Let's talk about class and wealth in American society. Yes, this is a house thread.

[crispini]

I've seen an awful lot of kneejerk posting from both sides going on in GD over the last couple of days. I'd like to request that those of you who would like to post in this thread please take five minutes to read this post and the thread and think about the issue from the opposite side, and refrain from simply doing a "post-and-run" with your opinion, which-ever it may be. I think that this issue touches on some pretty interesting and important stuff in American society and it's worthy of a real discussion, not this ridiculous tit for tat sniping that has characterized a lot of this discussion. (Not ALL, if you have given more than 2 minutes of thought about this and posted correspondingly, I'm not looking at you.) :P

That said, of course, I thorougly expect this to sink link a stone, but nevermind. Let's begin. I would like to set the stage first, and talk about some of what is REALLY being discussed here: wealth and consumerism in America today.

One: The distribution of wealth is, at this time in American society, more unequal than it has been since the Gilded Era. That means, of course, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer. America's Gini Coefficient (measure of inequality of income) is 40.8. This puts us in such good company as Cambodia and China.

Hungary 24.4
Denmark 24.7
Japan 24.9
Belgium 25.0
Sweden 25.0
Czech Republic 25.4
...
Australia 35.2
...
United Kingdom 36.0
...
Turkmenistan 40.8
United States 40.8
Senegal 41.3
Tunisia 41.7

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/indic_126_2_1.html

Two: The economic bracket you're born in is probably the economic bracket you will die in. In other words, income mobility, the poor-boy-made-good story, is exactly that: a story, an exception. I would like to refer you to this graphic:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

It comes from a much longer NYTimes story which is well worth reading, and I'd like to feature a snip:

So it appears that while it is easier for a few high achievers to scale the summits of wealth, for many others it has become harder to move up from one economic class to another. Americans are arguably more likely than they were 30 years ago to end up in the class into which they were born.

A paradox lies at the heart of this new American meritocracy. Merit has replaced the old system of inherited privilege, in which parents to the manner born handed down the manor to their children. But merit, it turns out, is at least partly class-based. Parents with money, education and connections cultivate in their children the habits that the meritocracy rewards. When their children then succeed, their success is seen as earned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?ex=1273809600&en=2fb756e388191419&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Three: America is the land of opportunity. Anyone can come here, work hard, and get rich. I don't have any links to back this up, but it is part of the meta-narrative of American society. Part of the American mythos, you know, like "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." It's one of those things that most Americans feel "must be true" because they have a lot of anecdotal evidence to back it up, individual stories (like that of Mr. Edwards himself). And one of the interesting thing about the human psyche is that stories have power. I can tell you one "poor-boy-makes-good" story, and you're going to remember it a lot longer than you will remember the two facts I have cited above -- and, make no mistake, they are facts. But they conflict with number three, here and so they create a profound discomfort in a lot of us, because we have almost all bought into the idea that if we (or our children) wanted to, we could work hard, invest smart, and pull ourselves up into a wealthier class. The fact is that most of us can't, and that makes us profoundly uncomfortable at some level, because that's not what the American dream is supposed to be about.

Now, let's turn from wealth and class for a moment to the other interesting strand in this argument: the environment and the American consumer culture.

Four: Americans are the world's #1 user of our planet's natural resources.

For many resources, the United States of America is the world's largest consumer in absolute terms. For a list of 20 major traded commodities, it takes the greatest share of 11 of them: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil and natural gas. For many more it is the largest per-capita consumer.
http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2

Five: America is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Again, I think that's worth repeating: America is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Six: I like my house and my life the way it is now, and I enjoy being comfortable. Yes, I do. To be honest, I'd really like a bigger house, maybe with one of those super-duper jacuzzi bathtubs and some more room to put stuff. Another one of those visceral truths about the American lifestyle: It's nice to be comfortable, and it's nice to have stuff. Again, one of those truths that comes into conflict with other truths, numbers four and five. But because the long-term impact of our collective lifestyle of conspicuous consumption is not immediately apparent to us, we don't always feel the need to cut out the high-impact luxuries: like meat, and gas, and stuff, whenever we like it or want it. Human nature.

Now. Back to the whole Edwards thing for a moment. I am going to be very irritating and, even after all of this, not take a stand on Edwards. Because I don't know what Edwards has done in terms of enviromental mitigation on his house, and I do know a lot about what Edwards has done for poverty, and I also know how Edwards has made his money: suing those a**hole corporations who hurt people.

BUT here is what I AM going to take a stand on: All of you DU'ers on BOTH SIDES of the issue who have given into the childish and kneejerk impulse to stand on opposite sides of the playground and throw spitballs and taunts at each other. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Yes, you both know who you are. Those of you who are being granola-er-than-thou in one line, AND, those of you bashing the authentic concern for our planet in flippant drive-bys in the other line. All of you, go to your room!!! :) /mom

Okay, I'm kidding a little bit here, but I think the reason this whole Edwards thing has evoked SUCH a reaction here on DU has to do with a LOT Of what I posted above. These are very complicated social and emotional issues here, and it's very personal and it has a lot to do with our individual lifestyles -- which is always a touchy one -- and I think that the complexity of the issue could use a little more light and a little less heat. Thoughts? :D

Well, flame away (or more likely, sink like a stone). ;)

[alarimer]

1. These are all very good points

One the one hand is our society's belief that if you earned it, you get to spend it however you feel like spending it. On the other hand, there is the obscene conspicuous consumption that is a hallmark (and not a good on in my opinion) of our society. And then there is just plain envy.

I admit to being a little disturbed about the scale of that house, from a guy who talks a good game about "Two Americas". Clearly he has come a long way himself. But apparently it is at least somewhat of a "green" house which I think helps a little bit.

Our whole society is screwed up though. Suburban sprawl, brought to us by Best Buy and WalMart, is the biggest blight on the landscape.
I despise the way cities and communities look these days. Yuck, just yuck. Not to mention that sort of development only encourages more conspicuous consumption and use of gigantic amounts of fossil fuels.

[crispini]

3. I know, it's really awful.

We need to make our cities more cycling friendly. It needs to be socially acceptable to bike the 2 miles to your grocery store, load up the cart, and bike home. In order to do this, we have to have the grocery store nearby, but we also have to have little cycling carts (like they do in Denmark, I believe), safe routes for the bikes, and bike racks for the bikes. It also takes people who don't mind showing up in a store being a little bit disheveled from the helmet head. I anticipate over the next 5-10 years we really need to retrofit our roads, stores, and workplaces in order to move away from the horrible dominance of the car which is effectively choking us and the planet.

[hfojvt]

helmet head?

I've never had one of those. But wind, otoh, does tend to muss the hair and backpacks to make a shirt sweaty.

[crispini]

25. If you wear a helmet, your hair gets seriously flat.

hehehehe.

[nolabels]

81. Mostly the axiom of "they earned it " is only a rationalization

The reason you will see many rich people hiding out in them so called "exclusive" places is because they are trying to spend money they know they haven't earned without too many other people watching them do it :-)

Honestly though you bring up the valid point of being born into it (or trained into it, if you watch more keenly). Words like "hierarchy" have had their meaning transposed from original intent because people needed the power or belonging of the word. The word as is used today is mostly absent of any bloodline, or as we would now say "genetic" connection.

