Thread: Inequality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029553
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
So, being poor, I get to speak for the poor. If I was Eton Oxbridge educated, I might come up with sound economic reasons why rich people are best motivated by the idea of becoming richer, while poor people can only be motivated by the threat of becoming poorer. If the UK government can do it, and sound plausible, it cannot be that difficult.
But, I am not so educated. Just an ordinary, simple, mere*, Christian. Just noticing that, did we all love our neighbours as ourselves, there would be no disparities in net worth or income, because each others well-being would be as equally important to us as our own. But, alas, it seems we do not so love.
Is, then, the extent of our bank balance the measure by which we do not love our neighbour as ourselves, and thus the extent to which we are not Christian? Or are we merely being prudent, as we accrue wealth, looking after our own interests, and those of our dearest, in a cold-hearted, indifferent world?
Best wishes, PV.
*mere, in the CS Lewis sense of the word.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or. Some with huge bank balances may be far closer to following Christ than some with nothing at all.
It's whether or not money is what we put first, before God, that matters.
It's also about the status we give to ourselves and to other people. If we genuinely love others as ourselves, it does not necessarily mean that we will give them all of our money - especially if that meant that we would starve in our old age.
I'm not convinced of a motivation theory that says that poor people are only motivated by the threat of becoming poorer. Perhaps it was thought up by someone rich.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or. Some with huge bank balances may be far closer to following Christ than some with nothing at all.
It's whether or not money is what we put first, before God, that matters.
Like you, I don't say it's simple. I just question the right of those with huge bank balances to call themselves Christians, in an age of global hunger.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's also about the status we give to ourselves and to other people. If we genuinely love others as ourselves, it does not necessarily mean that we will give them all of our money - especially if that meant that we would starve in our old age.
Indeed, not. There is, for instance, no point in being charitable to an addict, directly. But any intelligent individual with an excess of money could find a way to do good with it, if they really wanted to. And who knows? In a kinder society, perhaps they need not worry so much about their old age.
quote:
I'm not convinced of a motivation theory that says that poor people are only motivated by the threat of becoming poorer. Perhaps it was thought up by someone rich.
Yes, I think that's right. But it has been adopted by our Prime Minister and our Chancellor of the Exchequer (both independently millionaires) as if it were Holy Writ.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No point eh?
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
The thread's title is about equality, and this is not the same as non-poverty. I expect you would accept that people are hugely unequal in terms of their life chances, based on health, attractiveness, talent, home environment, loads of genetic factors and so on.
So the question is: To what extent should society smooth away these differences, so as to approximate to everybody having the same life chances? And so you get, what to me it the left-right circle that can't be squared: the freer a society, the more natural differences will come into play, so the only way to smooth these away is to control more.
So, for example, a society in which all marriages are arranged reduces the degree of disadvantage that a relatively sexually unattractive person has over the bastards who get all the girls.
A society in which everybody is employed by state controlled industries will reduce the advantage of the natural risk taking entrepreneur. And so on.
Mostly, people only go on about equality under the law (which can be a bit theoretic when access to justice is expensive) and a relatively low differential between peoples incomes. The first everybody goes with. The second, lefties go for. I think it can work but in societies that are very homogeneous, and not very open. I believe Japan consistently records the lowest differentials.
This is not the same as eliminating poverty. There is a widespread consensus that the creation of a large class of people with a really restricted income is good for nobody, and I wouldn't dream of disputing that. The argument starts at what that minimum level is, beyond which a person has enough for civilized life. My brother has always been poorly paid (window cleaner and pastor of low-wage Baptist church) but it has not held him back.
But that is not the same as equality. If everybody has enough, I don't see why we should stop others having more that enough. And from a christian point of view covetousness is just as great a sin as tight-fistedness.
quote:
Just noticing that, did we all love our neighbours as ourselves, there would be no disparities in net worth or income, because each others well-being would be as equally important to us as our own
Why does there well-being require them to have more riches, when it is precisely the poor that Christ said were blessed and the rich who had to watch out. You're point is taken if our neighbours do not have the basic means of life, but that doesn't mean we all need the same salary.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
Rawls' principle is that inequality is justified to the extent that it benefits the worst off in society, whose interests must determine the extent of that inequality.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Poverty can be being poor and also a social status. I was poor as a student until I was 30. Being poor was okay with me because I had hope to be not poor and at least equal to others in the future. And I could do something about my poverty. Inequality is acceptable on insofar as there is hope for change and something the individual can do about it. The neoliberal economic policies we have been pursuing for 35 years have increased inequality.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or.
