Ask yourself this: if these e-bikes were extremely expensive and so expensive that only the rich could use them, would rich people complain?
The upper classes do not always explicitly think about things, like “oh, a Democrat is in power, seems like a great time to price gouge” or “hmm, all the other top leaders are firing people and price gouging since there’s a liberal in power, I should do it too” but these things do happen. Doing things to treat lower classes harshly isn’t always specifically talked about and planned, it’s just something those at the top do because they know others will as well and they also don’t believe the lower classes will recognize it and fight back politically, especially when the more religious party always favors the rich and religion helps increase class complacency.
I’m not against people making money or being successful, but there is a certain level of exploitation that goes on and it’s not always explicit and it’s not always planned out in clear language and it still happens
Of course no one would complain about e-bikes if no one was using e-bikes.
You’re unable to demonstrate a causal link between upper classes hating e-bikes and upper classes wanting to prevent the poors being free because there just isn’t one.
Honestly, I dislike being poor and I dislike wealthy people but making up ridiculous accusations like “they don’t want us to be free” is just plain silly.
Most wealthy people get their wealth from the labor of poor people. If poor people have easy lives, and need to work less hard for fun and to enjoy life, then they are less likely to work hard and wealthy people are less likely to stay wealthy.
I can’t demonstrate a causal link because it would be impossible to design a study really showing that.
To demonstrate anything, I’d have to get a group of wealthy people and determine which of them don’t want poor being free (and just asking them wouldn’t reveal that).
Then I’d have to determine which of the wealthy people hate e-bikes by asking them.
Then I would have to see if there was a correlation.
If you use Democrat versus Republican as a proxy for the first inquiry, it would be an easier but less approximate estimation.
In order try to show causation (and it would be a iffy showing), you would have to take wealthy people and measure their views of e-bikes, wait a week, divide them in three, and show them films of poor people. One film would show poor people disliking ebikes and being unhappy. One film would show poor people feeling free after using ebikes and having nicer lives. One would be a film of a a film that showed something as neutral as possible, like a show about how to do math problems. That wouldn’t actually be neutral, so if a budget allowed there would be a fourth group with no tv show at all. Then measure their views of e-bikes again and see if they changed.
I can’t prove any of this, but the wealthy people shown groups of poor people happy using e-bikes would probably have more negative views of e-bikes after on average because this is a control issue. E-bikes are cool and great for the planet and rich people who don’t like them only have 1 rational reason: wanting to maintain their lifestyle and concern that the lower classes finding more fun may reduce that. (And alcohol is fun and promoted because lower classes who use it a lot are more likely to have less intelligent children who will lack social mobility and can be exploited more easily.)
So yes, I don’t have a budget or inclination to prove this, but it’s not an impossible thing to prove nor is it irrational.
I don’t have the budget nor inclination to prove that the sky is purple, I’m just going to keep saying it because it makes me feel better about myself.
So you’re saying that my position is clearly evidently wrong, just like purple is not the color of the sky and therefore that’s clearly wrong.
I get it, but the easy lifestyles of the rich come from the suffering of the poor. The poor doing well is always a threat to that lifestyle and it’s naive to think the wealthy don’t often have a deep-seated gut reaction to anything that could threaten that. Even if you think it’s a stretch, it certainly isn’t as evidently wrong as a purple sky.
This just isn’t how wealthy people think though, even if it’s correct.
They think they became wealthy through hard work and good decisions. They think of themselves as benevolent and generous. They think they’re using their wealth to improve the lives if the have-nots.
“Uh oh, if the poor have more freedom and are happier, they may not work for such cheap wages collectively and it could affect my lifestyle. I better dislike the thing that makes their life easier.”
But the wealthy do in fact make choices and respond in gut ways that protect their lifestyles.
The wealthy often do think of themselves as generous and benevolent, but then they do not structurally change society to make life less oppressive. No one should be opposed to universal health care. No one should support criminalizing homelessness.
There are also ways to structurally change society to make life easier for the poor that don’t involve Marxism or incentivizing laziness. Classical economic theory and democracy can work together to make change but the poor are misled into voting for idiots because they are manipulated by the rich with religion and wedge issues and other clever tricks. Some of these rich people that deceive the poor with religion may even believe the lies of religion on some level. The logic of the mind of the average rich person may not be internally consistent, but they ultimately protect their interests.
You’re just redefining your position to be a tiny bit less nutty. Your original assertion that “the upper classes do not want the lower classes free on any level” remains preposterous.
Wealthy people hate e-bikes and e-scooters because they can afford fancy cars and e-scooters cluttering up the sidewalk or zipping through the dog park are a minor inconvenience.
I am not trying to make my position any less nutty. I assert it is equally as nutty as before, which is to say not very nutty at all.
It’s more than it being a minor inconvenience. If this were a pass time of the rich, the inconvenience would not be regulated. For instance, hobby sailing or expensive motorcycle riding is annoying and there isn’t constant discussions about how to regulate it to make it harder for people to do those things.
You’re wrong on this, you don’t get it but you are.