[Time for change]

2. Yes, I agree with almost all of what you said

except the part the other DUers being childish, etc., which I can't comment on, partly because I haven't read enough of the responses.

I admire John Edwards a lot, for what he has fought for, and I believe that he would make an excellent candidate and President.

It does bother me somewhat that he owns a 50 million dollar home, or whatever, for some of the reasons you note above. But it is true at the same time that I don't know what use he makes of his home, and I am very hesitant to judge him for that.

As you say, this is a complicated issue.

[crispini]

4. Well, there have been some excellent responses.

But there have also been an awful lot of flippant drive-bys, i.e. "I'm apparently not a good liberal if I live in a house over 1,000 square feet!" etc etc.

I'm really hoping we can have a more intelligent conversation here about where this all is coming from. Do I think we should all do our best to cut down? Yes, I do. Am I going to go around and scold people or try to guilt people into it? I hope not. Heaven knows I myself don't exactly live in a grass hut. But the sooner the vast majority of us realize that our lifestyle is unsustainable, and adjust accordingly, the better off we will be.

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. I'm more troubled by Edwards contradictory positions on war & peace, that about his house.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=49201&mesg_id=57193

[Horse with no Name]

5. Yes Mother

:hi:
Actually...I have taken the entire thing in jest because the source was Drudge. I wouldn't make a serious assumption about anything when it oozed from his site.
In all seriousness though...if we get a reputable substantial report on the dreaded "house"...then it would be worthy of serious discussion. Until then....duck. :D

[crispini]

13. Hahaha.

Well, it's an interesting opportunity for a discussion, isn't it? I'm almost not so interested in Edward's house as I am interested in the reaction it has gotten on DU.

[Horse with no Name]

15. It's been nuts

And because of the circumstances...I haven't really thought about it seriously until you pointed it out.
I need to digest it and give you my response in a bit.
Great thread btw!

[Horse with no Name]

6. kick

slinking back to my corner now.... :blush:

[Hoping4Change]

7. As a person who has opted for "voluntary simplicity", which means

living extremely frugally, and for environmental reasons having never owned a car,I have been defending Edwards on that other thread. Despite what most would conceive as a marginal lifestyle my staunch oppostion to the OP is the poster's position that Democratic candidates can't or shouldn't be wealthy which I think is preposterous. In fact as Thomas Frank continually points out, Bush is the hero of the working class. Bush's ill-gotten family wealth hasn't hurt his chances with the economically disadvantaged.

[crispini]

14. Yes, I can't help but admire "Kooch's" dedication to a modest lifestyle..

but not all of our candidates can or should be him. ;)

[glitch]

8. Well done. I hope everybody involved in keeping the house threads going

takes the time to read yours. Things do get very heated when both sides are partly right (although I must object to The American Dream being reduced to conspicuous consumption).

[welshTerrier2]

9. excellent post

i have not and will not comment on the "great Edwards controversy"

i did want to address a very key element that i thought was absent from your excellent post ... born and die in the same tax bracket, rich get richer, excessive use of global resources ... great points ...

but taking one giant step backwards, WHY is this the current state of America? add that component to your mix and you've got the picture fully assembled ...

yes, it's true that each one of us has a responsibility to live using less energy ... we each could do more than we've done ... but the greater problem does not lie with our individual energy usage but rather failed national energy policy that caters to the profits and interests of certain corporations ... at the core of the problem is the excessive influence, control really, of the energy lobby on our government ... if we are to hold American citizens responsible for anything, i would sooner focus on their failure to demand a change in how our democracy is being run ... surely, we would all be happy driving around in electric cars and heating our homes at a much lower cost than we incur today ... conservation in the face of global warming and shrinking oil supplies worldwide is critically necessary ... without the direction of the federal government, however, the many changes we need to move toward sane energy utilization will not happen ... we will not move in that direction until real power is wrested away from big oil ...

the same goes for our rich/poor society ... again, the problem stems from big money poisoning the political process and from candidates who choose to raise as much as they possibly can squeezing out other voices and opinions and forgoing our public campaign finance system (as weak as it is) ... we need to take money out of the process or things will never change ...

excellent post, crispini! ... k&r ...

[crispini]

16. Thank you. Yes, that is the missing piece.

Our government has distinct impacts on how our society develops. There is only so much that each one of us as individuals can do. So, campaign finance reform -- getting the undue influence of money out of our campaigns, perhaps following the Arizona model -- is a definite thing that we should be pushing for.

AND, this also has a lot to do with why I think Al Gore should run for President. There are some people who think that this would "corrupt" his environmental mission. I think that the circumstances are too dire for him not to run; scientists say we have 10 years to fix this problem (if that) or we're going to find ourselves up shit creek without a paddle (if we aren't already there and just don't know it). And we really need some serious leadership to move our society in the right direction: tax breaks on hybrids (or how about a tax break for NOT owning a car?) -- leadership on bike paths, etc.-- as well as some world-class pushing on R&D to try and find alternative sources of energy.

[stray cat]

10. If someone with a big house wants to work to make my life better

I'm all in favor of it!

[MadHound]

12. I think point six is the bone of contention for a lot of people

More specifically the question is how big a house does a person need in order to be "comfortable"? I live in a house that is a shade under 2400 sq ft, and I'm perfectly comfortable. In fact since there is just the two of us, sometimes it seems a little big for us. But I'm sorry, any house over 5000 sq ft. I find to be a bit obscene, unless you've got a very, very large family. Something that Edwards apparently doesn't have.

There are two issues brought up by Edwards' house. First, the utter, absolute waste of building and maintaining such a monstrosity, and second, for a man who has railed against the wrongs of "Two Americas", it seems a bit hypocritical of him to be residing in such an ostentasious display of his wealth.

This house thing is not the deal breaker for me, his stance on Iraq and Iran are. But this sort of thing doesn't help him at all. He would have gotten a much better bit of publicity by cutting his house size to a quarter of his current size, and give the resulting monetary savings to some sort of charity.

[crispini]

24. Yes, I'm very interested in the small house movement.

I have 1200 square feet but as I am just one person it really is a bit big for me. As you add on to your family, though, how much do you really need? One of my neighbors has FOUR CHILDREN in a 1400 square foot house. This is actually not unheard of 50 years ago -- this is when our neighborhood would built -- but by far the vast majority of people in her circumstances would be hieing themselves to the 'burbs where they could get a five bedroom, three bath, 3000 square foot house with formal dining and rumpus room. That, like it or not, is the norm today; it's how people expect they should live. When we ask people to reconsider living in that way, we are asking them to do a sort of self-examination that is very personal and perhaps painful. Like it or not, that strikes a lot of chords and I think it's behind the roots of some of these reactions we are seeing on DU. myself don't claim to be particularly pure in this respect as I do have a car, I do drive it, and I buy things on amazon and have them shipped to me, etctera. All things I am trying to do less of --- BUT, all things that I enjoy and feel the lack of.

You might be interested in this film:
http://www.subdivided.net/

It talks extensively about these issues and about how we live today. An interesting piece in the conversation.

[Hoping4Change]

26. I have been defending Edwards on the other thread against notions

that continually crop up in DU that wealthy people, unless they are up to no good or just plain hypocrites, can't be a Democrats which I think is just plan ludicrous.

However the fact that Edwards' buys into the notion of the bigger the better does concern me. I remember during the oil crisis in the 70's much was written about the need to build smaller homes to conserve fuel and this was way before the time of mc mansions, now advocacy for smaller homes is considered marginal at best.