Perhaps not simple, but not complex either. The more one has beyond basic need, the more one is depriving others. Full stop.
No a comfortable truth, but truth no less.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
A society in which everybody is employed by state controlled industries will reduce the advantage of the natural risk taking entrepreneur. And so on.
First, though every investment is a "risk", most are not incredibly risky and those who do risk are frequently doing so with other people's money.
Second, the "entrepreneurs" are rarely the innovators.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
You're point is taken if our neighbours do not have the basic means of life, but that doesn't mean we all need the same salary.
Few, ISTM, require salaries to be equal. Just not as unequal. The greater the disparity, the greater the poverty.
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Poverty can be being poor and also a social status. I was poor as a student until I was 30. Being poor was okay with me because I had hope to be not poor and at least equal to others in the future. And I could do something about my poverty. Inequality is acceptable on insofar as there is hope for change and something the individual can do about it. The neoliberal economic policies we have been pursuing for 35 years have increased inequality.
We often make the mistake of defining poverty exclusively in material terms. But as your example illustrates, it's also about dignity and perspective. As a student, you may well have been regarded as the up-and-coming elite, and a force to be reckoned with in future. This gave you Dignity. Having the end of your studies to look forward to, and with it the possibility to earn more, gave you Perspective. Social hand-outs don't always give people dignity and perspective, in fact, they often rob recipients of these two crucial attributes.
We have to gear are social thinking and our welfare systems to restoring people's feeling of self-worth and hope for the future every bit as sustaining them physically. Without these, they cannot buy into society, as it doesn't work for them, and as long as that is the case, their estrangement will be our loss as well as theirs.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I expect you would accept that people are hugely unequal in terms of their life chances, based on health, attractiveness, talent, home environment, loads of genetic factors and so on.
So the question is: To what extent should society smooth away these differences, so as to approximate to everybody having the same life chances?
Our current society is nowhere near the point where inequalities in talent and attractiveness are the major determinatives of people's life chances. The main determinative is someone's parents' wealth and income.
In any case, what makes the inequality "huge"? If your scale is calibrated so that 0 is the minimum for someone we consider able-bodied, maybe it is huge. But the differences will largely become negligible if you compare human beings with other animals.
Inequalities in health and home environment are not givens. We can do something about them.
In the absence of intervention, everybody would be living in the stone age, and would have to cooperate not to starve. It's only the way that our society is set up that we can even think that inequalities in talent might sort themselves out into large inequalities in life chance. We might set up our society a different way if we preferred. The idea that there's a natural distribution and then 'intervention' comes along is just a nonsense. The state prior to intervention is already an intervention.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
In any case, what makes the inequality "huge"?
Well, yes, that is subjective, but a rule of my thumb is: big enough to cause major resentment. I'm not too bothered about how animals factor into all this. But my rage at being socially inept and unattractive to girls was as great as some people's that they don't have the money for the life they want. In both cases we couldn't get what we thought we should have a right to. (Fortunately my wife didn't know me then). And I suspect that sexual prowess is less dependent on parental income that financial outcomes. And it is, frankly, a rather important factor in quality of life.
quote:
Inequalities in health and home environment are not givens. We can do something about them.
We can indeed, and a limited intervention, which is well costed and not overly intrusive is to be welcomed. I just fear that those who prioritize equality over freedom are liable to go too far.
quote:
In the absence of intervention, everybody would be living in the stone age, and would have to cooperate not to starve.
I don't buy these hypotheticals. No doubt we have always had to co-operate, but I doubt that you are proposing stone age intervention.
quote:
It's only the way that our society is set up that we can even think that inequalities in talent might sort themselves out into large inequalities in life chance. We might set up our society a different way if we preferred.
