[alt lit]

With
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to extend middle-class tax cuts while simultaneously ending breaks for those earning higher than $250K per year, it reminded me of this article looking at how people in different income brackets live day-to-day in America.


Synopsis

I'd worked out that there are six degrees of economic separation between a guy making ten bucks an hour and a Forbes billionaire, if you multiply each person's income by five. So I decided to journey across America to meet one representative of each multiple. By connecting these income brackets to actual people, I hoped to understand how money shapes their lives—and the life of the country—at a moment when the gap between rich and poor is such a combustible issue. Everyone in this story, then, makes roughly five times more than the last person makes. There's a dishwasher in Miami with an unbelievably stressful life, some nice middle-class Iowans with quite difficult lives, me with a perfectly fine if frequently anxiety-inducing life, a millionaire with an annoyingly happy life, a multimillionaire with a stunningly amazing life, and then, finally, at the summit, this great American eagle, Wayne, who tells me he's "pissed off" right now.

Full Article:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Some observations/quotes from each income bracket:

$200 / week

( Show Spoiler )

	Frantz talks a lot about respect and the opposite of respect—humiliation. It's as if he's lowered his ambitions to the level that he can take all sorts of awfulness as long as people talk to him with a little respect.

$900 / week

( Show Spoiler )

The Pallwitzes' fifth anniversary is approaching. "We'd like to go to the east of the state where we had our honeymoon," Dennis says. "But—" he glances at Rebecca—"that would cost gas and food and a bed-and-breakfast stay, so maybe we'll stick around here, save the gas money, and get a hotel room for a couple of days." "You can't afford to drive across the state?" I say in a startled screech. I sound like the Dowager Countess of Grantham from Downton Abbey.

$5,000 / week

( Show Spoiler )

	But I have none of Dennis and Rebecca's struggles. I can vacation anywhere. I haven't noticed rising gas and grocery prices other than hearing myself murmur a vague, "Oh. That seems a bit more," and then forgetting all about it.

$25,000 / week

( Show Spoiler )

"I'm at a level where I don't have to suffer. I've been sick. I had cancer. If you have money, you call the guy who knows the guy who's the head of the department. The truth is, rich people with cancer versus everyone else with cancer? Longer life! And I didn't think about bills at all! I have a bill? I throw it in the box. And that box goes to my business manager. This is a key item if you have money. You don't look at the bills. When I got money, I vowed, 'Never again will I suffer the small stuff.' To me paying a bill is the small stuff. 'I don't care how the fuck it happens; someone pay that fucking thing!' It's a good feeling."

$125,000 / week

( Show Spoiler )

There's something unusual about Nick. For a multimillionaire, he doesn't have your average multimillionaire view. In fact, he's come to believe that the system he benefits so richly from is built on nonsense—specifically, the idea that "the markets are perfectly efflcient and allocate benefits and burdens perfectly efficiently, based on talent and merit. So by that definition, the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. We believe this because we have an almost insanely powerful need to self-justify." And the biggest nonsense of all, he says, "is the idea that because the rich are the smartest, and because we're the job creators, the richer we get, the better it is for everyone. So taxes on the rich should be very, very low because we're essentially the center of the economic universe, the font of productivity." Nick pauses. "If there were a shred of truth to the claim that the rich are our nation's job creators, then given how rich the rich have gotten, America should be drowning in jobs!"

$625,000 / week

( Show Spoiler )

Wayne talked to me about "derelicts on welfare" who check themselves into the hospital because they're "bored" and "want feeding," and "we're paying for all that activity." He said too much tax money is spent on "guys going to chiropractors, guys getting massages! On us! Give me a break. Guys getting Viagra!" He talked about "Los Angeles bus drivers who are on permanent stress leave because someone spat on them when they got on the bus, and now they're emotionally upside down. More than half the bus drivers are out on stress leave! Systems like that cannot work!" It seemed as if, for Wayne's philosophy to work, he needed to believe that those who don't make it deserve their ill fortune. Later, I hunt for data that back up Wayne's feckless-bus-driver nightmare scenario. I can't find any. I do find something else, though—plenty of statistics showing that a guy with Wayne's level of wealth has never had it so good in America. And yet of all the people I interview, Wayne is the only one who seems angry about the politics of his situation. Frantz, Rebecca, Dennis—those at the bottom looking up showed no animosity for the rich at all.

Thoughts? Impressions? Observations? Discuss (ideally from a sociological rather than a political angle, to the degree the two can be separated).

[warweasel]

If you're making $900 a wk and can't afford to drive across the state, you're doing it wrong.

[fokalina]

My first thought after only a glance: why just one representative per income level? How hard would it be to do 2?

[ModernLit]

^ agree that the snapshot isn't doing much to present a case. also, $900/wk sounds pretty damn fine to me. 25K A WEEK is "I'm at a level where I don't have to suffer." no kidding. some people make 25K a YEAR and have a master's degree.

comparing salaries makes me ill. i'm depressed now.