It would be interesting to know if Edwards has made his house or the recreational buildings green by use of solar panels. But even then there is a legitimate concern about urban sprawl.

[JohnLocke]

69. He did.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/26/15303/2358

[druidity33]

77. yes, but i wonder...

Most new construction these days is Energy Star rated (really more of an efficiency rating than a "green" one)... and now that the new LEEDS for homes guidelines are out, the folk who really want to have "green" homes are going for that certification too. I also have doubts about any process that converts electricity to heat as that is the most inefficient method ever (in many ways moreso than wood). I wonder who did the consulting/architectural design work. They would have had better use from the panels if they hook them to powered devices/home electricity only, slap some "solar hot water" panels on the roof (NOT THE SAME as PV panels) for primary heat of water and use an efficient on demand system for supplemental heat. Radiant Floor Heating (with polished concrete slab?) could also be used effectively in the Recreation/tennis court area... i would imagine their indoor pool is heated too. I wonder where the panels are... i don't recall seeing any in that photo everyone's been bandying about.

I am not sure it would affect whether i would vote for the man, though. I have nothing against spending the money you've earned as long as you use what you buy. If they heat that pool all winter long so that somebody in the family can take a dip every Sunday morning for 5 minutes, then yeah i admit it offends my environmentalist sensibilities. I believe it takes a home-owner at least 5 years to get their house/property into the shape they want it... so things could change. What does offend me slightly is the "clearcut" style elimination of trees. A knowledgable person would've cut down about 20% at a time, and interplanted edible/useful/native forest plants to fill in the huge gaps. But it looks like someone needs a real big lawn...

[Morereason]

86. Something is wrong with the link. Was it pulled?

[Lorien]

38. I agree MadHound. I know several couples right now who WANT to

downsize because their "dream home" has become a real burden. In the current real estate market it's tough to offload them, so they're stuck (this includes my own father; his home has been on the market for two years now).

The American dream can become a nightmare when one suddenly realizes that their possessions own them, not vice versa. I once worked at a major film studio, and when our movies started to turn into blockbusters the studio gave out million dollar bonuses. Many of my coworkers had come from humble beginnings and went MAD with their new wealth; buying mansions, Hummers, and luxury items galore. Then came the divorces, the prozac, the film flops, and finally the loss of everything they had accumulated-including their jobs. The majority never thought about their future. For some reason wealth had turned them from fairly content artists and managers with functioning families into sniping malcontents who constantly spoke about wanting MORE. It was odd, and extremely disturbing.

What bothers me most aside from my very real concern for the environment (I do believe that the destruction of the environment will lead to mankind's downfall within most of our lifetimes) is what "affluenza" has done to our society. Stuff simply doesn't make us happy. The absence of money to meet our basic needs and a few desires can make us very UNhappy, but having been both well off and very poor myself I can honestly say that the greatest benefit to having wealth is how it allows one to not consider money as an issue. One can focus on other matters instead (and there always are other matters). America's celebration of wealth, luxury, greed, and excess disgusts me. "Freedom" to many people is about driving a Hummer, or a snowmobile through Yellowstone, or a speedboat through a manatee no wake zone, or buying carts and carts of cheap goods from Wal-Mart, or all the big juicy hamburgers you can eat...we should celebrate the freedom of having time to spend with friends and family, to breath clean air and drink pure water, being able to marry who we chose, to have an education, to have access to great health care, to enjoy nature "as God intended it", for our great grandchildren to know a world that includes animals like snow leopards and whooping cranes, our right to privacy from our government and large corporations, knowing that the foods we eat are safe, that the medicines we take won't make us sick, that the news we watch is honest and unbiased, that our government works for all of us, and not a privileged few, that war is always the LAST resort....life should be about something more than McMansions, SUVs, and malls. Sure, I like my ipod, but I'd rather listen to a friend if given the choice. Yes, I like my 1,700 square foot home-I'd even like a slightly larger one because I run a home based business which requires loads of supplies and equipment-but the only way I'd buy a bigger home is if it were a far greener home. To me leaving a small environmental footprint is both a moral issue and a sensible choice.

One more note: I've been greatly dismayed by the "obviously all democrats need to live in a one room shack" argument. I never saw a single post that stated that Edwards or any other official should live like a monk. There's plenty of options between a one room shack and a 30,000 square foot estate.Such extremes are just that: extremes. They aren't helpful in an honest debate.

[MadHound]

48. Like I said, sometimes it feels almost a bit too big

But it was really the land that we were more concerned with. Twenty acres, with old barn and a couple of outbuildings. I've started an orchard, berries, and we are growing much of our own food(I got shiitake mushrooms this fall!). Much of this is for a supplemental income, being as my wife and I both are in academics and thus our salaries are modest. In addition, we have the room to install a wind turbine, I can make biodiesel, and thus lessen our impact on the earth. Thus we compromised, taking the larger house in exchange for a nice balance of land, some field, some wood.

I have never fallen for the consumerist trap of buying new things all the time. I inherited some of my parents innate drive to make things last, a drive that came from their living through the Great Depression. I don't trade in cars every 3.7 years(the national average), I don't go out and buy the latest, greatest new whiz bang. In fact in some things I'm downright Luddite;) I'm absolutely appalled at the increasing corporate trend of manufacturing products complete with built in obselescence.

But Madison Avenue has been quite successful in turning the majority of Americans into good little consumers, going out and constantly buying Bigger! Better! Newer! stuff at every possible opportunity. This is what fueled the explosion in consumer debt, which when you combine it with the national debt will probably bring out economy crashing to the ground in the relatively near future.

One more reason I moved into the country, advice I learned from those of my parents generation. It is much easier to survive a serious economic collapse out in the country rather than in an urban area. You've got more of a community support system and you can grow your own food and with a little planning, provide for your own needs.

[Lorien]

71. Wise move

my grandparents were mennonites (like the Amish, but with electricity and cars) and they also grew their own food and bartered for most of what they needed. They also believed in making everything last, and rarely bought anything new. In fact, I inherited quite a few items from them that were so well made that I doubt I'll ever need to replace them (I also deeply resent planned obsolescence. I drive an 11 year old Camry and still wear some of the clothes that my mom wore in the 1960s). They were happy and wanted for nothing. Self sufficiency can bring about many rewards in both good times and bad.

If you ever get the chance you might want to check out the PBS films "Affluenza" and "Escape from Affluenza". I think that you and your wife will really identify with many of the people profiled in those films. :-)

[femrap]

58. Lorien, that was a great post.

I'm with you. I value happiness, good health, comfort from extreme weather, my family, friends and my pet. These are what make life good. I actually prefer having memories than to having stuff which just requires dusting and insurance.

I had a big house once...one year. It drove me nuts. I hated taking care of it. I vowed never to have a house that required vacuuming of stairs. A simple one story ranch with washer/dryer and a good heating & air conditioning system is all I need....oh, and good windows so to keep the heating/cooling costs down.

BTW, there have been studies conducted by social scientists that determined incomes of anything over $50,000/year didn't add much to the happiness level of the individual.

[Lorien]

72. "Simplicity, simplicity, in all things simplicity!"

Thanks femrap. Life is hard enough and complicated enough without stairs to vacuum and geegaws to dust!

