Normal
I just got this ad for Jane Kim, who’s running for State Senate here in California:
Leaving aside the matters of whether those are livable wages in the City, particularly after taxes and any available savings contributions, and especially for “families” as stated in the headline…
“Join us as we work to lift more families into the middle class…”
A “middle class” necessarily implies a lower class and a higher class.
Right off the bat, this proposition does not even consider lifting families into the upper class. Just the middle class—that’ll do for now, right?
Lifting “more families into the middle class” implies not eliminating the middle class—there’ll still be one, which means there’ll still be a lower class, which means there’ll still be people/families in it.
Certainly this proposition does not suggest ending classes altogether—no; there’ll still be classes, at least three of them. And some will be in the upper class and some will be in the lower class and hopefully more of the latter will move up… to the middle.
Oh, OK.
I feel like this is a lukewarm dish. That’s all you’ve got to offer? You want to make this not only a headline on your flyer, but literally the entire topic of an entire flyer?
I’m not even saying it’s a bad idea. Just… it lacks ambition. It feels resigned. This is the best we can do, it implies.
Really?
NB: I feel I should make explicit that I’m not against Kim necessarily; I haven’t looked at any other candidates. And maybe she’s got lots of good policies and/or ideas. Just, this one ad caught my eye and got under my skin.
November 29th, 2016 at 12:27:57
Anyone who has ever read Basic Economics will also understand that classes of people over time, are not composed of the same people, and the flier obviously assumes so, but this is California, and most people here think we need to centralize everything & use politics to do so.
Worst education in the country for a reason.