.. is that they are a fairly small part of the total population and thus have a social call to show their relative wealth compared to the "poor people" and thus there is a lot of spending on flash things and a lot less savings.
(Note that this is an outside view so may be distorted, but based on talking with quite many people from India over the years)
I don't belive this article for one second. After 1 year of Covid, it's clear this pandemic is now because of government incompetence or just being used as an excuse by vested interests to demand funding (which won't be used to help people who need it most). I guarantee countries will still be in a pandemic emergency mode when autumn rolls around in the norther hemisphere and will still be used as an excuse for more monetary stimulus for the rich.
Incompetent? Or malicious? These people are psychopaths. Nothing would please them more than to be able to whittle the global population down to less than 2 billion people, why not start with India and Africa? The resources we want are in the ground
I guarantee countries will still be in a pandemic emergency mode when autumn rolls around in the norther hemisphere and will still be used as an excuse for more monetary stimulus for the rich.
At least in USA, I think this is a spot-on prediction. You can already see herculean effort is being put into making sure that it happens. Lots of people have indicated they intend to voluntarily (!!!?!) eschew vaccines, for example, in order to help guarantee additional cases and deaths, thereby causing additional sh
None of those, but it would be nice if people could show proof of vaccination in order to
1) eat at a restaurant indoors*
2) go to a bar indoors
3) get on an airplane or subway car
4) attend a concert
5) go to school
--
(* outdoors is ok, as long as you don't get right in other peoples' faces)
There's always plenty of incompetence to go around, but what's so unbelievable about this article or the general premise? If you have a small business with a single location that's in an area where you're completely shut down, you may well be going out of business as a result. Larger, multi-national chains can weather this better and can lobby for special treatment from the government whereas individuals in the middle class don't hold nearly as much sway.
People with more resources are always in a better position to weather some kind of disaster. Maybe they still lose a lot, but they simply had a lot more to lose and even enough that they still might be considered rather wealthy even after losing much of what they had. People who are utterly poor (India has a lot of these) have practically nothing to lose. If COVID destroyed half of everyone's wealth, but you had none to begin with has anything changed?
This is just a reflection of the fact that people with next to nothing can't move much further down the ladder, especially if they're already at the very bottom. People quite high, might move down a few rungs, but if you were already at the top, you may still be quite close to it after moving down. People in the middle or the lower part of the middle, might find themselves at the bottom after moving down a similar number of rungs.
Homes over 1500sq feet for 2 people, people driving New SUV's and Trucks. A big industry where people lease cars so they pay less monthly, and get a new car every 4 or 5 years. Spending thousands of year to make sure their homes are properly landscaped...
They may not be mansions, or High End Luxury Cars, but the middle class spends a lot to show off, far more than we tend to want to admit.
Homes over 1500sq feet for 2 people, people driving New SUV's and Trucks. A big industry where people lease cars so they pay less monthly, and get a new car every 4 or 5 years. Spending thousands of year to make sure their homes are properly landscaped...
AKA, living the middle class life, having enough money to buy and own a decent house (1500 sq ft is NOT what I would consider large).
You live in a middle class house in a middle class neighborhood, you can afford the upkeep of said house (landscaping isn'
You failed to comprehend the statement of that user. The things you are saying are emblematic of the class are exactly what is said to be emblematic of the class because of its need to demonstrate wealth through purchases of excessive quantities of consumer goods and quickly depreciating assets. To maintain wealth the and to move beyond that class it is necessary to instead invest that money to gain profits rather than lose all of it in unproductive physical assets.
You failed to comprehend the statement of that user. The things you are saying are emblematic of the class are exactly what is said to be emblematic of the class because of its need to demonstrate wealth
I understood the author...
I was saying the things he described are not a display of wealth, those are just every day normal things for pretty much all middle class people.
Why would someone making enough to live out of squalor, still live in squalor.
That listed above is not in any way excessive, certainl
AKA, living the middle class life, having enough money to buy and own a decent house (1500 sq ft is NOT what I would consider large).
It's actually quite large for two people considering that previous generations often raised large families in smaller homes. When examining trends though, the average house size has been increasing over time even as the average family size has been decreasing.
AKA, living the middle class life, having enough money to buy and own a decent house (1500 sq ft is NOT what I would consider large).
It's actually quite large for two people considering that previous generations often raised large families in smaller homes. When examining trends though, the average house size has been increasing over time even as the average family size has been decreasing.
While that is true for previous generations, housing size has decreased the last decades in many areas due to centralisation. This causes more people to live in flats or smaller houses on smaller plots. E.g., where I live old larger houses with large gardens for the last decades were often split off into "large house with tiny garden" and "new small houses with tiny gardens" - often with 3-4 houses in the old garden. These days they're even tearing down the old house so they can optimise the number of smal
Except in many countries where being middle class is a larger proportion of the population there is a lot less of that show off. In fact in many countries an extravagant show off is seen as.. not good.
Except in many countries where being middle class is a larger proportion of the population there is a lot less of that show off. In fact in many countries an extravagant show off is seen as.. not good.
What I described above, in the US (especially back a few years when we had a much larger middle class), is not in any way extravagant.
That is normal middle class living for pretty much everyone on that level.
It isn't showing off....a $1500 sq/ft house?
That isn't showing off, that's pretty much bottom level
I mean the fact that in many countries where middle class is "the normal" there is less spending among middle class on flashy stuff show that you are better than "the poor people".
1500sqft is quite a lot for two people, and more than I've ever lived in with one other person. The median single-family home in the US is around 1600sqft, and they're occupied by families with children! Yes, newly built single-family homes are 2300sqft on average, but that's a small fraction of the housing stock and skewed toward the high end. Actual middle-class people can barely afford to buy or rent existing homes. (And in some markets, they can't. I'm living in a formerly middle-class 1260sqft house in
1500sqft is quite a lot for two people, and more than I've ever lived in with one other person. The median single-family home in the US is around 1600sqft, and they're occupied by families with children! Yes, newly built single-family homes are 2300sqft on average, but that's a small fraction of the housing stock and skewed toward the high end. Actual middle-class people can barely afford to buy or rent existing homes. (And in some markets, they can't. I'm living in a formerly middle-class 1260sqft house in
1500 feet is good if you only need a small office space. but add kids rooms, spare bedrooms, a piano, guitars, drums, sports equipment.... it fills up fast.
No, you're not wrong, this is the Indian problem in general, they're a nation that favours appearance over reality.
Back in the early 00s the term BRICS was coined, for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This were the rapidly growing economies that were going to take over the world by now, yet only one of them actually has - China. Brazil has failed at finding competent political leadership for 20 years, Russia has decided to continue trying to fight the world arrogantly believing it's exception
That makes no sense - you're saying is that dictatorships are superior at looking after their people, because China, as a dictatorship, has done a better job of lifting it's people out of poverty and improving their education.
Of course, we know that's not true because we have the US as a counterpoint.
It doesn't matter if India is a democracy or not, that despite their systems of ruling, India has failed at delivering the kind of progress for it's people that countries like China have. Russia is also a dicta
Stepping a bit higher, India is really scewing up with the pandemic. It is a crowded country but there are some absurdly bad violations of social distancing going on. Masses crowded shoulder to shoulder for religious festivals for example. For any country, where there's a second, third, fourth, etc wave of covid, it is usually because of crowd behavior and not because a new variant. People get lax with behavior when the numbers go down, which makes the numbers go up. Yes, the economics are bad, but the
and it exists in every middle class. A bit of that, even a lot of that shouldn't drive them over the edge. If it does they're not middle class. They're working poor. "Middle Class" means stability.
If a 12 month downturn permanently reduces your socioeconomic class then your position was so precarious that you were never really middle class.
The thing I understand of the Indian situation, that most of their middle class is what you call working poor. Basically they spend their money instead of saving.
Traditionally in most countries middle class is a has been the most resistant to all change and the one that saves most money and similar things to try to secure a stability in their position.
That does not seem to apply so much in India, where the "appearance of middle class" is the important part for many people.
and it exists in every middle class. A bit of that, even a lot of that shouldn't drive them over the edge. If it does they're not middle class. They're working poor. "Middle Class" means stability.
If a 12 month downturn permanently reduces your socioeconomic class then your position was so precarious that you were never really middle class.
That's stretching it... e.g. many small business owners could safely have been said to be middle class earlier, but if they lost their business they no longer are. This could even apply to some rich people... if you were owning hotels or other tourism related businesses before the pandemic, you could be broke now, to use an extreme example. If losing one pay check would cause a disaster, I agree with you - but a one year pandemic that have had extra impact on certain sectors of the economy goes way beyond
Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language
yet developed. -- T. Cheatham
The problem with the middle class in India.. (Score:3)
.. is that they are a fairly small part of the total population and thus have a social call to show their relative wealth compared to the "poor people" and thus there is a lot of spending on flash things and a lot less savings.
(Note that this is an outside view so may be distorted, but based on talking with quite many people from India over the years)
Re: The problem with the middle class in India.. (Score:0, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:0)
Incompetent? Or malicious? These people are psychopaths. Nothing would please them more than to be able to whittle the global population down to less than 2 billion people, why not start with India and Africa? The resources we want are in the ground
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
At least in USA, I think this is a spot-on prediction. You can already see herculean effort is being put into making sure that it happens. Lots of people have indicated they intend to voluntarily (!!!?!) eschew vaccines, for example, in order to help guarantee additional cases and deaths, thereby causing additional sh
Re: (Score:0)
1) Vote
2) Receive welfare, food stamps, etc
3) Receive income tax refund
Re: (Score:2)
1) eat at a restaurant indoors*
2) go to a bar indoors
3) get on an airplane or subway car
4) attend a concert
5) go to school -- (* outdoors is ok, as long as you don't get right in other peoples' faces)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The problem with the middle class in India.. (Score:4, Insightful)
People with more resources are always in a better position to weather some kind of disaster. Maybe they still lose a lot, but they simply had a lot more to lose and even enough that they still might be considered rather wealthy even after losing much of what they had. People who are utterly poor (India has a lot of these) have practically nothing to lose. If COVID destroyed half of everyone's wealth, but you had none to begin with has anything changed?
This is just a reflection of the fact that people with next to nothing can't move much further down the ladder, especially if they're already at the very bottom. People quite high, might move down a few rungs, but if you were already at the top, you may still be quite close to it after moving down. People in the middle or the lower part of the middle, might find themselves at the bottom after moving down a similar number of rungs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is common with the Middle Class everywhere.
Homes over 1500sq feet for 2 people, people driving New SUV's and Trucks. A big industry where people lease cars so they pay less monthly, and get a new car every 4 or 5 years. Spending thousands of year to make sure their homes are properly landscaped...
They may not be mansions, or High End Luxury Cars, but the middle class spends a lot to show off, far more than we tend to want to admit.
Re: (Score:2)
AKA, living the middle class life, having enough money to buy and own a decent house (1500 sq ft is NOT what I would consider large).
You live in a middle class house in a middle class neighborhood, you can afford the upkeep of said house (landscaping isn'
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
I understood the author...
I was saying the things he described are not a display of wealth, those are just every day normal things for pretty much all middle class people.
Why would someone making enough to live out of squalor, still live in squalor.
That listed above is not in any way excessive, certainl
Re: (Score:2)
AKA, living the middle class life, having enough money to buy and own a decent house (1500 sq ft is NOT what I would consider large).
It's actually quite large for two people considering that previous generations often raised large families in smaller homes. When examining trends though, the average house size has been increasing over time even as the average family size has been decreasing.
Re: (Score:0)
AKA, living the middle class life, having enough money to buy and own a decent house (1500 sq ft is NOT what I would consider large).
It's actually quite large for two people considering that previous generations often raised large families in smaller homes. When examining trends though, the average house size has been increasing over time even as the average family size has been decreasing.
While that is true for previous generations, housing size has decreased the last decades in many areas due to centralisation. This causes more people to live in flats or smaller houses on smaller plots. E.g., where I live old larger houses with large gardens for the last decades were often split off into "large house with tiny garden" and "new small houses with tiny gardens" - often with 3-4 houses in the old garden. These days they're even tearing down the old house so they can optimise the number of smal
Re: (Score:2)
Except in many countries where being middle class is a larger proportion of the population there is a lot less of that show off. In fact in many countries an extravagant show off is seen as.. not good.
Re: (Score:2)
What I described above, in the US (especially back a few years when we had a much larger middle class), is not in any way extravagant.
That is normal middle class living for pretty much everyone on that level.
It isn't showing off....a $1500 sq/ft house?
That isn't showing off, that's pretty much bottom level
Re: (Score:2)
I do not mean the specific levels of stuff.
I mean the fact that in many countries where middle class is "the normal" there is less spending among middle class on flashy stuff show that you are better than "the poor people".
Re: (Score:2)
1500sqft is quite a lot for two people, and more than I've ever lived in with one other person. The median single-family home in the US is around 1600sqft, and they're occupied by families with children! Yes, newly built single-family homes are 2300sqft on average, but that's a small fraction of the housing stock and skewed toward the high end. Actual middle-class people can barely afford to buy or rent existing homes. (And in some markets, they can't. I'm living in a formerly middle-class 1260sqft house in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
No, you're not wrong, this is the Indian problem in general, they're a nation that favours appearance over reality.
Back in the early 00s the term BRICS was coined, for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This were the rapidly growing economies that were going to take over the world by now, yet only one of them actually has - China. Brazil has failed at finding competent political leadership for 20 years, Russia has decided to continue trying to fight the world arrogantly believing it's exception
Re: (Score:0)
China is a freakin dictatorship and doesnt deserve comparison with democracies like India and others.
Let that not slip your brainwashed mind.
Re: (Score:0)
That makes no sense - you're saying is that dictatorships are superior at looking after their people, because China, as a dictatorship, has done a better job of lifting it's people out of poverty and improving their education.
Of course, we know that's not true because we have the US as a counterpoint.
It doesn't matter if India is a democracy or not, that despite their systems of ruling, India has failed at delivering the kind of progress for it's people that countries like China have. Russia is also a dicta
Re: (Score:2)
Stepping a bit higher, India is really scewing up with the pandemic. It is a crowded country but there are some absurdly bad violations of social distancing going on. Masses crowded shoulder to shoulder for religious festivals for example. For any country, where there's a second, third, fourth, etc wave of covid, it is usually because of crowd behavior and not because a new variant. People get lax with behavior when the numbers go down, which makes the numbers go up. Yes, the economics are bad, but the
That's just Keeping Up With the Joneses (Score:2)
If a 12 month downturn permanently reduces your socioeconomic class then your position was so precarious that you were never really middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing I understand of the Indian situation, that most of their middle class is what you call working poor. Basically they spend their money instead of saving.
Traditionally in most countries middle class is a has been the most resistant to all change and the one that saves most money and similar things to try to secure a stability in their position.
That does not seem to apply so much in India, where the "appearance of middle class" is the important part for many people.
Re: (Score:0)
and it exists in every middle class. A bit of that, even a lot of that shouldn't drive them over the edge. If it does they're not middle class. They're working poor. "Middle Class" means stability. If a 12 month downturn permanently reduces your socioeconomic class then your position was so precarious that you were never really middle class.
That's stretching it... e.g. many small business owners could safely have been said to be middle class earlier, but if they lost their business they no longer are. This could even apply to some rich people... if you were owning hotels or other tourism related businesses before the pandemic, you could be broke now, to use an extreme example. If losing one pay check would cause a disaster, I agree with you - but a one year pandemic that have had extra impact on certain sectors of the economy goes way beyond