Party Aligned Pt. 2

And radically different views on socioeconomics.

This is the second installment of a trilogy. It's more or less a direct transcript of a text conversation between me and one of my younger brothers.

Side note- There's a couple of screenshots and literary references, and videos from each of us that will be loosely referred to throughout the convo. The titles, captions, and/or brief descriptions of which are included at the beginning of part one (for the sake of brevity).

I use our middle initials to signify us. My initials are DVD and his are DSD.

Without further ado-

S: Do you have a link to the article? The thing is, for most folk (who don't have extenuating circumstances), in America, especially with a hot job market like this one, living paycheck to paycheck is the result of personal decisions.

Folk can spend less or make more. Folk choose a student and car loans of their free will. Forty percent of Americans don't have $400 set aside for an emergency tomorrow.

I'm not convinced that 140,000,000 people couldn't tighten their belt, sell some consumer junk, or hustle like hell to set aside $400 if their life depended on it. It's about a mindset; winter is coming, and being unprepared ain't going to help.

V: Link to immediately follow. How many households could Bezos or Gates fund for decades with minimal effort? My guesstimate: More than two or three...

*Article link provided*

S: What do Bezos or Gates have to do with personal decisions? Money won't be the solution if money isn't the root problem.

They can't money away single motherhood, low prioritization of education, drug abuse, over spending, under saving, or lack of hustle. If you give a man a million dollars he better think like a millionaire quick; or it will soon be gone (MC Hammer style).

*His first video was just sent.*

V: "Everything you just said is bs"- Wesley Snipes in The Spike Lee Joint "Mo' Better Blues" (sampled by The Roots on the intro to their Things Fall Apart album).

Saved the vid. I have a vid about half as long that I believe illustrates my point perfectly, if you're game.

S: I'm always open to a different perspective. Are you saying that choices play no role in this? If 32% of folk making over $100,000 run out of money between paychecks (according to your article) thats what I call a you problem.

Thats $4,166 every two weeks. They are clearly going wrong somewhere.

V: I try to stay away "Black and White (All or Nothing)" thinking. Link immediately to follow.

*My first video link was just sent.*

S: Fair. But I also think it's fair to acknowledge that people play a role (I would argue a critical role) in their financial situation. Like I stated before there will always be extenuating circumstances.

But even the lady in the article who talks about getting a tax bill at the end of the year. It would likely hurt a lot less to pay a little more bi-weekly than a fat bill in April.

Life is full of choices. Let me peep this vid right fast.

V: Bet.

S: The video is well produced. Most of what he is talking about is the Matthew principle; which is a well observed economic phenomenon.

But I think he's missing the point in several ways. Why is inequity "unfair"?

Why does the "what people think" or "ideal" distribution of wealth matter in this conversation at all? (He doesnt go into it.)

Lastly, what about the fact that in America if you are slightly above the poverty line, you are in the top 1% of the world. What is the ideal solution for that?

The CEO making 380x the average employee is only a part of the story. The average employee didn't develop a billion dollar product; take the risk of starting a business; or go years without profits like Google, Apple, and Amazon did.

I get that on a chart its not easy on the eyes; but where is the discussion about risk inequity; effort inequity; knowledge, skills, and abilities inequity?

And sure, luck plays a role; like being born in the U.S. And I forget who said it but, "Luck is when preparation and opportunity meet."

V: Your argument almost seems logical. Though, I'd argue that Drumpf didn't need too much preparation when he got that "small loan of $1M" from his dad.

Also, there's an MLK speech (I believe "Paul's Letter to American Christians") wherein he mentions the "preparation" the Irish and Italian immigrants needed to get free land and agricultural skills from Uncle Sam (skin color). "These same benefactors tell the Black man to pull himself up by his bootstraps.."

It was called "The Other America"

*Insert screenshot*

Sparknotes. Off tomorrow?

S: What is the illogical part of my argument? I'm not saying that inequity or inequality are fair; I just point out the narrator's lack of explanation for a key premise of his argument. What's the solution to unfairness; and where does the equality making end?

How do we equal out tall privilege, beautiful privilege; smart privilege; athletic privilege and on and on, etc.? People have vastly different circumstances and opportunities presented to them.

