Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Just ignore 'em
It's a fairly safe bet that anybody reading these words has an income with which they can support themselves and their families in relative comfort. By the standards of most of the world for most of history, we would say that such people--me included--are extremely wealthy.
One of the pre-eminent delusions of popular American culture here in the 21st century is that the country as a whole, income-wise, is doing at least moderately well. It is important to our self-image that we maintain this position, that the public as a whole thinks that things are going well, because bad and ugly things could otherwise happen.
And it is true that most of America is doing well. All that's required for one to have this opinion is to (a) be careful with your definition of "most," and/or (b) ignore the percentage of the population that is not doing well. And that's easily done, since poor people are relatively invisible to popular culture; you certainly won't see them on TV or read about them in the popular press.
I don't know for sure that Americans are more fond of self-delusion than other peoples of the world, but there is absolutely no doubt that we are extremely resourceful when it comes to tweaking our perceptions of reality by as much as is required in order for them to agree with our firmly-held opinions of what reality should look like.
For a little insight into income-reality as it is, rather than what popular culture and the political parties and the government and the status quo want you to think it is, take a look at Working hard and losing ground from the NY Times of 12 May 2007.
Oh darn, another illusion shattered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Did Edwards really just skip the question of whether unionization will allow the same number of jobs to be created?
Also...We need to make sure we all agree on what poor is, and what we should call it.
Poor in america...people below the poverty line are people with what standard of living?
2 car families, with cable tv, dvd players, PS2's, Microwave, Dishwasher, etc., who live in poorer areas of town in 2 bedroom apartments for a family of 4, rather than 4 bedroom houses for said family?
How much is their average annual expenditures, counting various forms of assistance? 19k? or 28k?
or 35k? I don't know.
And should we be comparing to the average american to determine poorness? or to the average Mexican (10k? average income), the average Russian (4k? average), the average Indian (?? average).
And...how many of those poor are poor because they're college students? Are those tax returns being filed? For a 21 year old harvard undergrad, does he count as poor becaues he has a $5k salary for his 2 month summer internship, and makes little/no $ besides that?
How many of the poor are poor this year, and not next (between jobs)? How many are poor because they're young, and will be not poor 3 years down the road? If many/most of these questions line up in ways that indicate non-endemic poorness...then I am not sure our normal perceptions are as skewed as you (and NYT) might suggest.
Replies to two comments above:
1. The article wasn't about Edwards, and his thoughts or comments weren't particularly relevant.
2. The premise of the posting was that Americans find it convenient, comfortable and expedient to ignore/deny/refute the presence of a large poor population. To comfortably, conveniently and expediently make numerous points that ignore/deny/refute the presence of a large poor population seems a little peculiar. Or were you being ironic?
Post a Comment