I agree. I only claim the correlation for societies where a relatively high degree of individual freedom of action is viewed as more important than achieving equality of outcome. I think I said that you can have other setups. I remember talking to a devout Muslim colleague about how the idea of having to go out and get a life partner freaked him out, and although he saw that he would not be able to arrange his children's marriages, he thought things would be better if he could. His arranged marriage was very happy. And I can see his point. It is, as you say, a different take on how to organise society.
I have a good friend who is no friend of communism, having been a political prisoner, but he would not deny that the GDR was a more equal place that W. Germany, and that in itself, that was a good thing. He values equality. But there were side effects!
[ 26. October 2015, 09:12: Message edited by: anteater ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
OK, just to put some meat into this discussion, here's some figures, gleaned from that interweb thingy.
If all the wealth of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have a net worth of $33,014.00
If all the annual income of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have an income of $10,667 per year.
But, of course, neither are equally distributed. Instead, the top 1% own half the world's assets and get half the world's income.
An equal distribution would mean an end to world hunger, most preventable diseases, and probably a good few wars, as well. Can the wealth of the richest, seen in this light, be morally or theologically justified?
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
Best wishes, PV.
(The figures in the raw: 7.3 billion people, $77.87 trillion Gross World Product, $241 trillion total world wealth, 2014/15 calculations)
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or.
Perhaps not simple, but not complex either. The more one has beyond basic need, the more one is depriving others. Full stop.
No a comfortable truth, but truth no less.
That rather depends on what the 'wealth' one is quantifying covers. Not everything is a zero-sum game, and not every gain is inevitably balanced by a corresponding loss elsewhere.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No point eh?
There is every point in supporting addicts indirectly, through provision of rehab services, housing, education, food programs and character/confidence-building courses. I just meant there is no point in directly handing out cash, which is only going to feed the addiction in a counter productive way.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
A few questions, out of idle curiosity (and not because I'm a rampant capitalist - far from it):
a) If you pledge to earn no more than $10k per annum, what's your solution if you live in an area where the cost of living is greater than that figure?
b) Do you genuinely feel it would be better to artificially limit your own earnings, even if that requires some external support to enable you to live, rather than earning more than that figure and giving the excess away to those who cannot - i.e. become a micro-agent of the kind of managed distribution your hypothetical equal distribution requires at a macro level?
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
A few questions, out of idle curiosity (and not because I'm a rampant capitalist - far from it):
a) If you pledge to earn no more than $10k per annum, what's your solution if you live in an area where the cost of living is greater than that figure?
I don't there live. I currently get around $6000 per year, incapacity benefit. $10,000 per year represents untold riches, to me! And I'm sure I could think of some suitably ethical way to distribute the difference, even if it were only buying stuff from people starting out in business, and needing the hand up, rather than the hand out.
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
b) Do you genuinely feel it would be better to artificially limit your own earnings, even if that requires some external support to enable you to live, rather than earning more than that figure and giving the excess away to those who cannot - i.e. become a micro-agent of the kind of managed distribution your hypothetical equal distribution requires at a macro level?
I'm not artificially limiting my earnings, though! The world seems quite competently intent on doing that, for me! As for giving cash away; well, I advocate that, of course, to the degree each individual is comfortable. And were my net worth/annual income to rise beyond the level of equity I present, that is precisely what I would do with the excess.
Cheers, and thanks for your interest, PV.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That rather depends on what the 'wealth' one is quantifying covers. Not everything is a zero-sum game, and not every gain is inevitably balanced by a corresponding loss elsewhere.
If I purchase things I do not need, I am not using that money to help people.
If a company's revenue X = A+B, A being the executives' pay and B that available to pay the rest of the company; the higher A is, the less available to B.
Not everything is zero-sum, no. Nor is everything completely simple. But we justify our comfort at the expense of others, this is clear.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
True, true. Silly poor people will spend that £1,000 on perishables items and things that lose value, like food and clothing,
More Randian rubbish.
______________
Not suggesting an equal distribution of wealth, just a more Christian/humanist one. And simply stating that our comfort comes at a cost.