I'm not surprised by that study, though back when I was making a six figure income I was a bit happier-but only because I was able to take two months off work every year and travel (I was and am self employed) and I just didn't think about money. Those were in the Clinton era-no way I could make that much money without working 16 hours a day, seven days a week now! The sad part is that many people DO work those kind of hours for a bigger paycheck, and they miss out on their lives in the process.

One reason I believe the very wealthy are often quite unhappy is that they believed that attaining wealth would solve all their problems and bring them happiness. It solves SOME problems-but only those that can be fixed with a liberal application of cash. An unhappy marriage, problem kids, poor health, lonliness...those issues often won't improve with money. It's the disillusionment that often brings about extreme bitterness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. This thread should be recommended for this post alone.

For me, the value of wealth is independence. Once you've attained that level of wealth, the rest is just for show.

I dislike ostentation, and regardless if a person can afford a 30k sf house, and regardless if he earned it by inheritance, by inventing a better mousetrap or by punishing bad guys, a 30k sf house is only better than a 3000sf house in one way; it impresses the neighbors.

A 30k sf lifestyle is a high environmental impact lifestyle, there's no getting around that.

For the last two years, I live with my wife and three kids in a 14x65 (900sf) single wide mobile while we build a 1900sf two story house. The house is a good livable size and because it's not huge, we can afford efficient appliances, better windows and a high efficiency heating system. We live on five wooded acres, and it'll be equipped with a woodstove and a garden.

We hope to move in a couple of weeks. :thumbsup:

I experienced the same phenomenon that you describe on a smaller scale a few years ago when I went to work for roughly twice my previous salary. Paradoxically, the effects of taking this higher paying job were; my savings rate dropped to zero and my health and my family relationships suffered. Once I lost that job and began house building full time, every meaningful measure of our quality of life has improved while our standard of living (using traditional measures) has declined. We now live on roughly 1/3 of our previous income, yet our net worth has grown significantly faster than it did before and we're generally happy.

Something that bothers me about responses to the topic of simplicity, is a presumption by some that those that value simplicity and have stepped off the earn/spend/work cycle are somehow acquiescing in the class war. "a good little proletariat".

In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. In our world, refusing to be simply consumers is the ultimate countercultural act.

[Hoping4Change]

88. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Rosemary2205]

17. I totally disagree with you.

The discussion on Edward's house was not started as discussion of wealth distribution in this country. It was started for the same reason the "Hillary can't sing" and "Kucinich shook Bush's hand" threads were posted -- by people with an agenda to trash all but their own "horse". The original thread was "Edwards is finished". I'm sorry but I just cannot take that seriously and quite frankly I find it unseamly given our DU pledge to support Democrats.

I'll grant you that in a few of the threads it morphed into an attempt at discussion about distribution of wealth in this country. There's one with a 2003 list of millionaires in the Senate and a serious question about what that means for us. There's another asking if Edwards is qualified to lead on "the two Americas" because of his wealth (though not phrased very well IMHO and it's phrasing caused it not to be taken seriously).

I don't know of ANYONE on DU who thinks a discussion of wealth distribution in this country is a joke. IMHO I think most of us are democrats partly because we think it's important for the bottom 90% of Americans to be treated fairly instead of like serfs.

[Nikki Stone1]

22. Good post. Also,

I would add to the OP's list that only 25% of Americans have a college degree. This means that 75% of the nation is already behind the 8-ball by early adulthood. College education is the one prerequisite to the best paying positions, unless you're lucky.

[Rosemary2205]

29. IMHO college should not a requirement

we don't need a college degree to landscape, build cars, or fix people's plumbing. However, every American who works full time should to be able to afford a decent roof over their head, safe nutritious food, decent economic opportunities for their children, healthcare, and some sort of financial security when they do retire.

There are a myriad of reasons why the middle class is losing ground. College is part of it sure, a big change in our own expectations has something to do with it too, along with outsourcing, illegal immigration, corporate greed, the tax laws, speculators screwing up pricing on oil and housing, etc etc etc.

I totally agree with you that our educational system is falling through. I just want to add that many many kids are never going to be college material and they need an education that gives them economic opportunities also -- along with displaced adults when jobs are outsourced.

[Nikki Stone1]

30. I agree. A family shouldn't starve because neither parent has a college degree

All the same, it's important to bust the myth of unfettered mobility to look at the number of Americans who don't have access to the one ticket to such mobility.

[Nikia]

41. But college does not always lead to good paying positions

There are a certain percent of college graduates that cannot land a job that requires a college degree. Some of this may have to do with their field of study or refusing to look for jobs outside of a location or it may be that having a degree is not enough. Of jobs requiring college degrees, some of them do not pay well at all. Public service positions usually don't pay well. I have found that entry level jobs in biology and chemistry only requiring a 4 year degree don't pay very well either and some of these jobs are dead end.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

46. Excuse me, not in my case, and in many others.

I had parents who knew the importance of college. We became middle class because of the G.I. Bill -- Dad went to law school.
I earned an associate's degree in a vocational field, and a B.A. and a Juris Doctor (law degree).
I never passed the bar but took it several times and didn't figure out why I couldn't pass it.

Supposedly law is a field where they can't outsource your job. Well, there must be too many lawyers out there. I have the higher education, I graduated from two expensive well-regarded private schools. I got my bachelor's at a four year college that U.S. News and World Report describes as "the best liberal arts college west of the Mississippi" in their annual report.

Has the bachelor's or the doctorate ever gotten me a job??? No.

I stopped looking for a job because it felt like beating my head against a wall. It's not your education, it is WHO you know. I must not know the right people, although I networked extensively with the guys I went to law school with and I've worked in the legal field my entire working life. And I'm pretty bitter about it because I was burned out on court reporting (that vocational degree that people laugh at) before I was forty years old, because of the stress.

Yeah, I'm bitter. I wasted 12 years in college and thousands of dollars, thinking I could get in a middle class job and climb the ladder. The middle class has been destroyed. They don't care how much education or skills you have. They just fire you or deep-six your resume in the trash. You don't have to have a manufacturing job to fall out of the middle class. If you're over forty, forget it. You have committed a mortal sin by getting older in American society.

[femrap]

60. In the past few years, the college degreed have

not been making the $$$$. The White Collars are losing purchasing power as well...In fact, with outsourcing, it's best to learn a trade that is hands-on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. I know this sounds snarky, and I apologize in advance...

... but if everyone had degrees, then many of us would be overeducated for the work that needs doing. A PhD is not required to reroof a house but a house does need to be reroofed periodically.

The only people who profit from universal college is those who derive their income from higher education.

[crispini]

28. Yes, the original Edwards post was pretty inflammatory, I'll grant you that.

But there's a lot of drive-by silliness going on as well. :)

[Gormy Cuss]

18. Thank you for trying to stimulate discussion from this story.

To what degree should reducing resources be a priority on the Democratic platform? Is simply building big houses that are more energy efficient a forward-thinking strategy, or is it, like increasing fuel efficiency in cars, just a stop gap measure that feels good but ignores the bigger picture?

For me, I'd like to see a radical change in our attitudes about what we as individuals can do to reduce our ecological footprint. Recent history has shown that many Americans respond to recycling efforts. The next stage is to convince people to reduce consumption. That's a harder nut to crack in our consumerism-driven culture.

