we're worse off than we were in the nineteenth century. well, if that's not what you mean, then why say it?
i'm imagining what my grandmother would say if i called her up and suggested that i'm worse off than people were in the nineteenth century. after a hearty chuckle, i'd no doubt get a story about walking to school in a blizzard. and perhaps a query as to when they stopped teaching dickens.
but, my grandmother would be right. i recognize that i have a certain privilege, as a canadian, but i don't think i'm overstepping my bounds. i live in a seventy-five year old building that's a little run down in a poor neighbourhood of town; this is certainly better than anything comparable in the nineteenth century. i might see the odd roach, but there's no rats. there's no floods in the spring. there's functioning plumbing. a stove. a fridge. heat. electricity. and, that's all included in the rent.
food is never scarce, ever, and while i've had to live on fortified spaghetti and vitamin supplements for stretches when i was in university (how many lower class kids in the nineteenth century got that chance?), and have used a food bank a handful of times, i've never been in serious threat of starvation.
so, is this a serious argument? then, why expect people to take it seriously?
the income inequality argument is homo economicus. it's the idea that we're all seeking the same thing, and feel cheated by having less than our neighbour; rational self-interest. i don't buy it.
and, you start poking people in the eyes with this unnecessarily, as you have no chance but to sound like a communist.
rather than speak of something most people don't care about in terms most likely to mobilize opponents, why not try and hit some common ground to start and instead talk about poverty rates.
forget about how far the top is from the bottom. focus more on the distance between the bottom and living in tragedy. that is, the issue here is quality of life.
i don't want a yacht or a mansion. i'm happy with necessities dealt with, and some spare time for art. and, i think i'm most people.
again: the point i'm trying to make is that comparing medians and looking at relative growth is not convincing, and is especially not convincing to the people that are being most affected, who do not care. when you have to go out of your way to convince somebody that they're being oppressed, are they really?
the error being made is the assumption of the homo economicus model, complete with the protestant work ethic. there is no "american dream" without homo economicus and protestant work ethic. and, because there is no homo economicus and no protestant work ethic, there is consequently no american dream. that is, americans have different dreams - dreams that are more practical.
i don't dream about "success", whatever that even means. i dream about stability. to have necessities met. to have time to spend. you can't eat money. you can't spend time with it, either. it's a largely meaningless component in determining actual quality of life.
and, you're left with a hopeless future in pushing this argument: ivory tower intellectuals waving studies around trying to incite the working poor who stare blankly back and say "these are not my priorities".
i am a poor person. i am a working class person. take me seriously. income inequality is not a good argument for the exact reason that it is relative. absolute levels of poverty are a good argument for the exact reason that it is not relative. we can understand arguments when they are presented in absolute terms; we can conceive of immediate, meaningful changes. we can understand what you're saying. discussions of income inequality on relative terms are too abstract, too hard to understand, too disconnected from reality. and, the end is not of importance.
i don't care how many yachts some douchebag across the world has. i care about whether my neighbours have what they require. and, when i organize and fight and do activist things, it is not to take things away from others - it is to ensure that the people i see in front of me have what they are and ought to be entitled to.