If your belief is 'fuck the poor' then there isn't much to discuss. Profess anything else, though...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or.
Perhaps not simple, but not complex either. The more one has beyond basic need, the more one is depriving others. Full stop.
No a comfortable truth, but truth no less.
Hmm. I don't think your truth is terribly true. It seems rather simplistic.
So, if I have a lot of money, and buy something expensive, but then offer it for the use of my neighbours, who am I depriving?
I used to know a couple, heavily involved in the Church, who lived in a very nice house indeed on one of the city's wealthier streets. They offered their house for church events quite a bit (that's why I know how nice their house was). On Christmas Day they invited anyone in the church who didn't have family to go to.
There might be things where it is a simple case of me having more inherently meaning that others have less. But there are also plenty of things where that isn't true at all. It probably applies to some basic resources, but a heck of a lot of things we find useful are manufactured things where supply is not a zero sum.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
OK, just to put some meat into this discussion, here's some figures, gleaned from that interweb thingy.
If all the wealth of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have a net worth of $33,014.00
If all the annual income of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have an income of $10,667 per year.
But, of course, neither are equally distributed. Instead, the top 1% own half the world's assets and get half the world's income.
An equal distribution would mean an end to world hunger, most preventable diseases, and probably a good few wars, as well. Can the wealth of the richest, seen in this light, be morally or theologically justified?
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
Best wishes, PV.
(The figures in the raw: 7.3 billion people, $77.87 trillion Gross World Product, $241 trillion total world wealth, 2014/15 calculations)
The cost of living is not equally distributed. Where are you going to live? Because in some locations in the world, your $10,667 will make you well off and in some other locations it will make you a pauper.
You also better figure out whether you're going to live in a society where a large amount of services are subsidised through taxes, or a society where you mostly have to satisfy your needs on your own, using your own money. Forget about developing countries, the way you spend this averaged salary of yours is going to be vastly different in the United States compared to Scandinavia.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
orfeo,
Overly simplistic my statement might be, but not untrue. I am not saying everyone should live at the bare minimum. But we justify very much at the expense of others.
We need food to eat. Do we need £2,000/kg caviar?
Yes, a long distance between bread and fancy fish eggs. But in that distance lies a lot more justification than need.
What a yone thinks is justified is their own business. Just saying that nearly everything comes at a cost.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The cost of living is not equally distributed. Where are you going to live? Because in some locations in the world, your $10,667 will make you well off and in some other locations it will make you a pauper...
Of course, the cost of living is not the same, everywhere. Why? Because wealth is not evenly distributed, everywhere. If it were, and take housing, and everyone had a net worth of $33,000, there would be no point in putting properties on the market for sums north of multiple millions. Properties would naturally incline in price and content to what people needed, and could afford.
And I think that would be a good thing.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
orfeo,
Overly simplistic my statement might be, but not untrue. I am not saying everyone should live at the bare minimum. But we justify very much at the expense of others.
We need food to eat. Do we need £2,000/kg caviar?
Yes, a long distance between bread and fancy fish eggs. But in that distance lies a lot more justification than need.
What a yone thinks is justified is their own business. Just saying that nearly everything comes at a cost.
Do we need caviar? No. But someone somewhere might very well make their living from selling caviar to people who want it.
It struck me just now that the whole give/take equation you're setting up is uncomfortably close to the logic used by people who complain about immigrants "stealing jobs". Some time ago, someone posted a rather eloquent refutation of that notion by a poet - she was from the UK or Ireland.
I can't remember all the details, but the basic point was that a hell of a lot of things don't operate as zero sum. 1 plus 1 actually equals more than 2, because when someone gets paid, they use that money to pay others, and the things they choose to spend money on are different to the things the previous person would spend money on.
I'm not a pure capitalist by any means, and I don't believe in some of the trickle-down economics that focuses entirely on business people as if they'll all be generous to their workers. But neither do I believe in the kind of socialism/communism that says everyone should be equalised.
