Defining "wealth" : can *everyone* be rich?

[Mike Niendorff]

It's a simple question : can *everyone* be wealthy?

I fundamentally believe the answer is YES ... BUT : that answer completely depends on re-examining the concept of "wealth".

If, by "wealth", you really mean "wealthier" (a comparative term), then no, there cannot be wealth for everyone. Wealth is only defined in comparison to others. So no one can be wealthy unless someone else is poor.

Do you see the problem here?

THIS IS A FLAW IN THE WAY "WEALTH" IS BEING DEFINED, in virtually all discourse these days.

But, instead, if we define wealth in terms of "quality of life" -- then YES, everyone CAN be wealthy. The advances that benefit each person (science, medicine, technology, freedom, education, and so much more) ALSO benefit everyone else. It is not an "either/or" choice (between my wealth and yours). It is an "and" choice -- because what benefits me ALSO benefits you (and vice versa)

My wealth is your wealth. My poverty is your poverty.

We are in this together, folks.

Everyone. Everywhere.


MDN

[Mike Nelson]

1. If everyone were wealthy...

...who would do the jobs and tasks poor people do now?

[yeoman6987]

4. And if everyone was a millionaire, that pizza would suddenly be 25,000 dollars

It is impossible for everyone to have the same amount or even close to. Now the number between financial classes can tighten quite a bit.

[LanternWaste]

7. If everyone were poor...

If everyone were poor, who would do the jobs and tasks rich people do now?

(corollaries often bring with them their own contradistinctions to the table)

[haele]

2. You're right, "rich" can be defined many ways.

I went through life into my teens not knowing we were poor, until that one little episode of "one meal a day" for a near a half-dozen months while my parents were scrambling for jobs (thanks, Governor Ronnie...). There were times I actually felt we were rich, because I had enough to make me happy. Life wasn't monetized to the level that it is now.
Decent things, basic things, tended to be affordable to most people; while there were homeless and starving people, if you could work a regular job - any job - you could usually afford some sort of roof over your head and enough food to keep you going.

That tends to be the crux of the matter. Now that everything has, in effect, "a price" and is seen as an opportunity cost in the free market, nothing and no-one has any value other than the money that they can bring to the next highest buyer. That paradigm has to end, or everyone whether rich or poor will be pretty much disposable.

Haele

[hobbit709]

3. If your life is a day to day struggle to get by, you are NOT rich.

[GreatGazoo]

5. The standard of living peaked in 1968 in the US and in 1971 in the UK

In the US, people own less and less. The average age of a car on the road today is 11 years. Basic medical care is the #1 reason for bankruptcies. Americans travel less, work longer hours and have less disposable income.

Intellectual abstractions, unfortunately, aren't going to change any of that.

[Mike Niendorff]

6. I agree

If it is possible for everyone to be rich, it is also possible for everyone to be poor.
And the same goes for comparative terms like "richer". And "poorer".

My point being, we should not define wealth relative to our neighbors. The best cabin in a sinking ship is the same as the worst, at the end of the day.

The terms of the discussion need to change.

This message is specifically for the right wing, who only see the relative cabins, and not the sinking (or excelling) ship that carries them all.


MDN

[GreatGazoo]

9. During the downturn of 2007-2009, many people who were out of work for the first time

started to think more about the spiritual side of life. It was as if stepping off that treadmill of work and shopping cleared their heads. They had something they had never had before in their over-scheduled, over-structured lives -- free time. For some this changed their goals from just wanting to go back to the career ladder to moving toward more autonomy, working fewer hours.

Owning your time is wealth, knowledge is wealth. Art, food, passion, travel and experience are all wealth to me.

More to your point, universal healthcare is wealth. Single payer would give more freedom to many Americans who cling to an unsatisfying job or work into their seniors years to hang on to whatever health insurance still comes with that. It would encourage us all to see more of the "were all in this mess together" thing. And would free more people up to be entrepreneurs, stay-at-home parents or happily retired.

[Whiskeytide]

8. People have been searching for Utopia for thousands ...

... of years. There has always been a ruling class and a working class. It has been ingrained into our society since we lived in caves. So no, I do not think everyone can be "wealthy". It's not our nature.

The experiment of democracy, however, theoretically pitted government by the people (through our representatives) against the oligarchs. At times it has had limited success, and the playing field has been more level than at other times. People at least felt as if they had a chance to live well - and many have in this country - much more so than in most others. But eventually, money tends to find a way to come out on top.

I think we are currently in a period where democracy is woefully unable to counter the influence of the money. It's just that simple. The rise of corporate influence has been unprecedented and unchecked for several decades. They have now effectively bought the democracy. Advances in technology, the globalization of the economy, and the incredible influence of mass media has helped them along this time, such that the democracy has been bought right out from under our noses and few have noticed - and when they have dared to notice, the apparatus has pretty effectively shouted them down.

I use to think a reckoning was in our future. Now I'm not so sure. The attack on democracy is so well organized, so broad, so relentless and so adroit, that it may stick this time.

It's sad. When Orwell's 1984 came out in 1949, it depicted a hellish society - and most of us recognized it as such. But some, apparently, read it as an instruction manual for supplanting a democracy with an oligarchy. If the PsTB had tried to put that into effect in 1950, there would have been a revolt. But, apparently, these fine folks were smart enough to patiently take their time and play the long game. Like the frog in the pot, we have just sat there as the temperature has been turned up.