Ask yourself this: if these e-bikes were extremely expensive and so expensive that only the rich could use them, would rich people complain?
The upper classes do not always explicitly think about things, like “oh, a Democrat is in power, seems like a great time to price gouge” or “hmm, all the other top leaders are firing people and price gouging since there’s a liberal in power, I should do it too” but these things do happen. Doing things to treat lower classes harshly isn’t always specifically talked about and planned, it’s just something those at the top do because they know others will as well and they also don’t believe the lower classes will recognize it and fight back politically, especially when the more religious party always favors the rich and religion helps increase class complacency.
I’m not against people making money or being successful, but there is a certain level of exploitation that goes on and it’s not always explicit and it’s not always planned out in clear language and it still happens
This is just nonsensical.
Of course no one would complain about e-bikes if no one was using e-bikes.
You’re unable to demonstrate a causal link between upper classes hating e-bikes and upper classes wanting to prevent the poors being free because there just isn’t one.
Honestly, I dislike being poor and I dislike wealthy people but making up ridiculous accusations like “they don’t want us to be free” is just plain silly.
Most wealthy people get their wealth from the labor of poor people. If poor people have easy lives, and need to work less hard for fun and to enjoy life, then they are less likely to work hard and wealthy people are less likely to stay wealthy.
I can’t demonstrate a causal link because it would be impossible to design a study really showing that.
To demonstrate anything, I’d have to get a group of wealthy people and determine which of them don’t want poor being free (and just asking them wouldn’t reveal that).
Then I’d have to determine which of the wealthy people hate e-bikes by asking them.
Then I would have to see if there was a correlation.
If you use Democrat versus Republican as a proxy for the first inquiry, it would be an easier but less approximate estimation.
In order try to show causation (and it would be a iffy showing), you would have to take wealthy people and measure their views of e-bikes, wait a week, divide them in three, and show them films of poor people. One film would show poor people disliking ebikes and being unhappy. One film would show poor people feeling free after using ebikes and having nicer lives. One would be a film of a a film that showed something as neutral as possible, like a show about how to do math problems. That wouldn’t actually be neutral, so if a budget allowed there would be a fourth group with no tv show at all. Then measure their views of e-bikes again and see if they changed.
I can’t prove any of this, but the wealthy people shown groups of poor people happy using e-bikes would probably have more negative views of e-bikes after on average because this is a control issue. E-bikes are cool and great for the planet and rich people who don’t like them only have 1 rational reason: wanting to maintain their lifestyle and concern that the lower classes finding more fun may reduce that. (And alcohol is fun and promoted because lower classes who use it a lot are more likely to have less intelligent children who will lack social mobility and can be exploited more easily.)
So yes, I don’t have a budget or inclination to prove this, but it’s not an impossible thing to prove nor is it irrational.
I don’t have the budget nor inclination to prove that the sky is purple, I’m just going to keep saying it because it makes me feel better about myself.
So you’re saying that my position is clearly evidently wrong, just like purple is not the color of the sky and therefore that’s clearly wrong.
I get it, but the easy lifestyles of the rich come from the suffering of the poor. The poor doing well is always a threat to that lifestyle and it’s naive to think the wealthy don’t often have a deep-seated gut reaction to anything that could threaten that. Even if you think it’s a stretch, it certainly isn’t as evidently wrong as a purple sky.
This just isn’t how wealthy people think though, even if it’s correct.
They think they became wealthy through hard work and good decisions. They think of themselves as benevolent and generous. They think they’re using their wealth to improve the lives if the have-nots.
The wealthy probably don’t think:
“Uh oh, if the poor have more freedom and are happier, they may not work for such cheap wages collectively and it could affect my lifestyle. I better dislike the thing that makes their life easier.”
But the wealthy do in fact make choices and respond in gut ways that protect their lifestyles.
The wealthy often do think of themselves as generous and benevolent, but then they do not structurally change society to make life less oppressive. No one should be opposed to universal health care. No one should support criminalizing homelessness.
There are also ways to structurally change society to make life easier for the poor that don’t involve Marxism or incentivizing laziness. Classical economic theory and democracy can work together to make change but the poor are misled into voting for idiots because they are manipulated by the rich with religion and wedge issues and other clever tricks. Some of these rich people that deceive the poor with religion may even believe the lies of religion on some level. The logic of the mind of the average rich person may not be internally consistent, but they ultimately protect their interests.
You’re just redefining your position to be a tiny bit less nutty. Your original assertion that “the upper classes do not want the lower classes free on any level” remains preposterous.
Wealthy people hate e-bikes and e-scooters because they can afford fancy cars and e-scooters cluttering up the sidewalk or zipping through the dog park are a minor inconvenience.
That really is all there is to it.
I am not trying to make my position any less nutty. I assert it is equally as nutty as before, which is to say not very nutty at all.
It’s more than it being a minor inconvenience. If this were a pass time of the rich, the inconvenience would not be regulated. For instance, hobby sailing or expensive motorcycle riding is annoying and there isn’t constant discussions about how to regulate it to make it harder for people to do those things.
You’re wrong on this, you don’t get it but you are.