Save the middle class! This is our chance.

[CA renter]

Rt. 66,

I applaud and encourage your efforts, and agree 100% with what you’ve said.

The problem lies in trying to convince the sheeple that they should consider their long-term, collective interests.

People need to understand why focusing on “monthly payment” instead of “cost basis” is one of the most important factors in driving them into poverty and life-long debt slavery.

***************

FLU,

I’m with Rt. 66 on this, when many of us refer to the “elite” or “wealthy” we are not talking about people who work for a living. We are usually talking about “capitalists” in the sense that they make their money via asset appreciation/investments instead of labor.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]Rt. 66,

I applaud and encourage your efforts, and agree 100% with what you’ve said.

The problem lies in trying to convince the sheeple that they should consider their long-term, collective interests.

People need to understand why focusing on “monthly payment” instead of “cost basis” is one of the most important factors in driving them into poverty and life-long debt slavery.

***************

FLU,

I’m with Rt. 66 on this, when many of us refer to the “elite” or “wealthy” we are not talking about people who work for a living. We are usually talking about “capitalists” in the sense that they make their money via asset appreciation/investments instead of labor.[/quote]

CA Renter, it seems to me you are suggesting that we as a society place more emphasis on rewarding labor than asset/investment income.

Though I never thought I’d say this..but the crappy book “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Guy K pretty much sums it up….

There’s one big problem with this model if it were to happen (and fortunately in a capitalist society it wont)….It will completely detrimental to older/less efficient people, because a system for which income only comes from labor will pose problems for older people who’s productivity falls a cliff over time.

The end goal for a lot of people (inclusive) IS to live off of asset appreciation/investments INSTEAD of labor, because physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to continue to labor throughout your life with the same level of efficiency. This is a no brainer….Asset appreciation/passive income isn’t just for “elitist” folks. It’s for everyone. Isn’t this the entire premise for why people want to purchase a rental home and obtain rental income?

The problem with most americans is that they do a lousy job converting income from “labor” into assets/passive income sources…

In your more useful youthful years, you labor and earn an “paycheck” that supposedly represents the work (physical or mental you put into it). Thereafter, what you do with that “paycheck” is completely up to people.

Some americans (most americans I would say) choose to blow it on immediate bullshit. Fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy clothes and jewelry… And often, some who make less income others and those people spend more often end up trying to “keep up with the jones” and spend money they don’t have when they really should be investing in their future. In reality, their choices “to keep up with the jones” really should be either

(1) find a something else that pays more so that they can spend more in the short term while not decimating their future OR
(2) spend much less now, and acquire income producing assets for the future.

Unfortunately, a good portion of americans don’t do EITHER (1) or (2), but instead ATM their credits to hell…These are the people that end up broke, needing a nice government subsidy check in their golden years, because the blew all their future in the present.

Another set of people forgo immediate pleasure covert their “paycheck” into other “assets” that can generate income and/or speculate on appreciation….The later group most likely plans for the future, knowing that he/she cannot continue to labor indefinitely, and that if he/she gets hit by a bus, shitty boss,what have you, there is a source of income for doing no labor.

This isn’t just a U.S. thing. This is how capitalist countries work….Even in china…Why do you think in china there is such a huge disparity in wealth between folks that just obtain income from “labor” and folks that labor and own assets/investments?

Anyway, Americans need to get smarter with managing wealth. This use to be one of the richest nations, and now all we are a bunch of debtors that keep spending spending spending even when what comes in is much less than what goes out.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]Rt. 66,

I applaud and encourage your efforts, and agree 100% with what you’ve said.

The problem lies in trying to convince the sheeple that they should consider their long-term, collective interests.

People need to understand why focusing on “monthly payment” instead of “cost basis” is one of the most important factors in driving them into poverty and life-long debt slavery.

***************

FLU,

I’m with Rt. 66 on this, when many of us refer to the “elite” or “wealthy” we are not talking about people who work for a living. We are usually talking about “capitalists” in the sense that they make their money via asset appreciation/investments instead of labor.[/quote]

CA Renter, it seems to me you are suggesting that we as a society place more emphasis on rewarding labor than asset/investment income.

