First, you are saying that the concentration of wealth is not a massive problem. This is a moral point, so there is no right or wrong, but I consider that everyone is entitled to a decent living in a society as wealthy as the US, and it is clearly not the case, given the poverty rate of 13%, and this statistic (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/10/06/why-half-of-americans-cant-come-up-with-400-in-an-emergency/106216294/).
I agree with you on this point, generally speaking. Cost of living in the US is kind of nuts, especially in certain areas, and it’s causing a ton of problems because wages have failed to keep up.
Second, you argue the American Dream is not dead because it can be revived if the education system is repaired. Well, it has been dead for many people in the past few years, and it will stay that way for the foreseeable future, as no significant education reform is planned.
Hmmmmmm. It’s never dead……because even in the worst of schools, a dedicated parent with an aspirational student can navigate their way around the land mines and get the kid into community college; once there, their ticket is punched to a better life.
The problem in the districts with those “worst schools” is threefold; it’s not bad enough that the school sucks, but the kids in that district are unlikely to be aspirational, and they are unlikely to have parents who are dedicated to kids education.
I used to teach in one of those “worst schools”. You have parent teacher night, and maybe — MAYBE — 5% of the parents show up. You have parent teacher night in an upper middle class district, and EVERY SINGLE EFFING PARENT shows up, and maybe a few grandparents, aunts, and uncles as well.
So, no, I ‘m not going to agree with “dream dead” just because the school sucks; but it’s on serious life support, because of a lack of home support which the kid probably has stopped caring about anyway by the time he or she hits middle school.
I don’t know how to solve that. But what I do know is that it’s not the boat’s fault if the person steering it steers it into a rock.
If they had empathy, they would make laws that benefit people over private interests, company decisions could be more focused on employee’s welfare, media and ads would inform and educate.
Yea….maybe we’re using the word differently. Lots of rich people care about these issues, but I can think of several examples where the wealthy CEO is known for being rather hands on with thoughtful, massive donations, but their company has a reputation for employee “stuff” which is ….. not good.
What the CEO does regarding wage, programs that benefit employees, etc., is largely dictated to them by Wall Street. What they personally FEEL about these matters is……..not relevant, because outside of their own personal donations from their own wealth…… what they do is largely determined by the constant demands of higher profits, which runs directly counter to almost everything you can think of that falls into the category of “employee well being”.
An example: is it fair that a person good at maths can earn 10 or 100 times what a fruit picker earns? There is a big component of luck (genes and family education) into someone’s logical abilities.
Sure. But it’s also not his or her fault that they won the genetic lottery. Teach high school for a year and you’ll REALLY see how unfair it is; the kid who is the star athlete is also probably good looking, and in many cases the “dumb jock” stereotype does NOT hold; the kid is probably also an honor student and the theater teacher wants him to be the lead in the play.
Everybody gets that.
When you realize that, you realize that wealth redistribution (by various means) can be good to mitigate these (in my opinion) unfair wealth gaps between people.
As I said before (to someone else) I believe in a civil society. The US is cash-strapped to pay for both a substantial portion of the developed world’s military defense AND for our civil society.