achievement of capitalism, the author, of course does not mention that the gains in living standard are necessarily, in part, a result of illegal behavior by businesses. IOW, the foodstore chains are able to offer what is for most of the world a luxury-- tomatoes--at a low price, because the grower has access to a vast number of "invisibles" who'll work 'off the books', having no choice but the accept the $2/hour. so the 'median income' person has good access to lots of tomatoes.

====
Rox The first thing there is the acknowledge the true nature of the problem, which is the point of that article.

Lindsay's and Roxannes' "discovery" of the true nature of the problem-- that the poor won't work hard-- was already made at least a 150 years ago in the West. They seem to think if it's repeated often enough over the decades, that will make it true.

Everybody already said everything.

The median household seems to be taken as every household or at least presented as such.

If the median rises then so must everything else. As T.P might say 'A true statement for a given value of truth.'

Pure said:

LindseyWhich brings us back to the real issue: the human capital gap, and the culture gap that impedes its closure. The most obvious and heartrending cultural deficits are those that produce and perpetuate the inner-city underclass. Consider this arresting fact: While the poverty rate nationwide is 13%, only 3% of adults with full-time, year-round jobs fall below the poverty line. Poverty in America today is thus largely about failing to get and hold a job, any job.

The problem is not lack of opportunity. If it were, the country wouldn't be a magnet for illegal immigrants. The problem is a lack of elementary self-discipline: failing to stay in school, failing to live within the law, failing to get and stay married to the mother or father of your children. The prevalence of all these pathologies reflects a dysfunctional culture that fails to invest in human capital.

P: i see no evidence at all that lack of "self discpline" causes those in the "underclass" to remain so. regarding the one shred of alleged proof (bolded), i fail to see how the amount of illegal immigration proves or supports this claim. perhaps the simplest explanation might be that many illegal immigrant are hopeful--often correctly so-- that their children will be better off.

As a former member of that "underclass", I can tell you that a good many of the people there are active or practicing alcoholics and drug addicts. For myself, I used to be a wino on Skid Row. I finally got my shit together, quit drinking, got a decent job, went to college and improved myself immensely. Millions of other alcolholics and drug addicts have done the same thing. Perhaps most did not go as far as I did, but they at least got out of the underclass. There are other reasons too, such as dropping out of school and/or being an unmarried mother, but I have no experience with those.

another point might be that some illegals are "willing" (so to say; in fact they may be compelled) to take virtual 'slave labor' positions, and some do take them.

IF we assume, ftsoa, that same position was available and offered to a native born American "underclass" person-- which is questionable-- that person's declining the alleged 'opportunity' has an obvious explanation
(she or he doesn't wish to be a slave, and there are alternatives).

it's not hard, for example, to imagine that this morally defective "underclass' person, on hearing of a job out of the city for $2/hour picking tomatoes, does not jump at the chance.

in fact, then the author is lamenting the fact that the "underclass" cannot be compelled or induced to take illegally low wages. it burns his ass, hence all the moral mudslinging at the refusers.

in hailing the achievement of capitalism, the author, of course does not mention that the gains in living standard are necessarily, in part, a result of illegal behavior by businesses. IOW, the foodstore chains are able to offer what is for most of the world a luxury-- tomatoes--at a low price, because the grower has access to a vast number of "invisibles" who'll work 'off the books', having no choice but the accept the $2/hour. so the 'median income' person has good access to lots of tomatoes.

====
Rox The first thing there is the acknowledge the true nature of the problem, which is the point of that article.

Lindsay's and Roxannes' "discovery" of the true nature of the problem-- that the poor won't work hard-- was already made at least a 150 years ago in the West. They seem to think if it's repeated often enough over the decades, that will make it true.

Click to expand...

When I was poor, I used to work very hard, and sometimes at sub-minimum wages. Physically, the work I used to do was much harder than what I did after achieving middle class status.

box,

ah, but you lacked self discipline, ! (according to Lindsey)

OR... if you had it, it was a weird anomaly--a fluke of history-- for one of your morally tainted class.

OR maybe you were an illegal!

Pure said:

P: i see no evidence at all that lack of "self discpline" causes those in the "underclass" to remain so.

in hailing the achievement of capitalism, the author, of course does not mention that the gains in living standard are necessarily, in part, a result of illegal behavior by businesses. IOW, the foodstore chains are able to offer what is for most of the world a luxury-- tomatoes--at a low price, because the grower has access to a vast number of "invisibles" who'll work 'off the books', having no choice but the accept the $2/hour.

Click to expand...

Such a bizarrely skewed view of the world and the system that has generated so much prosperity for so many people, in our society and in others.