The most successful group in this country is Asian men. It is indeed unfair and unequal in this world; but that doesn't change the need to perform with what you have, because what else can you do?

According to The Brookings Institute, if you graduate high school; work a steady job; and wait until marriage to have children, you have something like a 93% chance of living above the poverty line.

I'm not even claiming that these things are easy or equally attainable for everyone; but it's possible for the vast majority of folk. But people decide not to.

Yeah, I'm off tomorrow. Long weekend.

V: Nice! Rebuttal/concession to immediately follow.

S: "Always wait for permission to feel accomplishment." That's my motto. Appreciated.

V: That's a pickle that's worthy of unpacking. First, your 93% stat seems largely feasible; though wholly unattainable for the vast majority thanks to circumstances outside of our control.

The Libertarian in me is a big fan of accountability. The Pan-African Nationalist in me is a huge fan of reparations.

Second, It's a bit arduous to "perform with what you have" when you have nothing, or less than nothing in your "toolbox". Third, the main privilege deterring unity is wealth inequality.

Most of the generational wealth, I'm willing to bet, has more to do with slavery than not. In short, "C.R.E.A.M." (Wu Tang Clan).

Once the economics are sorted out, everything else will dovetail (IMHO). Still up?

S: First, I think "wholly unattainable" seems like a bit of a stretch. I'm worried about what people can control.

Not having babies (condoms are like a buck and abstinence is free); education we got libraries and the whole internet. Hellen Keller overcame her circumstances outside of her control and wrote books about it.

Work like anywhere; dirty jobs, contracting, teaching english, self employment anything. If you are not in control of these things you need more than money.

At what point is it operator error? Reparations to who and from whom? I would press again that money is a problem for those who don't have it; but its not at the root of uneducated, unemployed, baby making.

Poor people come to this country all of the time and make it work; including Black Caribbeans with a history of enslavement. Second, "arduous" is better than impossible, so I'll take it.

Third, why would other people's wealth prevent us from success? If I bring something of value to the market, including labor, and folk want it, I will profit.

How long are we supposed to wait for "the economics to be sorted out"; and what does that even mean?

And yeah, I'm about to go down feel free to respond I'll hit you back in the morning. Let me know what you think of that video when you get a chance.

V: Bet. Bad news- With your permission, I'd love to turn this dialogue into a blog post.

Back to the debate- We have to wait, wade, and wage holy hell at [The Powers That Be] until there's concessions, contrivance, and/or condolences due. Further rebuttal/concessions to immediately follow.

First, I think that my wording could have been at least slightly better in regards to the "wholly unattainable" comment. Even still, "eventually the pendulum swings."

What's the likelihood that the masses will refrain from literally "[eating] the rich", as alluded to by the late, great 2Pac in his interview with [Kendrick Lamar], when the hunger and growing pains of the Brave New World begin to kick in?

Second, I'm not the wisest or smartest to advocate for reparations, by far. Though, obvious statements notwithstanding, "the greatest tragedy that wasn't filmed" deserves some serious soul searching and atonement.

Even if it were just college grants based largely on the honor system; something's gotta give (pardon the pun).

Third, in regards to your question of offsetting, there's this general concept that "power corrupts..."; money's power; ergo, money corrupts.

As I write this, my favorite conservative news outlet is deriding the fiscal insanity of our nation; which in large part is a comic tragedy we have set in motion unintentionally.

"Mr. Intentional" be damned; the other shoe must, and will drop.

S: Thats not bad news, as long as I'm kept in context. I'd love to see the draft.

I think we are straying away from the topic of the original article. Do we agree that if you cannot manage over $100,000 a year then money likely isn't your problem?

Don't the 68% of folk who can, prove that its possible; however difficult, if you are disciplined? I mentor young soldiers in my unit, and I see a pattern.

New cars (that cost too much, eating up their checks), debt, no savings, kids born outside of marriage, and no written plan. They're not stupid, just undisciplined.

People choose debt and overspending. Some people decide not to save and that's their failure; not some macro economic issue.

Simply put they are failing to economize their own resources; and outside of extenuating circumstances, the number doesn't seem to matter much.

It's just a place holder. Wealth is a mindset!

Take a Nigerian immigrant and put him anywhere. He is probably going to make it work because of the culture [he inherited]. More to follow.

*** To be cont...