[alt lit]

	Originally Posted by warweasel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you're making $900 a wk and can't afford to drive across the state, you're doing it wrong.

Did you read the article?

	Originally Posted by fokalina To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My first thought after only a glance: why just one representative per income level? How hard would it be to do 2?

Good question. I can understand why someone would want to see more than one view represented per income bracket. Two points in response:

1. Purpose -- I wasn't involved with this article, but from experience I can offer the following anecdotal opinions. From a writing and editorial direction perspective, the goal of these types of pieces is depth and quality of storytelling, not breadth. This was intended to be a human-focused feature story, not an analytical or otherwise quantitatively driven analysis. Thus depth trumps breadth. It succeeded according to its primary purpose, in my opinion.

2. Cost -- As in any business, doing more costs more. Adding two more representatives from each category would add significant editorial costs --- double or more, most likely, according to the way these types of stories are produced. Plus, from a production view, you have to balance this with the rest of your content for that issue and the advertising you have concretely sold to pay for it. From that perspective, it's almost certain that the writer then couldn't go into the depth he does profiling each individual, and again, the purpose here is depth, not breadth. I recognize that that may not be satisfactory on some level, but the balance between cost and different perspectives of quality is the reality every business faces, including publications. I think the quality here is fine, by the way.

Those two primary factors considered, I don't think the writer or publication loses credibility by the way it is reported. But I do see the reason you asked and think it's a fair question.

[ppu6502]

it's anecdotal - meaningless as research data

you would need to interview dozens in each pool, and the pool divisions are too arbitrary.

[alt lit]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	it's anecdotal

To the degree you intend "anecdotal" to mean "subjective," I agree. That's precisely the point: To portray several individuals' subjective experience living at a certain income level in this country.

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	meaningless as research data

Agree. It's not intended to be research data and neither does it claim to be. I agree it would be meaningless to use it as such.

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	you would need to interview dozens in each pool, and the pool divisions are too arbitrary.

Irrelevant to its intent.

[ppu6502]

	Originally Posted by alt lit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To the degree you intend "anecdotal" to mean "subjective," I agree. That's precisely the point: To portray several individuals' subjective experience living at a certain income level in this country.

I mean it literally to the definition of Anecdotal.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[alt lit]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I mean it literally to the definition of Anecdotal. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's not intended to be "evidence." It's intended to be a story.

You're pointing out that it's not something that no one is claiming it to be. No one is arguing with you.

Did you have an observation about the substance of it rather than its classification?

[ppu6502]

	Originally Posted by alt lit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did you have an observation about the substance of it rather than its classification?

My point is that there is no substance, and you agreed.

You still want the non-existent substance, though?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Firebrand]

A much more well-researched treatise on the wealthy are these two books :

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

These give much more in the way of the psychology and lifestyle present in this demographic.

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My point is that there is no substance, and you agreed. You still want the non-existent substance, though? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To be fair, he did say originally that Obama's tax cuts reminded him of the article. He never claimed that the article was the epitome example of the differences between various socioeconomic groups. Though, you are correct that he uses it as anecdotal evidence and possible confirmation bias of a point which is not adequately supported by such a skewed article.

[ModernLit]

the very rich are pretty mean. look at the thoroughbred raising guy's face... that's not the face of a nice person :/

[plotthickens]

Income disparity sucks. I wish I knew of a recourse.

[ppu6502]

	Originally Posted by Firebrand9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To be fair, he did say originally that Obama's tax cuts reminded him of the article.

I just dislike that sort of article, because it has no scientific value. People read, they look at each person, and that image of each income range calcifies in their head. Even though there is no science behind it, it sinks into a person's head as if there were. I think that's wrong.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with whatever point is trying to be made, I just know it's nothing more than a distraction/propaganda when actual science isn't involved.

[TheObserver]

	Originally Posted by ModernLit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	the very rich are pretty mean. look at the thoroughbred raising guy's face... that's not the face of a nice person :/

Yeah. Judge him based on his appearance.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by TheObserver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah. Judge him based on his appearance.

Let that judgment be the basis for exclusion from public establishments.

[Firebrand]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Income disparity sucks. I wish I knew of a recourse.

Turn people into a bunch of robots with the same capabilities, upbringing, and starting means. Remove ambition from the programming. That'll solve about 90% of it.

	Originally Posted by ModernLit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	the very rich are pretty mean. look at the thoroughbred raising guy's face... that's not the face of a nice person :/

Please tell me this is sarcastic.

