The Scary New Rich(newsweek.com)
newsweek.com
The Scary New Rich
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234589
6 comments
What the author of this article doesn't seem to realize is that populations only become politically liberal as they can afford to be. Child labor laws didn't happen in the US, e.g., until families could afford to survive without child labor. These emerging middle classes still have a long way to go before they can afford to be as politically liberal as the US is today.
Like the OP, I'm also interested in building up a modest income with a side project. I have a question about it that you seem particularly likely to be able to answer:
How do you go about setting up an LLC from abroad (like you in Japan), and was it the sort of thing that could be done on a shoestring budget?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161997
How do you go about setting up an LLC from abroad (like you in Japan), and was it the sort of thing that could be done on a shoestring budget?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161997
sorry, I posted this on the wrong thread
I read your quote before reading the article, and I was dead sure the quote was about the US :-)
I was seriously waiting for the reveal. (P.S. I have used the "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, HAH, I was talking about X the whole time" shtick more times than I want to think about. It is practically "Hit this button to get your writing ability praised" in cultural studies. I got my degree before anyone caught on that I worked it into almost every other paper.)
Hey, at least you had a method. That's more strategy than I put into most of my college papers:-)
I was thinking the same thing. That quote describes our society pretty well.
I don't buy it. France's middle class already think and behave very differently from America's. The fact is though that in any society, people don't like corruption or being told what to think and the ones with a bit of money will vote with their wallets. That might not look the same as western democracy but I'm confident it will trend towards the rule of law and individual freedoms.
the ones with a bit of money will vote with their wallets
The problem with this (regarding China in particular) is that the "ones with a bit money" and the "people" sometimes intersect at very few points.
The problem with this (regarding China in particular) is that the "ones with a bit money" and the "people" sometimes intersect at very few points.
I would have to conceed that point. But if the ruling elite use the promise of expanding prosperity to stay in power then sooner or later they either won't be in power any more or there will be greater prosperity.
I try to steer clear of articles such as these but got fooled by the submission title. These attempts to paint the world in such broad strokes may seem to provide information in easily digestible forms but are useless, being just one step higher than black and white or good and evil.
No matter how appealing it may be to simplistically classify millions of people like that, the devil is in the details always. We can just begin to form some crude models with an in-depth study of the economies and sub-economies (and sub-sub) of the world (a humble attempt here: http://www.gapminder.org/ ), let alone their equally complex social and political data.
And despite the authors' beliefs, we are still evolving in all spheres - political, social and economic. Today's liberal views can yet be viewed as conservative in the future when better *cracies will form, very many of them from the so-called second and third worlds.
No matter how appealing it may be to simplistically classify millions of people like that, the devil is in the details always. We can just begin to form some crude models with an in-depth study of the economies and sub-economies (and sub-sub) of the world (a humble attempt here: http://www.gapminder.org/ ), let alone their equally complex social and political data.
And despite the authors' beliefs, we are still evolving in all spheres - political, social and economic. Today's liberal views can yet be viewed as conservative in the future when better *cracies will form, very many of them from the so-called second and third worlds.
people who have to work pretty hard for everything they have tend to be conservative in the literal sense of the term. middle class in china have a 50% of income savings rate or so I've heard.
I wouldn't put it that way. Think of the subsistence farmer struggling to make ends meet after the social safety net got taken away. Or the factory worker whose newborn child has birth defects likely induced by hazardous pollution in the work environment. These people fall well within the category of "work pretty hard" but they are also the most likely advocates of reform.
I think the article got it right -- the "conservatives" simply feel they have more to lose. China's urban baby-boomer generation grew up during the Cultural Revolution in the '60s and '70s, where it was effectively mob rule by the Red Guards at a local level and many were sent to the countryside for re-education. They've seen what misguided "reform" can do and are not clamoring for it to happen again.
I think the article got it right -- the "conservatives" simply feel they have more to lose. China's urban baby-boomer generation grew up during the Cultural Revolution in the '60s and '70s, where it was effectively mob rule by the Red Guards at a local level and many were sent to the countryside for re-education. They've seen what misguided "reform" can do and are not clamoring for it to happen again.
Welcome to the real world. Your country is nothing more than a really big corporation. If your big corporation can not control and predict the money flow, your big corporation will be susceptible to bankruptcy.
This article is just an erroneous generalization. The "middle class" culture and politics aren't the same in these countries.