Though I never thought I’d say this..but the crappy book “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Guy K pretty much sums it up….

There’s one big problem with this model if it were to happen (and fortunately in a capitalist society it wont)….It will completely detrimental to older/less efficient people, because a system for which income only comes from labor will pose problems for older people who’s productivity falls a cliff over time.

The end goal for a lot of people (inclusive) IS to live off of asset appreciation/investments INSTEAD of labor, because physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to continue to labor throughout your life with the same level of efficiency. This is a no brainer….Asset appreciation/passive income isn’t just for “elitist” folks. It’s for everyone. Isn’t this the entire premise for why people want to purchase a rental home and obtain rental income?

The problem with most americans is that they do a lousy job converting income from “labor” into assets/passive income sources…

In your more useful youthful years, you labor and earn an “paycheck” that supposedly represents the work (physical or mental you put into it). Thereafter, what you do with that “paycheck” is completely up to people.

Some americans (most americans I would say) choose to blow it on immediate bullshit. Fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy clothes and jewelry… And often, some who make less income others and those people spend more often end up trying to “keep up with the jones” and spend money they don’t have when they really should be investing in their future. In reality, their choices “to keep up with the jones” really should be either

(1) find a something else that pays more so that they can spend more in the short term while not decimating their future OR
(2) spend much less now, and acquire income producing assets for the future.

Unfortunately, a good portion of americans don’t do EITHER (1) or (2), but instead ATM their credits to hell…These are the people that end up broke, needing a nice government subsidy check in their golden years, because the blew all their future in the present.

Another set of people forgo immediate pleasure covert their “paycheck” into other “assets” that can generate income and/or speculate on appreciation….The later group most likely plans for the future, knowing that he/she cannot continue to labor indefinitely, and that if he/she gets hit by a bus, shitty boss,what have you, there is a source of income for doing no labor.

This isn’t just a U.S. thing. This is how capitalist countries work….Even in china…Why do you think in china there is such a huge disparity in wealth between folks that just obtain income from “labor” and folks that labor and own assets/investments?

Anyway, Americans need to get smarter with managing wealth. This use to be one of the richest nations, and now all we are a bunch of debtors that keep spending spending spending even when what comes in is much less than what goes out.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]Rt. 66,

I applaud and encourage your efforts, and agree 100% with what you’ve said.

The problem lies in trying to convince the sheeple that they should consider their long-term, collective interests.

People need to understand why focusing on “monthly payment” instead of “cost basis” is one of the most important factors in driving them into poverty and life-long debt slavery.

***************

FLU,

I’m with Rt. 66 on this, when many of us refer to the “elite” or “wealthy” we are not talking about people who work for a living. We are usually talking about “capitalists” in the sense that they make their money via asset appreciation/investments instead of labor.[/quote]

CA Renter, it seems to me you are suggesting that we as a society place more emphasis on rewarding labor than asset/investment income.

Though I never thought I’d say this..but the crappy book “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Guy K pretty much sums it up….

There’s one big problem with this model if it were to happen (and fortunately in a capitalist society it wont)….It will completely detrimental to older/less efficient people, because a system for which income only comes from labor will pose problems for older people who’s productivity falls a cliff over time.

The end goal for a lot of people (inclusive) IS to live off of asset appreciation/investments INSTEAD of labor, because physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to continue to labor throughout your life with the same level of efficiency. This is a no brainer….Asset appreciation/passive income isn’t just for “elitist” folks. It’s for everyone. Isn’t this the entire premise for why people want to purchase a rental home and obtain rental income?

The problem with most americans is that they do a lousy job converting income from “labor” into assets/passive income sources…

In your more useful youthful years, you labor and earn an “paycheck” that supposedly represents the work (physical or mental you put into it). Thereafter, what you do with that “paycheck” is completely up to people.

Some americans (most americans I would say) choose to blow it on immediate bullshit. Fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy clothes and jewelry… And often, some who make less income others and those people spend more often end up trying to “keep up with the jones” and spend money they don’t have when they really should be investing in their future. In reality, their choices “to keep up with the jones” really should be either

(1) find a something else that pays more so that they can spend more in the short term while not decimating their future OR
(2) spend much less now, and acquire income producing assets for the future.

Unfortunately, a good portion of americans don’t do EITHER (1) or (2), but instead ATM their credits to hell…These are the people that end up broke, needing a nice government subsidy check in their golden years, because the blew all their future in the present.

Another set of people forgo immediate pleasure covert their “paycheck” into other “assets” that can generate income and/or speculate on appreciation….The later group most likely plans for the future, knowing that he/she cannot continue to labor indefinitely, and that if he/she gets hit by a bus, shitty boss,what have you, there is a source of income for doing no labor.

This isn’t just a U.S. thing. This is how capitalist countries work….Even in china…Why do you think in china there is such a huge disparity in wealth between folks that just obtain income from “labor” and folks that labor and own assets/investments?

Anyway, Americans need to get smarter with managing wealth. This use to be one of the richest nations, and now all we are a bunch of debtors that keep spending spending spending even when what comes in is much less than what goes out.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]Rt. 66,

I applaud and encourage your efforts, and agree 100% with what you’ve said.

The problem lies in trying to convince the sheeple that they should consider their long-term, collective interests.

People need to understand why focusing on “monthly payment” instead of “cost basis” is one of the most important factors in driving them into poverty and life-long debt slavery.

***************

FLU,

I’m with Rt. 66 on this, when many of us refer to the “elite” or “wealthy” we are not talking about people who work for a living. We are usually talking about “capitalists” in the sense that they make their money via asset appreciation/investments instead of labor.[/quote]

CA Renter, it seems to me you are suggesting that we as a society place more emphasis on rewarding labor than asset/investment income.

Though I never thought I’d say this..but the crappy book “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Guy K pretty much sums it up….

There’s one big problem with this model if it were to happen (and fortunately in a capitalist society it wont)….It will completely detrimental to older/less efficient people, because a system for which income only comes from labor will pose problems for older people who’s productivity falls a cliff over time.

The end goal for a lot of people (inclusive) IS to live off of asset appreciation/investments INSTEAD of labor, because physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to continue to labor throughout your life with the same level of efficiency. This is a no brainer….Asset appreciation/passive income isn’t just for “elitist” folks. It’s for everyone. Isn’t this the entire premise for why people want to purchase a rental home and obtain rental income?

The problem with most americans is that they do a lousy job converting income from “labor” into assets/passive income sources…

In your more useful youthful years, you labor and earn an “paycheck” that supposedly represents the work (physical or mental you put into it). Thereafter, what you do with that “paycheck” is completely up to people.

Some americans (most americans I would say) choose to blow it on immediate bullshit. Fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy clothes and jewelry… And often, some who make less income others and those people spend more often end up trying to “keep up with the jones” and spend money they don’t have when they really should be investing in their future. In reality, their choices “to keep up with the jones” really should be either

(1) find a something else that pays more so that they can spend more in the short term while not decimating their future OR
(2) spend much less now, and acquire income producing assets for the future.

Unfortunately, a good portion of americans don’t do EITHER (1) or (2), but instead ATM their credits to hell…These are the people that end up broke, needing a nice government subsidy check in their golden years, because the blew all their future in the present.

Another set of people forgo immediate pleasure covert their “paycheck” into other “assets” that can generate income and/or speculate on appreciation….The later group most likely plans for the future, knowing that he/she cannot continue to labor indefinitely, and that if he/she gets hit by a bus, shitty boss,what have you, there is a source of income for doing no labor.

This isn’t just a U.S. thing. This is how capitalist countries work….Even in china…Why do you think in china there is such a huge disparity in wealth between folks that just obtain income from “labor” and folks that labor and own assets/investments?

Anyway, Americans need to get smarter with managing wealth. This use to be one of the richest nations, and now all we are a bunch of debtors that keep spending spending spending even when what comes in is much less than what goes out.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]Rt. 66,

I applaud and encourage your efforts, and agree 100% with what you’ve said.