I'd also like to see a Democratic party platform that addresses corporate responsibility to the environment as part of globalization. Two issues that come to mind: requiring corporations that are based in or do business in the U.S. to apply American environmental regulations abroad. Second, products that involve physical inventory, from food on up, should be grown or manufactured with the shortest travel in mind.

There are more items that can be placed on the platform, but I don't pretend to be an expert in this area. I'd nominate Gore to lead the effort for our party.

[crispini]

31. Well, all change is necessarily incremental.

Even the moon rockets were built one step at a time. So more energy-efficient houses and better CAFE standards are, while not the final answer, a necessary stopgap.

I like your point about the Democratic party platform, and I agree.

You know what I would REALLY like to see, though? I would like to see some REALLY widespread acknowledgement that WE HAVE A PROBLEM. We are there, but we are not entirely out in the open with it yet. It's common currency on DU, but when I bring it up with friends IRL, there's still a distinct "who farted?" vibe that I get from them. For example, I keep trying to get my co-workers to look into buying carbon offsets for the business travel we all do, and every time I make the suggestion -- I am trying to keep it light, not bombastic -- it's like I haven't even SAID anything. I don't belabor the point, because I don't want to be an ass. But anyway, it's still my experience that for many people, this is still sort of outside of the mainstream. I think there is a really big squicks-me-out factor, too, in that nobody REALLY wants to contemplate The End Of Life As We Know it. So they just don't. And we HAVE to get past this; it HAS to be part of the common dialog, not just on DU but EVERYWHERE. I will be happy when I can put my carbon passes on my expense report and people talk about what they have done to reduce carbon around the lunchtable at work. In order to get there, we have a LOT of talking to do.

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. Great post.....Here's Jim Webb's "Class Struggle" OpEd in the WSJ......

Right after the election, Webb went into the belly of the beast, and showed that he is no "one-issue" Senator, and that he's not afraid to let his audience hear painful truths.

Rather that mold his message to the beliefs of his audience, he told them what the needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, The Wall Street Journal

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.......This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism......


Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs..........America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest...........The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. "The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who..."

"The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life."

YES!

[crispini]

32. Wow. That's great! Jim Webb gets it! nt

[earth mom]

20. Rethuglicans are responsible for the Class War. NOT the Dems.

Heads up everyone because this brouhaha about the Edwards house is just an ugly rethuglican meme aimed at smearing Edwards because he is a threat to them. The thugs don't have one candidate worth a damn and they know it!

[Raydawg1234]

21. We have to improve the education system, Bring back the labor unions to their previous power,

stop outsourcing, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants which drives down wages for American workers, and finally cut down the national debt and trade deficit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Aw, well, Let them eat cake.

Oh, wait, somebody else said that in similar circumstances...whatever became of her?

[mnhtnbb]

33. For info on the environmental mitigation of the house straight from Elizabeth

in her own words: Hybrids and light bulbs and action

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/26/15303/2358

[nam78_two]

34. K&R-great post -Thanks.nt

[SmokingJacket]

35. No flames here. I'm on both sides of the fence.

I live in an itty-bitty house with my husband and two kids, heat with wood, no AC, own one car and walk to work. We deliberately want to keep a small footprint, because I want to contribute to the wrecking of the planet as little as possible.

Frankly, I'd love to live in a BIG old historic house -- I even dream about it at night. Hot damn, I want closets in every room and a mudroom and a greenhouse... But I couldn't really work a good argument for myself about it, and the rest of the family likes where we are. Oh yeah, and the money thing.

BUT I'm not going to judge Edwards or eliminate him from the running for his freaking house. I'd RATHER he set an environmentally conscious example, but sheesh, no one's perfect, no one is pure, and there are bigger issues than that. Like poverty, as you mentioned.

Class is becoming a very big issue in America. So much is determined by your social circle these days... and your social circle has a lot to do with money.

[crispini]

36. It's almost all money, and also education.

Americans have bought into the myth of the classless society, because we don't have lords and ladies and whatnot, like in England, but in fact, class is very real here, just expressed differently.

[Nikki Stone1]

37. This book on class in America is from the 80s but still very relevant

http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253/sr=8-2/qid=1169936053/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-2090039-8399269?ie=UTF8&s=books

Edited for typo

[SmokingJacket]

40. And education has more and more to do with money, these days.

I know for a fact that my pricey private college education would not be available to me if I was going to college nowadays -- it's much more expensive than 20 yrs ago AND my college no longer does "need-blind" admissions. Because I went to that school (thanks to massive financial aid), I have some limited access to and "connections" in the world of the wealthy -- but a kid in my position these days would not have that.

I see the privileged classes as gradually shutting the doors to access from outsiders.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

76. I have no student debt from college and three degrees.

And I'm unemployed. I don't have connections. The parents paid for college and I paid for law school. Worked fulltime at the courthouse and went to night school for five years on the pay as you go plan.

Graduated from two expensive private schools with tough degrees, and didn't get any jobs. Guess I just don't have any connections.

I don't know why a kid goes to college expecting to get a decent job when they get out, unless they major in business or finance.

[Nikia]

83. My cousins (boy and girl) graduated with 4 year businesses degrees

Upon graduation, they landed clerical positions at the local hospital. They both ended up marrying health care professionals. They moved with their spouses when their spouses got better job offers elsewhere. The brother is still unemployed a year later. The sister is a check out clerk at a large pharmacy chain.
They aren't the only ones. When I complained to my previous boss about lack of oppurtunities, he told me about several of his son's friends, who were business majors, were doing low wage retail work or low wage manufacturing work.
It might be different with an MBA, but a 4 year business degree doesn't mean much.
If you have a 4 year degree in science, you probably can find a job if you weren't selected by a large high paying company. Expect to be working for $10-$12/hour though.

[hyphenate]

39. I personally don't care how big John Edwards'

house is. The fact that he came up from humble roots, has served the people in many diverse ways and that he has already shown he has the capacity to be empathetic with people from every social class, speaks more to me than most any of the other candidates.

Let's face it, folks--we're all human. We all want something from life. For those who have worked hard and bought a couple of luxuries during their life, the ability to give ourselves a "reward" is what our country was designed to do. People in other countries have had to work hard and expect nothing. What kind of motivation is that? As human beings, we hope to achieve something in life, and seeing some tangible evidence of a "life worthwhile" is natural. While some here have far more socialist leanings, truth is, that the USA is not a socialist nation, and we have seen one example of such a nation collapse in front of our eyes. The USA is a capitalist nation first and foremost. Some people have the idea that that can be changed, but perhaps the easiest reply to that is that it will be likely centuries before it might happen--if ever.

However, there are some situations that can be changed to a certain extent, and one of them is to keep those at the bottom of the class system from being ignored completely, and some resources should be made available to them.

I cold go into WAY more detail on that than I want to at this time, but that's not what this post is all about. Truth is, we all want something different out of life, and what it is is up to the individuals themselves.

I can imagine 20 or so years ago, when John and Elizabeth Edwards were first struggling attorneys, and they probably had set goals for themselves to achieve as time went on. Perhaps one night, in a small house or apartment, they both wished for a bigger house to live in. Being conscientious, perhaps one of them thought it would be great to have space to have kids, entertain people, grow a garden, play tennis, whatever. Size is relative, you know. I live in a 1200 sq foot apartment, with more rooms than my old apartment in SoCal and more space (the old apartment was 760 sq ft), but the truth is, it's less spacious, it seems oh so much smaller and there seems to be far more stuff in here than in the old place. I would love to have more space, and my dream house (which will never exist, I'm sure) has about 6,000 sq ft in it! But unless I had the money to build it, it will never happen. On the other hand, John Edwards has devoted a great deal of his time, his life and his energy to helping litigate large class action suits which benefit the poor and the disadvantaged; he has spent much of the last two years working with the Southern Poverty Law Offices, and he dedicates himself to the disenfranchised on a regular basis.