This article is just an erroneous generalization. The "middle class" culture and politics aren't the same in these countries.
The Cold War definitions of First, Second, and Third "worlds" are obsolete. Updated for 2010:
First World: politically liberal, transparent government, rich countries with universal healthcare and mandated vacation floors. Moderate to high economic growth. Poverty is virtually nonexistent; it's not tolerant. The major flaw of these countries comes from their strength-- although completely nonmilitant, they can be a bit insular and closed to outsiders.
Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually, high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status.
Third World: persistently underdeveloped and poor countries-- often too corrupt and wartorn even to get off the ground-- that, absent substantial change, have grim economic futures.
This article is about the Second World mentality. First World includes most of the EU countries and Canada. Second World includes the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries as well as the Arab oil states, most of Latin America, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai, and (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan.
In fact, I'd argue that the main political tension in the US is between a First World (Blue States) and Second World (Red States) subnation that are emerging, and diverging, within one country. The post-2001 militancy is our Second World component expressing a willingness to sacrifice prosperity, lives, and political freedom for national dominance.
First World: politically liberal, transparent government, rich countries with universal healthcare and mandated vacation floors. Moderate to high economic growth. Poverty is virtually nonexistent; it's not tolerant. The major flaw of these countries comes from their strength-- although completely nonmilitant, they can be a bit insular and closed to outsiders.
Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually, high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status.
Third World: persistently underdeveloped and poor countries-- often too corrupt and wartorn even to get off the ground-- that, absent substantial change, have grim economic futures.
This article is about the Second World mentality. First World includes most of the EU countries and Canada. Second World includes the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries as well as the Arab oil states, most of Latin America, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai, and (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan.
In fact, I'd argue that the main political tension in the US is between a First World (Blue States) and Second World (Red States) subnation that are emerging, and diverging, within one country. The post-2001 militancy is our Second World component expressing a willingness to sacrifice prosperity, lives, and political freedom for national dominance.
> Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually, high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status.
> (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan.
Oh really? "high degrees of corruption"? "low degree of political freedom"?
> overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies.
Name three countries with comparable diversity that doesn't see that.
> Lots of poverty
What standard are we using? As I've pointed out, lots of US poor have a car and multiple TVs. They'd be considered rich anywhere else.
> (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan.
Oh really? "high degrees of corruption"? "low degree of political freedom"?
> overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies.
Name three countries with comparable diversity that doesn't see that.
> Lots of poverty
What standard are we using? As I've pointed out, lots of US poor have a car and multiple TVs. They'd be considered rich anywhere else.
high degrees of corruption"?
The US is #19 on the list: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...
"low degree of political freedom"? #20 in Freedom of the Press http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html
The US is #19 on the list: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...
"low degree of political freedom"? #20 in Freedom of the Press http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html
Lists don't tell you the degree of difference.
FWIW, the political freedom list has lots of ties near the top and the US is tied with the UK. Both are significantly ahead of France and Italy. You remember the UK, France, and Italy - they're supposedly far above the US.
Then there's the problem that the "political freedom" list doesn't actually measure political freedom. As it says:
"The United States has climbed 16 places in the rankings, from 36th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this.
But this sharp rise concerns only the state of press freedom within the United States. President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but his country is still fighting two wars."
Obama being elected or getting the Nobel Peace Prize didn't change political freedom in the US.
I expect that I'll find similar problems with the "corruption" ist.
FWIW, the political freedom list has lots of ties near the top and the US is tied with the UK. Both are significantly ahead of France and Italy. You remember the UK, France, and Italy - they're supposedly far above the US.
Then there's the problem that the "political freedom" list doesn't actually measure political freedom. As it says:
"The United States has climbed 16 places in the rankings, from 36th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this.
But this sharp rise concerns only the state of press freedom within the United States. President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but his country is still fighting two wars."
Obama being elected or getting the Nobel Peace Prize didn't change political freedom in the US.
I expect that I'll find similar problems with the "corruption" ist.
Oh please! Name me a first world country (by your standards) with three hundred million or more people. The sheer size of countries like: China, India, U.S., and Russia, makes them totally different than Finland or The Netherlands.
Well, the conclusion, if your point is correct, is not that the op is wrong but that large, prosperous nations tend toward 2nd world status.
Poor management is no excuse for failing to meet the promise of a nation.