Both kinds of ideology miss the fact that some things are best handled collectively, and some things are best handled individually, and that the answer isn't the same for each and every thing. There are areas where we should ensure that everyone's needs are met regardless of their personal wealth, and there are areas where people should be left to their own devices and allowed to spend their own resources as they see fit, including on things that some other person does not consider valuable.
I am basically the kind of "capitalist"* who (1) is incredibly grateful for the good fortune that has put me in an exceptionally good financial position, and (2) pays his taxes willingly and who knows he has capacity to pay more. The world sometimes seems to believe that I don't exist, but that's the world's problem.
*Having never done anything terribly capitalist. I've spent my working life as a public servant, not a businessman, but with a very good wage and with other fortunate circumstances.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The cost of living is not equally distributed. Where are you going to live? Because in some locations in the world, your $10,667 will make you well off and in some other locations it will make you a pauper...
Of course, the cost of living is not the same, everywhere. Why? Because wealth is not evenly distributed, everywhere. If it were, and take housing, and everyone had a net worth of $33,000, there would be no point in putting properties on the market for sums north of multiple millions. Properties would naturally incline in price and content to what people needed, and could afford.
And I think that would be a good thing.
Cheers, PV.
It is not true, though, that all property would be equal in price. The fact would remain that some property would be in more desirable locations than other. The Earth is not made up of a series of identical grid squares. Even if you strip away any notions of man-made inequality, there are parts of the planet that have abundant natural resources and parts that are resource-poor. There are parts that are naturally more beautiful than others.
If you want to understand that the world is not inherently equal in opportunity, you could start by reading some of Guns, Germs and Steel.
[ 26. October 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
I wonder why you think equality of wealth impossible. Clearly, in a dog-eat-dog capitalist system, it is far from likely. But in a Christian world, forgiving of mistakes, and redemptive of souls, why should enough-for-each, and no more than enough-for-each, within the constraints of the beleaguered environment, be an impossibility? Differing personality traits are insufficient explanation; it seems to me you also need a political-social-economic system that decides to magnify or minimise those differences to arrive or not arrive at economic equity.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not true, though, that all property would be equal in price.
I didn't say it would be. I'm not arguing that no house is better than any other, just that those who still live in favella shacks and mud huts deserve better of an allegedly Christian hegemony.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact would remain that some property would be in more desirable locations than other. The Earth is not made up of a series of identical grid squares. Even if you strip away any notions of man-made inequality, there are parts of the planet that have abundant natural resources and parts that are resource-poor. There are parts that are naturally more beautiful than others.
And is this the excuse for millionaires depriving funds from people who have insufficient to feed their children?
Cheers, PV.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This is silly talk. The rich need the incentive of getting richer, to get them to invest, to be entrepreneurs, and so on, without which the poor would not have even the crust that they get. The market operates as an information flow, in which information travels freely, and is freely determined at each local point. So the crust of bread is actually the high point of transcendence in this system, so the left are really devil-worshipers.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And is this the excuse for millionaires depriving funds from people who have insufficient to feed their children?
Wow.
This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any comment I've made, and I doubt it bears much resemblance to anything any other Shipmate has said either.
I'm sorry, but I simply have no interest in continuing a conversation where there's an insistence on turning everything into simplistic dichotomies. If you'll excuse me, I'm taking my centre-left swinging voter sensibilities out of here.
[ 26. October 2015, 13:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Pilgrim Vagrant, the two societies in recent years that have gone furthest in implementing the sort of approach you are advocating have been North Korea and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. This may not have been their theoretical intention. Nevertheless, the end result in both cases has been that day to day life for everybody has been made far more unpleasant than it is even for poor people in less egalitarian and dirigiste societies.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I must say, PV, that reading your posts I am reminded of the pharisee and the publican: 'Oh Lord, I thank you that i am not like this rich man here(rich being defined for this purpose as someone who has a few thousand more dollars a year income than I do)'. I do not of course say that you are indulging in the sin of spiritual pride, but you should be aware that what you are saying can make it look as if you might be.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Ha Ha. I draw attention to a gross injustice, the inequality of wealth, pledge to you I will have no part in it, and somehow I am wrong? Because I have 'the sin of pride'? Get this, I would rather be proud, and right, than complacently wealthy, and wrong. Whatever your political dynamic is up to you, I don't care. I just don't want people starving, while others party on gin-palace yachts. If that's pride, I plead guilty.