Why shouldn't he be allowed to spend some money on himself and his family? What is it about people that they can't see that he deserves to have some of his wealth spent on things he and Elizabeth can enjoy themselves? Isn't he entitled to a portion of his own money to spend as he wishes?

I don't care if you are making $100,000 a year, or $10,000,000 a year--a portion of that income is your own, and you should be able to, without questions or comments from others, spend it as you damned well wish.

If that offends someone who believes you are conspicuously consuming, so what? What--do people expect every other person to give up 90% of their income to others who are in need? Frankly, those who think that way aren't really good people, because they're trying to force their opinions on others to the exclusion of good sense.

There is an old proverb that I believe is apropos here--"Give a person a fish and you will feed them for a day: Teach them to fish and you feed them for a lifetime." I think this is the essence of living--instead of giving handouts every day, give a hand up instead. No one accomplishes a whole lot if we simply "give" them everything. A place to sleep, food for an empty stomach--these are requisite in a humane society, but simply shuffling dollars out to those in need is not making the situation any better. People need to look at different ways to impact the poverty in this country, but more than anything, those who are already caught in poverty need to be given some kind of incentive to help raise themselves out of poverty.

People can disparage John Edwards' new house all they want, but instead of demanding that he give up his wealth--which he earned honestly and decently--they should be congratulating him for his success in achieving it. And that's what ALL people who have worked hard and found success should be given. And these people should be asked HOW they succeeded and help distribute that wisdom to others who are not so well off. Instead of handing our a million dollars to the poor, what's wrong with funding a Meal on Wheels, or helping keep shelters open on the coldest nights? What's wrong with the donations that Edwards' and so many other wealthy politicians already make to help stem poverty here? Edwards spends a great deal of energy litigating class action suits--for those of you who don't realize it, most litigators in these suits don't receive a penny if they lose the suit. By devoting his time and energy to these causes, Edwards' has already been working for the poor in ways that are unseen, but still existing.

I say "bravo" to John and Elizabeth for finding ways to make their new estate green and earth friendly. And for someone who might actually be our president someday, it's equally important to see that they will have someplace to retreat when the problems of the country try to beat back at them. Don't wish them ill for wanting the comfort of a home--they're as human as the rest of us!

[JudyM]

42. Superb and sane post. And also my opinion except for the environmental impact issue. nt

[crispini]

43. I agree with a lot of what you're saying; my only concern is....

as the other poster has said, the environmental impact. Yes, I've seen the blog posting floating around by Elizabeth Edwards... that's great... but the truth is that even if you make your home an Energy Star home, that's not going to take it zero carbon.

And the truth of the matter is that in the next ten years, ALL Americans are going to need to go zero carbon, and preferably even carbon NEGATIVE, or we are going to see climate change whack us over our collective heads and we are going to see absolutely horrible things happen to our spaceship earth.

We are living beyond our means and the bill is coming due.

[Rosemary2205]

45. Just for the record

A wealthier relative recently built a solar and electric 2700 sq ft house that uses less total kilowatts than my 800 sq ft 1927 electric house and quite frankly my house is about as energy efficient as I can afford to get it at this time. There were more energy efficient things he could have done to his home that were out of his price range - even with the solar he was limited on how much he could spend at this point. It is entirely possible the Edwards house uses little or no energy off the grid. What it does use is an unknown factor of course, my only real point is that bigger doesn't necessarily mean a bigger energy hog.

[hyphenate]

50. I haven't seen Elizabeth's

blog posting: in fact, I've only read the original post about Edwards and subsequent threads here at DU, which, for the most part, I've stayed out of. (No wonder, after being here nearly 6 full years, I have achieved only 6900 posts!) I can't say what other people might be doing or thinking, but I know for me, I don't care about all the salacious details of something I have no business worrying about. Sure, I have a curiosity, but there are just some things that are truly none of my business. And just for the record, if someone is serving the people, doing their job and doing it well, their personal life is verboten. (Just how I reacted in 1998 when Clinton was under the gun. I felt then and I feel now that everyone, including public figures, deserve some privacy, regardless of their public persona.)

[crispini]

53. That's an interesting tack to take. WOW.

I think you may have just put your finger on this entire debate here. Not just for public figures, but for private figures as well. Now I am getting it.

Because, for those people who are concerned about global warming (and I am one of them, I will admit that), NOBODY's personal life is verboten. In other words, the personal becomes intimately connected with the political. The question: How do you live? Do you live sustainably? for these people is a perfectly pertinent, and in fact, mandatory question to ask, not just of Mr. Edwards but of all of us.

On the other hand, your point, and I can certainly understand it, is that Mr. Edwards' personal life, just like anyone else's, is their own.

This is a very interesting discussion we are having here. Yes, no wonder it is hitting home with so many people. It's not just whether or not one person recycles, etc. It has to do with even the basis of whether or not one person is allowed to question another's lifestyle.

You know, I wish I believed that we had the luxury of thinking that way. I guess my point is that, when facing the possible End Of Life On Earth As We Know It, I don't think we do.

[femrap]

63. I am having difficulty in accepting the attitude that

'it's my money and I can do whatever I want with it. I don't care if that infringes on others or detracts from their quality of life.'

So buying the Hummer and using up a scare resource is OK? Building large homes on large lots....we're running out of land, you know. So then do we start selling public park lands for commercial use?

There is no sense of community or sharing anymore. It's all about 'ME.'

When this financial house of cards comes tumbling down, I really worry about how the 'ME' people are going to handle scarcities. I remember studying the Depression, and folks would line up in nice lines to get their apple. Are these 'ME' people going to stand in line and wait their turn? Or are we going to face violent chaos?

[crispini]

67. I'm not asking you (or anyone) to accept it.

I'm just saying that it would be more useful to talk about why people are reacting the way that they are, in hopes of us all coming to a greater understanding. For example, hyphenate has taught me something very interesting in this thread -- it has to do with a very personal reaction i.e. "don't tell me how to live," a personal freedom sort of issue, as it were. In other words, people value their privacy and the ability to conduct their lives the way they want.

Now, of course, many people realize that "your rights end where my rights begin," in other words, a neighbor's right to play his stereo very loudly at 1 am will very certainly conflict with my right to sleep.

How, then, can we bring people to an awareness that their "right" to live in a large, energy-sucking house, and drive a large, gas-guzzling car, may very well, albeit 20 years down the road, conflict with every person on the planet's "right" to exist? :shrug:

I'm not sure. To tell you the truth, I am not very sanguine about our chances, if we leave it up to voluntary restrictions and voluntary lifestyle choices. After all, we Americans are not very good at being self-disciplined. The more I think about this, and the more I think about the pickle we are getting the planet into, the more I become in favor of a programme of top-down action. I believe in the grassroots, but I am beginning to doubt our ability to deal with this issue rationally.

[druidity33]

78. i tried googling...