It's unlikely that many farmworkers get paid "$2 an hour," although I'm sure it happens in some cases. Right now in my state there's a shortage and the state economic development agency is actually recruiting. The main reason natives won't do the work is that it is genuinely grueling physically, and they generally can find alternative ways-and-means. Personally I don't blame anyone for choosing not to do that particular work, but it's just a red herring to introduce that subject in this discussion.

In addition, the tragic but statistically meaningless abuses referenced have nothing to do with the tremendous increase in standards of living in this country, and are just an effort by Pure the trickster to divert attention from that boon.

With regard to the use of median income, that's a useful metric for time series like this because half the people are above it and half below it, so it's not skewed by extremes at either end of the distribution (mostly the rich end, since "zero income" is as extreme as the lower end can go.)

No one has laid a finger on the essential claim of Lindsey's article, which is that individuals with the proper socialization and education are in high demand economically, and that the reason so many lack those things has to do with cultural dysfunctions and bad ideas, not lack of opportunity. Pure always casts such claims as reprehensible neo-Victorian finger-wagging at the bad "morals" of the underclass, and essentially would prohibit any discussion about destructive habits that define the underclass. Which essentially means no discussion about how to correct the real problems of the underclass. It's much more satisfying to throw out atypical anecdotes insinuating that "capitalism" is ee-vil.

~~~~~

Pure's cute response to Box ignores the essential fact in Box's post: Once he was poor, but he worked hard and now he's not. In Pure's worldview such things are impossible, so he does not see them.

Look,

Can't we just stipulate that the non-immigrant poor, are, by and large, just too damn lazy (and un-self-disciplined) to better themselves, though the opportunities are there--- in the view of Roxanne, Lindsey, Murray and Louis XIV.

And move to some other topic! Is the only thing Roxanne can BLURT "The poor deserve their poverty, trust me on this!"

Maybe we need to have a once a week "letting off steam time," where Roxy and like minded souls post a bunch of things about how just about everyone is getting what he deserves in life. Slap each other on the back, and then, rejoin the rest of us on another topic.

Pure said:

Look,

Can't we just stipulate that the non-immigrant poor, are, by and large, just too damn lazy (and un-self-disciplined) to better themselves, though the opportunities are there--- in the view of Roxanne, Lindsey, Murray and Louis XIV.

And move to some other topic! Is the only this Roxanne can BLURT "The poor deserve their poverty, trust me on this!"

Maybe we need to have a once a week "letting off steam time," where Roxy and like minded souls post a bunch of things about how just about everyone is getting what he deserves in life. Slap each other on the back, and then, rejoin the rest of us on another topic.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are the only one saying that the underclass are morally depraved, Pure.

I have never pretended that there is some simplistic cause or solution to the destructive habits that define the underclass. It is a genuine quandary and a genuine human tragedy. Refusing to discuss it only makes any realistic solutions impossible to find.

Pure said:

ah, but you lacked self discipline, ! (according to Lindsey)

OR... if you had it, it was a weird anomaly--a fluke of history-- for one of your morally tainted class.

OR maybe you were an illegal!

Click to expand...

No, I was never an illegal and, yes, I did lack self-disclipine, at least in that one important aspect. That lack is what kept me in the underclass for much of my younger days, and keeps many there now. I was unable to hold a decent job.

Roxanne Appleby said:

Actually, you are the only one saying that the underclass are morally depraved, Pure.

I have never pretended that there is some simplistic cause or solution to the destructive habits that define the underclass. It is a genuine quandary and a genuine human tragedy. Refusing to discuss it only makes any realistic solutions impossible to find.

Click to expand...

Looking for solutions for an intrinsic part of the system is just so much political hoo-ha.

The poor are necessary for the capitalist/elitist/consumer driven society that many if not most people seek to achieve, or at least the luxuries thereof.

All else is utopian or at best Communism. That's Communism with a capital C including workers controlling the means of production and every body getting paid to do their job without meritocratic gain. (and don't try fobbing the readers off with the USSR and China et blimmin cetra.)

gauchecritic said:

Looking for solutions for an intrinsic part of the system is just so much political hoo-ha.

The poor are necessary for the capitalist/elitist/consumer driven society that many if not most people seek to achieve, or at least the luxuries thereof.

All else is utopian or at best Communism. That's Communism with a capital C including workers controlling the means of production and every body getting paid to do their job without meritocratic gain. (and don't try fobbing the readers off with the USSR and China et blimmin cetra.)

Click to expand...

Your economics are as obsolete as the Marxist ideology that is based on them. The assertion you've offered here describes a feudal system, not a technology-driven post-industrial one. Time to catch up, friend Gauche. Eventually even Pure's $2 farmworkers will be displaced by automation, and those performing the remaining dirty work will make a decent living (many or most do already.) A successful modern economy is one where the busboys and hotel maids make $40k/year, and the good wait staff make $60k +. It's coming sooner than you think (as long as public policy mistakes don't derail the engines of wealth creation).