Now let's discuss the topic, not my own personal shortcomings, of which I admit to many.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Pilgrim Vagrant, the two societies in recent years that have gone furthest in implementing the sort of approach you are advocating have been North Korea and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. This may not have been their theoretical intention. Nevertheless, the end result in both cases has been that day to day life for everybody has been made far more unpleasant than it is even for poor people in less egalitarian and dirigiste societies.
Hmmm. I have no special knowledge of either nation, just the obvious observation that communist regimes have not, in general, been about the liberation of the people to the extent that they have been about the enrichment of the ruling elite. They have been about the concentration of power in the hands of the few, whatever their otherwise rhetoric. As such, they are entirely antithetical to the sentiments leading me to continue this discussion, which is about the relationship between Christianity and wealth, not the failings of communist states.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And is this the excuse for millionaires depriving funds from people who have insufficient to feed their children?
Wow.
This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any comment I've made, and I doubt it bears much resemblance to anything any other Shipmate has said either.
I'm sorry, but I simply have no interest in continuing a conversation where there's an insistence on turning everything into simplistic dichotomies. If you'll excuse me, I'm taking my centre-left swinging voter sensibilities out of here.
I was asking the question, not casting the aspersion. I hope you will return to the discussion.
Best wishes, PV
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I think we should tolerate inequality of wealth on Earth to the degree that we believe there will be inequality of wealth in Heaven.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
This is the sort of saying that is attractive because it has a "just so" feel about it. But the fact of the matter, such an experiment has never really been tried, so we don't know if it really is true or not. To really know if it's true we'd have to not only give everyone the same sum of money, but also strip them of both debt and assets and resources such as relatives or parents to help support them. If we could really restart our random sampling of 100 or so people at the same starting point, while I'm sure there'd be some variation (based, as others have noted, on other sorts of inequalities such as inborn intellect or unique skill sets) I'm not sure the inequality would be as great as we imagine. We really just don't know.
In my work with the homeless, it has been observed that "homelessness is a failure of community." Because, while it is true that for most (but by no means all) of our clients we can point to some sort of mistake or bad judgment on their part that lead to their current circumstances (e.g. addiction, criminal record) we can also observe that for the most part their errors of judgment are not all that different from similar mistakes made by the housed-- the difference being that the homeless don't have someone to bail them out (even if it's just letting them sleep on their couch for a few weeks) when they do.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's whether or not money is what we put first, before God, that matters.
Absolutely. And yet... I think this is too easy. It's too easy to say "it's not about how much money I have, it's about how important it is to me." None of us think we are consumerists, none of us think we're putting money before God. I'm sure the Rich Young Ruler didn't imagine he was an idolator.
And yet... I think Jesus' rather pointed warnings about the danger of wealth suggest that the hold money has on us is much more elusive, much more subversive, than we realize. It's far too easy for me to say "it's not about how much money, it's about whether or not money controls you" without going on to the next question, "well, does it control me???" How many of my daily decisions about the way I prioritize my time, my passion, my energy are motivated by profit-- or it's twin, comfort? I'm wary of rushing too quickly to the "it's OK as long as God is first" excuse-- Jesus is warning his hearers for a reason. And I don't have any reason to think that mostly poor agrarian 1st c. Jews were more inclined to consumerism and materialism that relatively wealthy 21st c. Westerners.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Because, while it is true that for most (but by no means all) of our clients we can point to some sort of mistake or bad judgment on their part that lead to their current circumstances (e.g. addiction, criminal record) we can also observe that for the most part their errors of judgment are not all that different from similar mistakes made by the housed-- the difference being that the homeless don't have someone to bail them out (even if it's just letting them sleep on their couch for a few weeks) when they do.
Doubly this. When you have few resources, a run of bad luck that better resourced people could survive can wipe you out.
