[Eddy_Viscosity2]

In a way this is the ultimate goal of conservatism in its literal sense to conserve. The rich want have their place in society safely entrenched at the top, with no risk of people rising from below to displace them. Those at the bottom should stay locked in there and work and toil because that is the natural order of things.

[Herring]

According to the election and the polls, this is exactly what Americans want.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/americans-vi...

> 41% of Americans say the government should provide more assistance to people in need

> 30% say it's providing about the right amount

> 27% say it should provide less

41-57? If there are issues in America, it's because Americans want it that way.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement.

If you're trapped in a job because of its health coverage, that's restricting mobility. People can' take the risk on changing jobs/locations or even something like starting their own businesses because of the would lose coverage and don't have the wealth to self-pay.

If you're working so many hours just to cover essentials like rent you just too exhausted to look for better work or take courses for a new profession.

If costs and prices rise way faster than your wages, then you start losing ground and do so at an ever increasing rate while those at the top who live on investments and passive income benefit because the value of their assets rise faster.

If opportunities for high paying jobs dry up because, for example, AI replaces those jobs.

If fees and interest on student debt keeps you locked down forever.

If all best and highest paying jobs just go to family members of the already rich through systemic nepotism.

The list goes on. I'm not which of these the American public voted for.

- people trapped in poorly paying jobs and/or jobs with terrible conditions by blocking or dismantling unions.

- locking people out of high paying jobs via network effects. Like nepotism in hollywood or firms only hiring from certain universities which you can only get into

[Herring]

> Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement.

I think it's really hard to do one without improving the other. They're inextricably linked. I only like to focus on the first one because it's easier and the ROI is higher.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I absolutely agree that its important, but social assistance for the poor is just one facet of bigger picture that is exponentially growing inequality of which reduced mobility is a symptom. Another counter-measure is raising minimum wages which can have a huge ROI for those who work long hours for such low pay. And despite all the rich people on TV warning us of the doom that would befall the economy by paying hard working poor people more, ultimately when pay does go up it turns out ok. Having unions also helps improve wages, conditions, and overall quality of life for workers - even those not in unions. But unions are under hard assault. Another could be to stop actively supporting these stupidly high salaries to CEOs by capping how much of those pay packages can be a tax deductible expense for corporations. The list goes on. Ultimately the american public, whether pinky liberal or staunch conservative, do want the ideal of the american dream of being able to work hard and succeeding. No one is voting to work forever in debt slavery to a hereditary aristocracy, but that is where we're headed.

[mathiaspoint]

Oh cool you've nominally gone after the rich and then pointed at the middle class again. I'm sure this will make you and your ideas popular.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Yeah, I don't know what this means.