Al Gore's home in Google images and this is the only one that came up:



Gore is my pick for frontrunner, but this whole conversation makes me want to know how the King of environmental issues lives. Does Gore walk the walk? I'd want to know that before i criticize Edwards about anything.

Thanks for starting a rational discussion about this. More people have been getting emotional and defensive about this topic than i would have thought.

[aaronbees]

56. Are they under an obligation to take it to zero carbon?

Would that make it "okay" in the eyes of DU critics? That would be great if the Edwards family did, and perhaps it's something they'll do in the future (?) ... especially as awareness builds up that it's what ALL people should do, not just presidential candidates. You're dead on correct that we as individuals need to cut back on energy use and the bill is going to come soon for us and it could be one we just can't pay comfortably. I live in a tiny garage apartment, consume little and don't see my car as a transport to drive everywhere. But I just don't feel it's worthy to hold the Edwards' feet to the fire when in truth we don't know much about their home plans (apart from its size and what Elizabeth Edwards posted, which indicates that at least this family is walking in the right direction even if imperfectly so). (I'd rather write articles on the coal plants planned for my area; now that's a good use of time.) I would feel a lot more critical, though, if Edwards was not fighting for the rights and opportunities of working people ... that place of opportunity you spoke so eloquently about.

In any event, thanks for a thoughtful OP that set this whole debate/conflagration on a better track. :hi:

[crispini]

59. You're welcome.

Like I said, I'm not gonna dog Edwards... glass houses, and all that... ;) I am not particularly carbon-pure -- have clothes in the dryer even as we speak; I'm hoping to get a clothesline soon but haven't yet, and anyway it's freezing out! :7 And we don't know what the Edwards are doing or what they have planned.

Really I think this is mostly an interesting opportunity to have this discussion here on DU. I just wish we could have it in a little less of a flamey manner, after all, ragging on each other is not going to get us anywhere. :P

[femrap]

62. Forget it...nt

[reprehensor]

44. Hey, you can't say metanarrative!

Folks don't know whut that means, y'all.

;)

Very thoughtful post.

I think Mr. Edwards really should have given the political repercussions of his purchase a little more thought.

[crispini]

54. Howdy, reprehensor!

:hi: How's life?

Yeah, I hear you. :P It's an interesting discussion, though.

[WHAT]

47. SPAM

ignore

[crispini]

52. Niiiiiiiiiiiice.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Makes me kinda nostalgic for the block days -- bet you wish you could do that too, eh? :7

[camero]

49. It does challenge him

It shows he has to be more than just empty rhetoric, but another FDR, to paraphrase Krugman.

[Jcrowley]

51. Lead by example

If you cannot do that do not call yourself a leader. Yes let us teach our children well. I don't want my child looking at Mr. Edwards grotesquely opulent "lifestyle" (never understood the whole "lifestylism", which is just an offshoot of the cult of individualism and both come heavily-packaged) and aspiring towards that or thinking that is an admirable way of going about your life.

Damn we need some leaders in this country who the people can really relate to. Who won't look just utterly hypocritical as they try to preach a populist gospel.

Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures — the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth:

Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%
Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%
Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%
Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%
Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%
Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.

— Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)



Planet enters 'ecological debt'

Rising consumption of natural resources means that humans began "eating the planet" on 9 October, a study suggests. The date symbolised the day of the year when people's demands exceeded the Earth's ability to supply resources and absorb the demands placed upon it.

The figures' authors said the world first "ecological debt day" fell on 19 December 1987, but economic growth had seen it fall earlier each year. The data was produced by a US-based think-tank, Global Footprint Network.

The New Economics Foundation (Nef), a UK think-tank that helped compile the report, had published a study that said Britain's "ecological debt day" in 2006 fell on 16 April.

The authors said this year's global ecological debt day meant that it would take the Earth 15 months to regenerate what was consumed this year.

"By living so far beyond our environmental means and running up ecological debts means we make two mistakes," said Andrew Simms, Nef's policy director. "First, we deny millions globally who already lack access to sufficient land, food and clean water the chance to meet their needs. Secondly, we put the planet's life support mechanisms in peril," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6033407.stm

"Lifestylism" is the practise of wrapping yourself in a blinkered, self-perfecting, idealogically-sound cocoon. The captain of The Good Ship Lifestyle rarely leaves his bedroom. He makes pronouncements on how other people should live but doesn't keep his own rules. His idea of politics is not to Fight The Power but to fight the imagined enemies on his own side...

[crispini]

55. Thank you.

I am scared. :scared: For all of us.

Do you really think if such a leader arose, though, that we (as a whole) would listen to him/her? Look at Mr. Kucinich who is a man of modest lifestyle, and see how well his philosophy is received... :shrug:

[Jcrowley]

57. Excellent question

I was at the rally today and among the conversations I had one was with an elderly Code Pink woman and we were discussing candidates and naturally DK's name came up and she was of the opinion that he was, I forget how she phrased it exactly, "too good" for America as if to say the American people aren't ready or really don't want to face what is asked of them. Overall I tend to feel that way most of the time, but on good days I can think folks would accept frugality and simplicity if they understood that it doesn't necessarily mean deprivation and in fact could lead to a less frenzied way of living. However there is an enormous factor, that a poster in your thread pointed out, which is the fact that corporate governance has virtually eliminated all possible choices for powering down our society to a sane level.

To see someone talking about the "two america's" and claiming to be a man of the people and building that garish post-modern palace is more than a little hypocritical. It's not like it's his only house either. And how many other mansions, if that what he thinks he needs, are already out there up for sale?

Now I know many folks here think the whole topic is not worthy of discussion but I'd say there really is within this topic some core issues that are being revealed. Classism and class analysis has really fallen out of favor in American political discourse and has been replaced by alot of trendy issues that don't have nearly the impact on our everyday lives as our socio-economic arrangements.

Sorry to ramble a bit here but I'm a bit weary from today's rally. There's more happening tomorrow if you are in the area, I started a thread on the activities/workshops which are occurring tomorrow.

[crispini]

61. Wish I could have come -- it sounds like it was great!

It has made headlines everywhere. FINALLY. Things are starting to break through into the mainstream. What does Gandhi say... first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.... ? I hope (cross my fingers) that we are seeing the corner turn, so to speak

Yes, agree with you WRT corporate way of life -- I think that is why Al Gore, like it or not, really should run -- we need a big, top-down correction a la FDR and the New Deal ... anything else will be too little, too late.

[noamnety]

70. "I don't want my child looking at ..."

Leading by example is a good point. If his message about Two Americas is that anybody should have the opportunity to acquire what he now has, that's a dangerous message.

During Clinton's presidency, the republicans made a huge deal over how the infamous blow job set such a miserable example for our children. In the grand scheme of things, this is a far worse example for our kids to follow.

My own kid is looking at living at an eco-village next year so she can learn building techniques, and then she's considering building a cob house for her senior thesis project. She doesn't eat at Wendy's - she certainly wouldn't brag about eating at a fast food place. She played a key role in converting her college dining hall from processed corporate foods to a local farmer's cooperative. She's a vegan.

If her goal was to follow in Edwards' footsteps, I would be disappointed. If more people lived like my daughter and less lived like Edwards, the world would be a better place.

That does say something about my willingness to look to him for moral guidance.

[Lorien]

73. Great points, Jcrowley

I bookmarked the BBC article and will send it to several friends on Monday. Thanks for the link!