And of course that gets us into all the ways in which people have vastly differing amounts of social capital as a result of family background, upbringing, educational chances, and so on.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
orfeo,
We have created a consumerist world. This doesn't mean it needs to continue this way. All indications are this will be our species doom if we do continue.
I made a simple statement that I still maintain is at its core true. Changing it would be complex, nuanced difficult and slow.
One simple step is to buy less and make those purchases as ethical and moral as possible. We need to demand our suppliers do the same.
I am not a free-market capitalist, I am not a communist.
I suppose I am a semi-socialist who believes the market needs restraints. And that we consumers need to consume less.
We are so fucked, aren't we?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I have found equality in two contexts. One is at the communion rail. Unemployed poor person is beside rich business owner, both with their hands out, and hopefully with contrite hearts.
The second is on the curling ice, where the same unemployed dude out draws the employed dude and gets all the glory. I'd like to say golf and some other activities are in the same category, but you can often curl for free if you're subbing in for someone, and most curling clubs will let you use a slider and broom for nothing, whereas golf seems a bit pricey.
[ 26. October 2015, 16:45: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
I can't help feeling is that this topic is where the meat meets the cleaver; are we real Christians, who believe each soul equally vital before God, or notional Christians, who think only those like us, and belong to our golf club, get to go to heaven? And who would Jesus choose?
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Hmmm. I have no special knowledge of either nation, just the obvious observation that communist regimes have not, in general, been about the liberation of the people to the extent that they have been about the enrichment of the ruling elite. They have been about the concentration of power in the hands of the few, whatever their otherwise rhetoric. As such, they are entirely antithetical to the sentiments leading me to continue this discussion, which is about the relationship between Christianity and wealth, not the failings of communist states.
Sorry, Pilgrim Vagrant but I don't agree with you. Communism is supposed to be about things like,
quote:
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.
and
quote:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
.
Are you saying if it actually happened, that that would not be liberation of the people?
You are entitled to say that you will live out your faith the way you have said you will. I suspect, though, that sooner or later, you'll find yourself in a similar position with your commitment to that of someone well known who adamantly committed himself to saying he would never deny Jesus. At least you will be consoled by being in good company.
However, for your aspiration to happen as you aspire for it, would require you and a group of people who held broadly similar views to yours, to seize world power. And that is the fundamental flaw in what you are saying.
Could I take this opportunity to challenge you on another statement, which you make in your opening post?
quote:
So, being poor, I get to speak for the poor. ...
Do you? Who has appointed you to speak on their behalf? Could I say, "being English, I get to speak for the English"? The first half is true, as illustrated by my sig. The sequitur is claptrap, and self evidently so.
What then, is the basis of your claim?
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
PV: quote:
I can't help feeling is that this topic is where the meat meets the cleaver; are we real Christians, who believe each soul equally vital before God, or notional Christians, who think only those like us, and belong to our golf club, get to go to heaven? And who would Jesus choose?
Which are you? You don't identify as Christian in your profile, and some of your comments sounds like they could be veiled digs at Christianity.
And your rhetoric is beginning to sound silly. The belief that "each soul (is) equally vital before God" has nothing to do with economic equality. And the comic stereotype of someone who believes "only those like us, and belong to our golf club, get to go to heaven" is plain daft. Or do you know anyone who believes that?
Those who believe that only those that share there viewpoint on the christian view of economics are "real" christians, is not so much of a straw person.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Please believe me, I am not interested in world power. If Christians want to continue in their shambling, ramshackle way towards truth, I am quite happy to let them. They will get there eventually, even if having tried every possible falsehood, first.
And, if someone poorer than me, more virtuous, more eloquent than me, prefers to speak in my place, I am quite happy with that also. I don't want world power, just world justice, from whatever direction it might arrive.
Meanwhile, I continue to ask the question from the OP: does our bank-balance indicate the extent to which we are not Christian
Cheers, PV.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Which are you? You don't identify as Christian in your profile, and some of your comments sounds like they could be veiled digs at Christianity.
Being Christian is not necessarily the same as being uncritically Christian.
Cheers, PV
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
In any case, what makes the inequality "huge"?