I'm sure 7,000,000 people were hard to manage in 1810 by largely horse messengers.
I'm sure 7,000,000 people were hard to manage in 1810 by largely horse messengers.
Not to mention the lack of diversity in smaller countries, especially European ones. (No, a bunch of Italians in France is not "diversity".)
That is changing with Islamic immigration, and they're seeing the race/class discrepancies that they claim are "uncivilized".
That is changing with Islamic immigration, and they're seeing the race/class discrepancies that they claim are "uncivilized".
There are cultural differences in our country, to be sure, but I would hesitate to compare a red state to Russia. Journalists are assassinated in Russia. There is institutionalized corruption in many of these other countries.
And don't be so quick to blame the (latest) US militancy on some 'second-world component' of our citizenry. The actions of our government don't often line up with public opinion. I don't remember people clamoring for an invasion of Iraq. Quite the contrary.
And don't be so quick to blame the (latest) US militancy on some 'second-world component' of our citizenry. The actions of our government don't often line up with public opinion. I don't remember people clamoring for an invasion of Iraq. Quite the contrary.
Where's Japan in your categorization?
I'm presuming it is hanging out with poverty-unknown UK, racism-free France, politically-incorruptible Italy, and socioeconomically-homogenous Canada. Which is to say, right past the second star to the left, go straight on 'till morning.
I know very little about it.
As opposed to the other countries in your list, in which you are clearly well-versed :)
I think that's a pretty astute assessment, but you mentioned the unspeakable: that America has become Second World. You'll be down-voted to oblivion out of an emotional reaction, but your analysis is smack on.
No, he just conveniently defined the terms to make a provocative statement about the US. Consider the fact that if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income, the US's rank is far and away number 1. You have to do some intellectual contortions to match an entity like that with the second tier.
Consider the fact that if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income
you get #10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...
If you sample 100 households and take median income, it falls further.
If you factor in health care and university costs, it drops further. You're making an emotional response to a fairly clinical fact.
I won't bring up current account and debt. You get the idea. You're making my original point for me.
you get #10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...
If you sample 100 households and take median income, it falls further.
If you factor in health care and university costs, it drops further. You're making an emotional response to a fairly clinical fact.
I won't bring up current account and debt. You get the idea. You're making my original point for me.
Those Wikipedia numbers are improper to use as an argument. Real GDP per Capita should be used, not nominal.
PPP says essentially to "divide by the cost of a BigMac." A BigMac might cost more in Europe, but they don't eat them. It's silly.
The result of PPP is that it makes the poorest states in the US appear to be richer than places like Switzerland. Go visit Switzerland, then Louisiana, and come back here and we'll talk.
The result of PPP is that it makes the poorest states in the US appear to be richer than places like Switzerland. Go visit Switzerland, then Louisiana, and come back here and we'll talk.
PPP is indeed a silly measure as practiced. McDonalds has almost no competitors in Switzerland (no In&Out, Jack, TacoBell or Subway across the street) - therefore a BigMac costs at least 5 times more than in the US.
There are other measures that suck as well - e.g. external debt. OMG, Switzerland, Monaco and Luxembourg are completely screwed ... or are these popular banking places, that own foreign investors money that they actually are hording and did not spent it in the Looney-Tunes store at the local mall?
Can you elaborate more on:
" if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..."
" if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..."
> if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..."
Both the average and median income in the US are fairly high by world standards.
As far as being poor, poor people in the US typically have a car and one or more TVs. (Yes, there are exceptions. However, it's also nearly impossible to get many US homeless to use housing that is provided.)
Both the average and median income in the US are fairly high by world standards.
As far as being poor, poor people in the US typically have a car and one or more TVs. (Yes, there are exceptions. However, it's also nearly impossible to get many US homeless to use housing that is provided.)
The US probably belongs in its own category, since both mentalities are strong here, but between 1980 and 2008 we've clearly been pulling in the Second World direction. What's going on now is less clear, but we certainly haven't seen the miraculous change we'd hoped (but not expected) would follow Obama's election.
As far as this is true, this is the result of the massive immigration from Mexico and Central America.
This is pretty much verbatim what folks said about the rise of the United States. And, for that matter, the British before us. And, for that matter, Japan.
(Though foreign observers haven't frequently described Japanese as fiercely individualistic since, oh, the 1920s or so. Fun fact about changing perceptions of culture: Japanese people also used to be well-known as poorly educated slackers.)