:hi:

[Quixote1818]

64. Well put, both sides have good and bad points. Thanks! nt

[HughMoran]

65. Where's the medical mystery?

I love House.

[KoKo]

66. Yep...it's a Tough Issue and requires us to look hard at ourselves,

our culture, our lifestyle and those we look up to and are encouraging our children to look up to.

It's very complicated and I have hope that after all our "knee jerk reactions" to the Edwards "Anticipation Spread" we can get back to some good Basic Dem Arguments about WHY this is important and WHY so many of us had such visceral reactions to EDWARDS NEW "HOUSE and Ancillary Facilities."

It IS IMPORTANT!

[vssmith]

68. There are examples in the past of the privileged being the champions of the poor

FDR comes to mind
JFK could be mentioned
Ted Kennedy has been very sympathetic

What I am saying is that because a person has money shouldn't disqualify him from being a friend to the less well off. The three I mentioned were born into privilege whereas Edwards was not.

[cgrindley]

79. Edwards makes me ill

There are a few things we can learn from Edwards and his house.

a) he has really bad taste bordering on the criminal
b) he is super rich
c) he actively hates the environment and wants to destroy it

My problem with Edwards is that he's an ambulance chasing asshole who made his fortune off other people's misery. I don't care what cause he either supports or pretends to support. Nothing will change the fact that he chased ambulances for a living. He's yesterday's news and was part of a team so feeble and incompetent that they couldn't even beat Bush and Cheney after those two evil jerks started an illegal war.

The McMansion is merely the icing on the cake. Why anyone would support Edwards is beyond understanding. We have to get behind Hilary and Obama and hope that they join forces. It's the only way to beat the repukes.

[Rosemary2205]

89. Take it from me

those ambulance chasers earn every penny they make.

[Deja Q]

80. What's wrong with living near work or stores?

What's wrong with making a proper wage so the working classes can let the credit cards go?

After all, they are an offshoot of banks - who already plenty of reasons to make money. (the distribution of wealth thing; the days when the income divide was only 40x versus the late-90s 450x and now 600x+... credit cards are mandatory, and not just for big brother's tracking either - of which I could care less about; banks ultimately hold EVERYTHING we do and will sell the info for a price anyway. Prices only governments COULD afford.)

Money's not a bad concept, and it allows more people to do what they want AS careers or livelihoods, but that's been perverted the last couple decades...

China must be damn close to using more resources by now.

And if we all recycled, that problem would go down too.

And McMansions, if were built properly with good insulation, wouldn't be a gripe either if people could afford them. The very people who have intercourse with money for a living are the cause of the bubble... and the bubble, dirty slut it is, is about to pop the STD unto them. :(

[Adelante]

84. I never owned a car in my life

I understand that people who live in places distant from their jobs need cars. But I have always made sure to live someplace where walking or public transportation could get me where I needed to go. I'm 60 years old so I remember when every neighborhood had its commercial street that people walked to from home. Hardware stores, food stores, candy stores, barber shop, laundry, etc. The necessities of life didn't require a car. The really weirdest thing is today, even three blocks from a store, people will take their cars instead of walk.

[Adelante]

82. Raising the level of discourse

There were a lot of important issues raised in yesterday's discussion. Thank you, Crispini, and everyone participating in this thread for not allowing these critical points to be forever buried in controversy. I think perhaps we need to give our candidates at least the break of recognizing that they are human just like us and maybe these enlightened concepts are sinking in at about the same rate as for the rest of Americans. Their lifestyle choices, although personal, may reflect where they are individually on this road to sustainability and voluntary simplicity. (As opposed to what we used to call "conspicuous consumption" before we ever dreamed how bad it could actually get.) It is critical for the country and the world, if we are to survive, both as Americans and as the human race, that we insist on a program of national goals toward sustainability, with the kind of public education and economic direction it will take to realize those goals. And we each do need to individually factor this into our evaluation of the primary candidates, because we need to anticipate where as president one might lead the nation given the opportunity. We can't foretell future actions of any presidential candidate, but we can discuss the level of commitment apparent in each candidate. I'm not suggesting we do that in this particular thread, because I think it has a less partisan purpose and it's too important to tie up in the brouhaha. But we need to be doing it as we go along into the primary season.

Crispini, I have a clothesline on the roof. It's a bitch :evilgrin:

[KoKo]

85. Good Post Crispini....

One wonders, though, if in an earlier time defending "the poor" would make one so much money as it did in the 1990's? His cut of what the court awarded might have been lower if he was defending the poor in the 1950's or 60's. And, the judgement of the Court might not have been so high either.

He ran for Senator from NC and many feel that once he was elected he immediately began working to campaign for President. Remember he was on Gore's "short list" to be VP so Edwards did feel that he might have a chance if he ran for President even though he was a Freshman Senator. He can be seen as an "opportunist" by many familiar with him because of his vote on Iraq War and consistent failure to meet with his supportive constituents (who worked hard to get him elected) to discuss why he Co-Sponsored the IRW with Lieberman. He is much more centrist or conservative in his views that many here might think and he gave up holding onto his Senate Seat to run for President allowing it to go back to a right wing hack who works for the Pharma and local Medical interests who were concerned about Malpractice insurance rising. So, in effect Edwards not fighting to keep his seat allowed a person in the Senate who would undo much of what Edwards said he was fighting for. After the 2004 Selection Edwards immediately began running for President once again only taking some time off when his wife fought breast cancer.

He's built a home that would seem to some to be a house for a person with very big ambitions since the ancillary building (the Barn) has two theaters a watch tower and recreational facilities that would seem fit for visiting dignitaries. He also has a huge home on Gated Figure Eight Island which is probably now worth more than the 1.8 mil that it was years ago.

Some might wonder if traveling with such young children for two years as Presidential Candidate and then VP candidate didn't take a toll on his family even though he and Elizabeth did have a bus that was equipped so that the family could be together (which is admirable). But, no sooner does Elizabeth recover than he starts on the road traveling the world to shore up his foreign policy experience and he will probably bring the bus back and take the kids out of school to run again for the next two years.

It would seem he's very ambitions and having the ability to spend his time running for President without having to earn a living any longer might put him in "Sainthood Category" and I imagine his Foundation might be considered his job because there are right offs he can take which gives him some salary and might even be of benefit tax wise with his "Recreation Area" at the new home.

All I'm saying is that we really should know more about our candidates than we have in the past and think more about their personalities and their life experience and the choices they've made.
Assuming that John Edwards is more altruistic than others running and that ambition might not cloud some of his judgement as it can with any candidate would not be doing him or anyone who supports him a favor. Covering up revelations and assuming that anything from the RW is always wrong also doesn't help us counteract what is revealed and separate the truth from the exaggeration.

There's an element of Edward's choices that smacks of "opportunism" and to some he might seem hypocritical because of his overwhelming ambition. And, while his Two America's needs to be talked about...he doesn't own the issue and there are others without his wealth who have talked about it in the past...but have not had the ability to be heard.

:shrug:

[EVDebs]

87. Read the segment 'Learning From China' in Plan b 2.0

Plan B 2.0:
Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/Contents.htm

we've got a limited window of opportunity, up to say 2031, so let's make the most of it. To buy more time, we need to remove Chimpy from office ASAP; either he gets with the program and changes course or we follow Sen Webb's advice and do it for him. What will the R party do ? Follow their leader off the cliff ?