[Megalomania]

I wish rich people would work less hard and make less money so the income disparity would go away.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[alt lit]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My point is that there is no substance, and you agreed. You still want the non-existent substance, though? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Incorrect. I never said the story has no substance. Neither did I say or suggest it has no value. What I did say is I agree with you that it is has no value as scientific research or substance usable for quantitative-based study. This does not mean it has no substance, only that it has no substance useful for those purposes. You posted your full view on the matter in post 14 (quoted below), which previously was unstated.

Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I just dislike that sort of article, because it has no scientific value. People read, they look at each person, and that image of each income range calcifies in their head. Even though there is no science behind it, it sinks into a person's head as if there were. I think that's wrong. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with whatever point is trying to be made, I just know it's nothing more than a distraction/propaganda when actual science isn't involved.

I understand your view and agree with aspects of it, but I think it does readers a disservice in assuming that people can’t differentiate between the species and the genus. Some people won’t, and those are the same people on whom a scientific study would also be lost. Those people aside, I still think there is value in analyzing both the general and the specific instances.

I reject the “only scientific info valuable / all non-scientific info not valuable” binary. I think information can have value in a variety of presentations, although people should not misuse information based on its intent and purpose. In fact, I have written an entire thread
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
about the natural and necessary coexistence of science and story, including their distinct roles in our perception, cognition, and communication. So on this point we’ll have to agree to disagree.

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wish rich people would work less hard and make less money so the income disparity would go away. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Based on what you read in the article, do you think Franz or the Pallwitze’s work less hard than the billionaire and the multimillionaire?

	Originally Posted by ModernLit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	the very rich are pretty mean. look at the thoroughbred raising guy's face... that's not the face of a nice person :/

I would say it differently. What struck me is the degree to which empathy generally decreased as income increased, although it wasn’t a perfectly inverse correlation between amount of income and amount of empathy. The producer conveys close to no empathy, the multimillion’s empathy is patently false, and the billionaire’s claim to empathy (via charity) is guarded (though consistent with his broader behavior and perhaps understandably so).

This leads to a sociological/psychological observation and question. Observation: It’s difficult to determine the causal relation between wealth and empathy. Question: Is being empathetic a character trait that increases the likelihood of poverty or is poverty a condition which increases the likelihood of empathy? Clearly both could be mutually and simultaneously true, not to mention there are more factors than these two at play, but it’s interesting to think about in terms of a primary cause and its societal implications.

[Polymath20]

Interesting perspectives, but the higher salary perspective could easily be summed up by the "Get a better job" quip.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by alt lit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Based on what you read in the article, do you think Franz or the Pallwitze’s work less hard than the billionaire and the multimillionaire?

Who knows? Why does it matter? It doesn't. Is it fair to pay someone who only has a high school degree the same as someone who stayed in school 'til they were thirty to get their PhD? It's about the skills and training you possess and how valuable they are - not "how hard" you work.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who knows? Why does it matter? It doesn't. Is it fair to pay someone who only has a high school degree the same as someone who stayed in school 'til they were thirty to get their PhD? It's about the skills and training you possess and how valuable they are - not "how hard" you work.

Skills and training are acquired through hard work. However, some people work very hard at things that don't make much money. Like liberal arts degrees. Some people devote all of their energy simply to accumulating wealth and power, even though they are less intelligent and less hardworking than other people. And then some people are George Clooney.

[La Comtesse]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interesting perspectives, but the higher salary perspective could easily be summed up by the "Get a better job" quip.

I spent four years of undergrad hearing people say this, except with respect to college students and the quality of their university. (It was a private university, and there was a ton of public school bashing.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

It makes me really sad that so many honest people are working extremely hard just for some basic necessities or pleasures in life, and the ones controlling it all blame them for complaining, not working hard enough, or something along the lines of what Polymath said...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I liked Nick's perspective ($125k/wk). He seems to know what he's talking about. Only wish there were more like him. Hopefully he puts his money where his mouth is.

I'm gonna go watch videos of kittens and puppies on YouTube to cheer up..
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[peter]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who knows? Why does it matter? It doesn't. Is it fair to pay someone who only has a high school degree the same as someone who stayed in school 'til they were thirty to get their PhD? It's about the skills and training you possess and how valuable they are - not "how hard" you work.

If such skills become less rare (as they are) is it necessary to reward them as we'd expect? Why does it matter? It doesn't.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Skills and training are acquired through hard work. However, some people work very hard at things that don't make much money. Like liberal arts degrees. Some people devote all of their energy simply to accumulating wealth and power, even though they are less intelligent and less hardworking than other people. And then some people are George Clooney.

I'm aware. The fact you spend your days lifting heavy objects to make your income doesn't mean you deserve a huge salary and the guy at a computer deserves minimum wage. Anyone can perform that job and hence the pay is commensurate. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to pay me a huge salary to be a janitor. It's not exactly skilled labor. To try and sift out those who deserve their salaries and those who don't is a ridiculous exercise in futility and subjectivity. It is much better to let the system sort itself out on the relatively objective measures that determine someone's salary as it is now.