The problem lies in trying to convince the sheeple that they should consider their long-term, collective interests.

People need to understand why focusing on “monthly payment” instead of “cost basis” is one of the most important factors in driving them into poverty and life-long debt slavery.

***************

FLU,

I’m with Rt. 66 on this, when many of us refer to the “elite” or “wealthy” we are not talking about people who work for a living. We are usually talking about “capitalists” in the sense that they make their money via asset appreciation/investments instead of labor.[/quote]

CA Renter, it seems to me you are suggesting that we as a society place more emphasis on rewarding labor than asset/investment income.

Though I never thought I’d say this..but the crappy book “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Guy K pretty much sums it up….

There’s one big problem with this model if it were to happen (and fortunately in a capitalist society it wont)….It will completely detrimental to older/less efficient people, because a system for which income only comes from labor will pose problems for older people who’s productivity falls a cliff over time.

The end goal for a lot of people (inclusive) IS to live off of asset appreciation/investments INSTEAD of labor, because physically it is IMPOSSIBLE to continue to labor throughout your life with the same level of efficiency. This is a no brainer….Asset appreciation/passive income isn’t just for “elitist” folks. It’s for everyone. Isn’t this the entire premise for why people want to purchase a rental home and obtain rental income?

The problem with most americans is that they do a lousy job converting income from “labor” into assets/passive income sources…

In your more useful youthful years, you labor and earn an “paycheck” that supposedly represents the work (physical or mental you put into it). Thereafter, what you do with that “paycheck” is completely up to people.

Some americans (most americans I would say) choose to blow it on immediate bullshit. Fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy clothes and jewelry… And often, some who make less income others and those people spend more often end up trying to “keep up with the jones” and spend money they don’t have when they really should be investing in their future. In reality, their choices “to keep up with the jones” really should be either

(1) find a something else that pays more so that they can spend more in the short term while not decimating their future OR
(2) spend much less now, and acquire income producing assets for the future.

Unfortunately, a good portion of americans don’t do EITHER (1) or (2), but instead ATM their credits to hell…These are the people that end up broke, needing a nice government subsidy check in their golden years, because the blew all their future in the present.

Another set of people forgo immediate pleasure covert their “paycheck” into other “assets” that can generate income and/or speculate on appreciation….The later group most likely plans for the future, knowing that he/she cannot continue to labor indefinitely, and that if he/she gets hit by a bus, shitty boss,what have you, there is a source of income for doing no labor.

This isn’t just a U.S. thing. This is how capitalist countries work….Even in china…Why do you think in china there is such a huge disparity in wealth between folks that just obtain income from “labor” and folks that labor and own assets/investments?

Anyway, Americans need to get smarter with managing wealth. This use to be one of the richest nations, and now all we are a bunch of debtors that keep spending spending spending even when what comes in is much less than what goes out.

[CA renter]

FLU,

I’m not talking about “mom and pop” investors, and don’t disagree with anything you are saying. As a matter of fact, all of my personal income is derived from investments (not what I’m referring to as “wealthy” and spouse earns money from labor).

I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.

Very different from mom and pop who’ve worked hard and saved up over their lifetimes.

[CA renter]

FLU,

I’m not talking about “mom and pop” investors, and don’t disagree with anything you are saying. As a matter of fact, all of my personal income is derived from investments (not what I’m referring to as “wealthy” and spouse earns money from labor).

I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.

Very different from mom and pop who’ve worked hard and saved up over their lifetimes.

[CA renter]

FLU,

I’m not talking about “mom and pop” investors, and don’t disagree with anything you are saying. As a matter of fact, all of my personal income is derived from investments (not what I’m referring to as “wealthy” and spouse earns money from labor).

I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.

Very different from mom and pop who’ve worked hard and saved up over their lifetimes.

[CA renter]

FLU,

I’m not talking about “mom and pop” investors, and don’t disagree with anything you are saying. As a matter of fact, all of my personal income is derived from investments (not what I’m referring to as “wealthy” and spouse earns money from labor).

I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.

Very different from mom and pop who’ve worked hard and saved up over their lifetimes.

[Author]

Posts