Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: The brutal truth about how childhood determines your economic destiny (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, a lot depends on how you define mobility. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Not A Bot, DeadHead

    If you take it literally as the ability to move from place to place in physical space, then Americans are definitely mobile.
    They not only relocate their residence, on average, every two years, but much of their daily activity involves driving around, albeit in vehicles that keep them contained. The latter is a false mobility, to my way of thinking, but it seems to content a lot of people. Some probably find it safer than perambulating on their own two feet.
    The equation of the accumulation of money and property with wealth is also questionable. In a society in which individuals are assured the necessities of life and most assets are communal and shared, it isn't necessary or even an advantage to own a lot of things that require maintenance and repair. Single family houses, for example, are really inefficient, if the residents only use them to sleep an insufficient number of hours because much of the day is spent running around. Already in the early eighties, before it took two incomes to keep a roof over one's head, single family houses were "generating ten automobile trips a day." (I put that in quotes because that's urban planner talk for why streets and avenues needed to be widened and sidewalks are useless). That meant that even stay-at-home family members didn't stay for long.
    If there's to be class mobility, then there's got to be a social hierarchy, which U.S. culture has long abjured. So, the definition of the American Dream as climbing the hierarchic ladder is really a mistake. From where I sit, as an involuntary child immigrant, the accumulation of property (much of it disposable and disposed of at the dump) is a sop to compensate for the fact that individual properties and the rights that arise are pretty much ignored. The right to life ends at the moment of birth; liberty is conditioned on obedience and compliance with legal strictures; and "pursuit of happiness" is like a dog chasing its tail or a gerbil running on a wheel--false mobility.
    That some few people have accumulated very large quantities of money, as reflected in the books of their banks, is really not very different from the accumulation of books in libraries where they were hardly ever read. So, the information in them was, effectively, restricted to a few people who could read but, in many instances, were unable to make use of what they learned. So, they copied what they found impressive and important and became famous as scribes. Did that improve human welfare? Not hardly. And the reason for that? Because there wasn't even a universal measure for welfare. And even now that money is used almost everywhere as a measure we discover it's not reliable.
    Money can't buy happiness. Happiness is the result of not being deprived of our humanity -- of the right to eat, to sleep, to recreate, to procreate, to associate, to be whole, to be left alone, to perambulate, to be unconstrained. And the culture of obedience does not allow for that. Neither does human husbandry, the exploitation of the many by the few.
    It is the ex-men who need to be constrained, not the majority who care and share what they've got. Those who share don't accumulate. The nice thing about money is that there's never a problem getting rid of it.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:14:49 PM PST

    •  to procreate? (0+ / 0-)

      Really, that is one of our rights? I think that our rights are to eat, breathe, defecate, urinate, and sleep, all under the auspices of life.  And, to be eaten by predators, after a chase, but not with weapons (liberty).  And, to peer up into the sun, while scratching our balls (happiness).  Where's the procreate thing?

      de fin able 1: able to be defined

      by paperscissors on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:44:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  From the perspective of the species, (0+ / 0-)

        reproduction is critical. It's all the genes really care about.
        As for being devoured by predators, that's mostly myth. No large predators subsist primarily on human flesh. Parasites yes. Bacteria definitely. Even some worms thrive in the gut without obvious detriment to the host.
        Some humans have a problem in that they are almost entirely dependent on their sense of sight. So, what they see and what they imagine generates fright because, not being able to see in the dark and not having eyes in the back of the head, they are often surprised. That's why there is "safety in numbers." The more eyes the better. And married men live longer. Humans are naturally social creatures, but some are defective. Nevertheless, the defects aren't lethal and even get reproduced because the social ones look after the self-centered. Self-centered humans do not survive without help and generous humans are keen to provide it.
        The mistake is in letting the self-centered decide what's to be done. Because, strange as it seems, the self-centered tend not to be self-aware and do not know what they or anyone else needs to be done.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:12:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  One definition of happiness ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Who is rich?  One who is content with his portion."  -- Avot ch. 4

      I try to follow that principle.  Saves a lot of trouble worrying about what other people have, and what I don't.  I think you're saying the same thing, Hannah, but from a different vantage point.  

    •  Access to Medical Care (0+ / 0-)

      Is our society one

      in which individuals are assured the necessities of life and most assets are communal and shared, it isn't necessary or even an advantage to own a lot of things that require maintenance and repair.
       I would argue that many do not have their necessities taken care of, with inadequate medical care being one.  There is also substandard housing and inadequate nutrition.  You could also argue that people want to work, and too many people are today deprived of their ability to work (too many people are unemployed, not because they aren't looking for work, but because there aren't enough jobs).  We are far from a world where your amount of savings doesn't matter.  People without money are rarely the ones saying that it doesn't matter.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site