| ▲ | bensyverson 9 hours ago |
| No, but historically speaking, the societies that operate this way tend to invite revolution |
|
| ▲ | austin-cheney 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Kind of. I want to yes, but its not directly how this works or how it sounds. A large increase in poverty or loss of property is insufficient to stoke revolution on its own. The increase of poverty in favor of the rich devastates the economy for multiple reasons, such as: opportunity contraction, less spending, loss of motivation/mobility, and more. When the economy loss becomes wide spread enough, regardless of bankruptcy/poverty/homeless or whatever rates is when revolution happens. The problem has to effect a majority of society. 12% sounds devastating (it is), but it is not a wide enough umbrella. |
| |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | For America specifically, it is somehow worse. It took 25% of the nation being out of work to, not revolt, but popularly elect someone willing to to spend a little government money on healthcare and welfare. So it will get much worse before Americans finally read a book and figure out we should maybe do something different. | | |
| ▲ | exceptione 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > So it will get much worse before Americans finally read a book and figure out we should maybe do something different.
You better forget about the books. Don't count on the media either; the abolishment of the fairness doctrine and financial incentives via corporate ownership can and will distort reality in a strata-optimized way. Social media is overrun by bots and influence ops as we speak. New threat: people will ask their LLM. Journalists will source their LLM. Next question: Who trains the LLM?¹______ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia | |
| ▲ | roxolotl 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I read Grapes of Wrath recently on a recommendation from a friend and it’s one of the few great books I’ve read and felt was genuinely great. It feels incredibly relevant today with both inequality and automation. Would highly recommend it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mothballed 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Bankruptcy won't even discharge the kind of debt many/most of the lower-middle class fall broke upon. Alimony, child support, student loans, "restitution." |
| |
| ▲ | Maxatar 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This claim is simply false. The cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. has been extensively studied and absolutely none of the criteria you list comes even close to the number 1 reason that people in lower or middle class declare bankruptcy: medical bills. | | |
| ▲ | lazyasciiart 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it isn’t that well studied; and I’d be interested to see your source and confirm that it doesn’t trace back to a study that says something more like “A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work”. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most...) | |
| ▲ | mothballed 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? You mean to tell me people file bankruptcy over the kinds of debt they can actually discharge and less so over the kinds of debt they can't? That doesn't prove anything other than people filing bankruptcy aren't morons. If the only thing you could discharge were gambling debts, there would be an equally specious claim that people aren't going broke over medical debt because 80% of bankruptcies cite gambling debts as the cause. | | |
| ▲ | Maxatar 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not trying to prove anything. I am pointing out that your claim about the cause of many/most lower and middle class people's bankruptcy is false. | | |
| ▲ | AshleyGrant 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They never made that claim. | | |
| ▲ | Maxatar 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | This claim is false: >Bankruptcy won't even discharge the kind of debt many/most of the lower-middle class fall broke upon. Most of the lower-middle class do not go broke upon the listed criteria. | | |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I did not make that claim. I made the following: Bankruptcy won't even discharge the kind of debt many/most of the lower-middle class fall broke upon.
The whole point was that bankruptcy wasn't a remedy discharging these forms of going broke. It's unsurprising the bankruptcy data leans towards a 'cause' that will actually discharge their debt, otherwise the incentive for a broke person to file bankruptcy is lowered. | | |
| ▲ | Maxatar 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most of the lower-middle class do not fall broke upon the things you listed. | | |
| ▲ | stvltvs 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Looks like there's equivocation about "bankrupt" and "broke". To me you can be broke without going through the legal bankruptcy process. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | conductr 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bankruptcy at this point is just a way to signal to creditors not to lend more money to this individual. As you said alimony, child support, student loans, restitution are a must so the filing simply is a formal notice that "every penny this person ever earns is already earmarked, heed this warning before lending" | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's quite convenient though that it actually discharges the kind of debts rich people and businesses are more likely to accrue, while not discharging the kind of debts the middle/lower classes are likely to accrue when they're unable to pay them. | | |
| ▲ | conductr 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Agree. Also convenient that the warning I mentioned benefits those in the business of extending credit |
|
| |
| ▲ | noitpmeder 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What restitution is the average american on the hook for these days? |
|
