Not at all. Could thongs be better? Yes.
Should things be better? Yes.
Are things to the point where I’m willing to give up my lower middle class lifestyle, potentially my life to affect change? Not in the least.
As long as I got my TV, boat, snowmobile and a forty hour a week job to pay for it and my 1.7 children (or whatever) I’m too busy and comfortable to get involved.
Stuff is the opiate of the masses.
A social revolution in the country where the nation’s ‘dream’ is intrinsically related to capitalism? Not likely.
It’s mainly (not solely though) a matter of identity and inertia. US citizens seem as eager to change their political system as are the British willing to do away with their medieval vestigiality they call monarchy.
Not nearly close enough.
Eat the rich.
Nowhere close in my opinion. I think a possible fundamental change on the horizon would be a reversal of the “Reagan revolution”. Modern conservatives are still essentially riding on Reagan’s coattails. A liberal Democrat with Reagan’s charisma could galvanize the voters like Reagan did and shift the center of American politics to the left like he did to the right.
I think thongs are already pretty good.
I have to second mbh’s sentiment upthread. The liberals that are all for “revolution” are the ones least capable to start it or finish it. Mostly keyboard warriors.
There’s one area where I think Something Must Change, and that’s having kids. Kids are rapidly becoming entirely unaffordable for the middle-middle class. I know that for us, family insurance is now a larger expense than the mortgage, and that’s if we don’t actually ever get sick. If we do get sick, it’s $2400/each before the insurance kicks in at all. Three years ago, we were able to responsibly afford to have a baby only by following an extremely frugal lifestyle for years before that. Now, we couldn’t even do that. Stagnant wages plus rising healthcare premiums and deductibles have made what was already expensive simply impossible for a huge swath of the population.
No. The large majority of the American people are extremely well off by any reasonable standard. Most of them are smart enough to know it. Median income in the USA is higher than in any large nation; only a few midget countries like Luxembourg have a wealthier middle class.
Some folks tend to forget that there’s no reason why an ordinary person should be opposed to “income inequality”, or to care about it all. What matters to Joe Blow is Joe Blow’s personal wealth. Whether or not billionaires are amassing huge fortunes does not affect him one way or the other.
Could you please describe what form this social revolution you envision might take so that we may recognize it when it gets here? “Social Revolution” is a vague term that can mean just about anything.
I guess where I see the most problem (IMO) is the huge cohorts of striving people locked between the lower middle class and the underclass in jobs hovering around the minimum wage and a few dollars above. And I’m not talking about starter kid jobs I’m talking about adults supporting families making a few dollars above minimum wage for long stretches of time. There used to an expectation that this would eventually be an upward path to the middle class, but the relentless pressure on keeping wages down by hook or by crook by wage payers impoverishes this group.
I don’t think eviscerating your middle class is a sustainable policy over the long term.
You went the wrong way King Obama.
Now we must put you on the shelf.
That’s why the people are revolting, Obama,
'Cause you’re pretty revolting yourself
(apologies to Allan Sherman)
Protect yourself from the revolutionary 1%, get one of these!
But that doesn’t answer my question at all. Could you please describe what form this “social revolution” you imagine might take? How will we recognize it when/if it happens?
The middle class and under class deciding they have had enough and demanding a large increase in minimum wage levels for adults and a restructuring of tax policies that increase taxes on high earners. Re the “form” I imagine it will take violent protests and extraordinary social disruption before the American plutocracy and it’s servants and power brokers feel they have to lift a finger.
The plutocracy will have to feel a visceral threat to their lifestyle before doing anything. I don’t think that’s going to happen by their opponents being nice.
So in other words, the exact same thing that’s already happening, peacefully, via the ballot box, in cities all around the country.
Why do you imagine that “violent protests and extraordinary social disruption” are necessary for a wage hike?
The way Obama slapped down the Occupy movement didn’t exactly bode well.
That’s simply not true. Income equality is a major drag on an economy; money in the hands of the rest of the population is better for an economy than money in the hands of the wealthy because they spend it, and on a wider variety of products and services. Income inequality means that “Joe Blow” is likely to be paid less, and more likely to not have a job at all.
Americans today have it better than any culture in history. Why would we want a revolution?
How exactly did Obama accomplish this feat?
I see revolution more along regional lines, specifically the West breaking away. Whatever it is that sets revolt, the end will be the USA breaking into smaller units.
No, too many people know how good we have it here.
Pretty sure it was a combination of internal fizzling out and municipal governments around the country putting an end to it. The Federal government didn’t have anything to do with propping it up or crushing it one way or the other. Neither did most state governments either.