MetabolicTrash
Member
This is referring to U.S. politics in particular and the economy/society, but can apply anywhere else too.
I think it strongly correlates with division of two extremes -- those "who have enough" and those "who don't have enough," only more so with the "cap" on each "range."
It's like the extreme views of seeing the royal rulers and the peasants of older days -- few in top, most in bottom. Many people see and even acknowledge this (look at the "living paycheck to paycheck" in America for example, which most people do). It seems if you're not struggling to live you're either more poor or more comfortable/not having financial problems -- but the thing is that this middle/gray area seems to have weakened more, resulting in what appears to be a literal extreme of two "classes" of people -- well-off and barely afloat, if even. It seems you can marginalize the extreme more easily as "poor" or "rich" -- the idea of rich just has moved down since what it appears to be is that -- instead of more people being well-off and some fewer being really rich -- it's like more people now are borderline poor and the "ceiling" on richness just downsizes you could say. The more many peoples' wages go down and/or costs go up, the easier it might be to classify more as "rich" with smaller "minimums" to qualify as such by comparison, explaining some possible degree of polarizing financial classes and "shrinking" groups.
For example, if most people earned, say, $100K and some fewer "rich" made millions per year, the change now would be that you could argue most earn $40K and "rich" now means $100K and up (lower ceiling).
I know the term "rich" is also thrown around loosely and there's no perfectly agreed upon definition of it, but I think the point gets across on how most imagine the idea of financial abundance as compared to their working lifestyle that -- according to most -- keeps everyone "afloat" only while working 9-5 nonstop (lose your job = lose the roof over your head for a great many with no alternatives/failsafe).
For these reasons it's why I'd only vouch for a political candidate like Andrew Yang for U.S. president who would attempt to remedy this by creating more financial abundance and maybe shrinking the lowered ceiling on wealthy rather than having to continuously downsize everything to adapt to our subpar pay and system. I think it's a real financial issue when nearly 3/4th of the entire population seems to have to work endlessly with no breaks in order to barely get by (along with all of the stress this entails as a different story too).
I think the "shrinking middle-class" is just a code word for people working more & getting less overall -- i.e., only "shrinking" by way of separating the poorer/richer.
I think it strongly correlates with division of two extremes -- those "who have enough" and those "who don't have enough," only more so with the "cap" on each "range."
It's like the extreme views of seeing the royal rulers and the peasants of older days -- few in top, most in bottom. Many people see and even acknowledge this (look at the "living paycheck to paycheck" in America for example, which most people do). It seems if you're not struggling to live you're either more poor or more comfortable/not having financial problems -- but the thing is that this middle/gray area seems to have weakened more, resulting in what appears to be a literal extreme of two "classes" of people -- well-off and barely afloat, if even. It seems you can marginalize the extreme more easily as "poor" or "rich" -- the idea of rich just has moved down since what it appears to be is that -- instead of more people being well-off and some fewer being really rich -- it's like more people now are borderline poor and the "ceiling" on richness just downsizes you could say. The more many peoples' wages go down and/or costs go up, the easier it might be to classify more as "rich" with smaller "minimums" to qualify as such by comparison, explaining some possible degree of polarizing financial classes and "shrinking" groups.
For example, if most people earned, say, $100K and some fewer "rich" made millions per year, the change now would be that you could argue most earn $40K and "rich" now means $100K and up (lower ceiling).
I know the term "rich" is also thrown around loosely and there's no perfectly agreed upon definition of it, but I think the point gets across on how most imagine the idea of financial abundance as compared to their working lifestyle that -- according to most -- keeps everyone "afloat" only while working 9-5 nonstop (lose your job = lose the roof over your head for a great many with no alternatives/failsafe).
For these reasons it's why I'd only vouch for a political candidate like Andrew Yang for U.S. president who would attempt to remedy this by creating more financial abundance and maybe shrinking the lowered ceiling on wealthy rather than having to continuously downsize everything to adapt to our subpar pay and system. I think it's a real financial issue when nearly 3/4th of the entire population seems to have to work endlessly with no breaks in order to barely get by (along with all of the stress this entails as a different story too).
I think the "shrinking middle-class" is just a code word for people working more & getting less overall -- i.e., only "shrinking" by way of separating the poorer/richer.
Last edited: