Replies

Here is my response:

What I wrote was to not ignore concerns of the lower and lower-middle class. First of all, this is always a relative group. Even the so-called "working poor" in America would be considered middle class in most developing countries, so this group of people always has and always will exist.

The conservative mantra that people who want more should get educated and get a job is one with which I agree, but I am also able to see reality for what it is and not necessarily what I wish it were - unlike some around here.

There will always be a very large group of people who either cannot be educated more than a certain point or are simply too lazy to do more for themselves. These conditions, however, in no way affect their jealousy of those who earn or have more than they do regardless of whether they worked hard to acquire it or not.

History, a knowledge of which seems to be sorely lacking here, has shown that when the gap between rich and poor becomes so great as the the poor no longer believe it is possible for them to have a better life or make one for their children, they are often quite suceptible to revolutionary thinking. This, of course, is the greatest anathema to true conservatives.

Current trends in the US show that social mobility is decreasing and is now even lower than that in Europe for the first time (according to The Economist feel free to post contradictory studies).

Since America is a democracy the likelihood of a revolution is fairly low. However, the chances that unhappy (potential) voters may be persuaded by leftist populists that the best path to a better life is wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation is a real possibility.

I did not make any suggestions in my previous very short post. I only said that to ignore the plight of this group of people is ignorant and naive.

I have seen no single post or argument that would contradict that simple statement that contrary to which would be: those who are having a hard time are irrelevant.