[voicereasonish]

Because some people want to pretend that a village idiot is as valuable as an Einstein to society.

We are all drastically more wealthy than our parents and grandparents. We have it far better. But for socialists, this is not enough. They despise "inequality" and wealth.

[akgerber]

"We are all drastically more wealthy than our parents and grandparents. We have it far better. But for socialists, this is not enough. They despise "inequality" and wealth."

Only if by 'we' to mean the top 20% of American society.

The median worker's wages have been essentially stagnant since 1970: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/01/13/opinion/13green...

Moreover, inflation has been uneven: food (including in restaurants) and electronics have plummeted, but the costs of education and healthcare have skyrocketed, and housing has skyrocketed in areas with good job opportunities. It's easy to cut back on new electronics and restaurants, but a lot harder to cut back on housing and healthcare. Cutting back in education gets your stuck in a poverty trap.

So things don't necessarily look so bright for the median worker, especially after 6 years of persistently high unemployment.

I can't dig up a source for that part right now, but it's out there in the CPI statistics.

[atom-morgan]

"The median worker's wages have been essentially stagnant since 1970"

This kind of language is exactly why you think only 20% of Americans are wealthier than our parents and grandparents. Money ≠ wealth. Compare the number of people today who have access to washers, dryers, irons, microwaves, a kitchen, cars, cell phones, and so on to previous generations. Even if wages have remained stagnant the average standard of living is almost always increasing. You can even live in an apartment, own many or all of those items I listed, and still be classified as living in conditions of poverty.

I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist. But I am saying the definition of poverty is constantly being adjusted because humans are so great at creating more wealth. Instead of an absolute metric for poverty or a standard of living, we use a subjective one that changes as humans acquire more wealth.

If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend Paul Graham's essay "How to Make Wealth"[1]. He covers this subject very well.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

[tiatia]

"We are all drastically more wealthy than our parents and grandparents." I doubt that is true based on inflation adjusted income. True, due to progress in science and technology, you have better medical care, faster computers, cars with more horsepower and Flatscreen TV panels.

But on inflation adjusted income, job opportunities, and retirement age and social security benefits the baby boomer generation was likely the peak. Trust me, the likelihood that we are just going downhill from now is quite high.

>They despise "inequality" and wealth. Maybe. I despise Kim Il Song. He is wealthy and his country has inequality.

[zanny]

That isn't to say we couldn't fix it, but we aren't making any efforts to. Hopefully the social instability eventually leads to a negative income tax.

[miranada]

the inequality is not the problem, it's that when one person does not have enough because another has too much.

people pretend that wealth does not increase the cost of living for the poor, but it does. And the poor should not be penalized for this.

Even the village idiot should have a place to sleep, though the very valuable Einstein bought all the houses.

[insuffi]

You have it all mixed up, my friend.

Some people want to think that a village idiot doesn't deserve to live a miserable life because he is a village idiot.

You're certainly pulling a lot of strawmen here. Come to think of it, almost reminds me of Fox News. They have a habit of demonizing the other group, just to make themselves feel better.

[mseebach]

> They have a habit of demonizing the other group, just to make themselves feel better.

Thank you for being the better person and not joining in.

[insuffi]

Care to point out where exactly in my reply it was that I was demonizing him? I was drawing parallels with a news outlet that has a habit of engaging into similar misrepresentations of situations.

[mseebach]

You're not demonising him as such, you're grossly misrepresenting what he wrote, presumably to further your own agenda.

The idea that he would think that a village idiot deserves to live a miserable life is entirely in your head, and quite at odds with the second paragraph of his comment.

[insuffi]

Except that's not what I'm doing at all.

I was trying to say that the inequality and "hatred" towards inequality and wealth(both claims unsubstantiated, with emotionally charged language)he is attributing to "socialists"(used as almost a slur in his text, also, wrong, social democracies are the wealthiest systems around) is in his head. You are the one misrepresenting my argument.

And just because we have it "better", doesn't mean everyone has at least a reasonable standard of living. Einstein should be earning a lot more, but a village idiot also deserves to not live in dire poverty.