Well, yes, that is subjective, but a rule of my thumb is: big enough to cause major resentment. I'm not too bothered about how animals factor into all this. But my rage at being socially inept and unattractive to girls was as great as some people's that they don't have the money for the life they want. In both cases we couldn't get what we thought we should have a right to. (Fortunately my wife didn't know me then). And I suspect that sexual prowess is less dependent on parental income that financial outcomes. And it is, frankly, a rather important factor in quality of life.
Nobody has a right to a partner, that's true.
I don't think that the ethics and politics of courtship are analogous to the ethics and politics of economic distribution.
quote:
quote:
Inequalities in health and home environment are not givens. We can do something about them.
We can indeed, and a limited intervention, which is well costed and not overly intrusive is to be welcomed. I just fear that those who prioritize equality over freedom are liable to go too far.
Whose freedom to do what?
This isn't a choice between freedom and equality, much as one side would like to present it that way. There are plenty of dictatorships with little freedom and with high inequality. It's a choice between making freedom dependent on wealth and privilege, and making everyone free.
quote:
quote:
In the absence of intervention, everybody would be living in the stone age, and would have to cooperate not to starve.
I don't buy these hypotheticals. No doubt we have always had to co-operate, but I doubt that you are proposing stone age intervention.
What hypothetical? If you strand one hundred people on a desert island with no products of society they're not going to build an industrial or mercantile society. They're going to end up with a stone age society. More so if they start out without any relevant education. Do you disagree?
I am making a point about the way the question is framed. Namely, that I don't think the concept of 'intervention' as applied here makes particular sense.
The fact that you have any property at all is entirely down to government intervention. It means that if anybody who isn't you tries to use your house or your car or your wallet the government intervenes to stop them to the best of its ability. If the government didn't do so with some reliability there would be no property.
Talking about government intervention into the market is nonsense. The market only exists because the government intervenes.
quote:
I have a good friend who is no friend of communism, having been a political prisoner, but he would not deny that the GDR was a more equal place that W. Germany, and that in itself, that was a good thing. He values equality. But there were side effects!
I'm not personally convinced that the disadvantages of the GDR were essential or even directly linked to the measures taken to reduce inequality.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Talking about government intervention into the market is nonsense. The market only exists because the government intervenes.
There are qualitative differences, though. Agreed, you can't have markets without property rights, and I certainly don't know how you get any kind of sophisticated or robust property rights without some kind of government to enforce them.
But there is, I think, a difference between the government acting as umpire, and the government playing an active role, and nudging the ball in particular directions.
(This doesn't mean that active government intervention has to be bad, but I think it's clearly distinguishable from the "umpire" role.)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
May we come back, PV, to what you said about your personal circumstances. You said, IIRC, that you receive about $6K a year in Incapacity Benefits and that you would never receive morre than the income which everyone in the world would get if it were all shared out equally per capita- I think $10,667 was about the actual figure.
I think, from your profile, that you are based in the Uk- is that right? So your $6K is about £4K or £80-odd a week, which is indeed about the short-term Incap Benefit for a single person under pension age. So far, so good.
But then I asked myself, where do you live? there is no way, in the UK, that you are going to be meeting your housing costs out of that £80 a week at anything like even a social housing rent. The possibilities are:
(i) You have no fixed abode and are sleeping rough. So you have no housing costs, but equally your income is not enabling you to meet the cost of one of the most basic human requirements.
(ii) You own a home outright. Even if you have no mortgage or rent to pay, presumably you have to pay council tax and you are therefore likely on your income to be getting Council Tax Reduction, which should count as part of your income. In any case, your home will also almost certainly take your wealth over the $30K-odd that you identifed as an equitable amount of wealth for a person to have.
(iii) You are paying rent, for a room or a flat. In that case you can't possibly afford to do that, and eat, out of £80 a week. You must be getting Housing Benefit and you need to count that into your income.
(iv) You live with / stay with someone who is meeting your housing costs (a partner, friend or relative) or someone is letting you live somewhere / stay with them rent-free or at a cost that is very much lower than the market or even social rent. Whatever the arrangement is, you are receiving, if not money, money's worth (in the form of accommodation) and you need to factor that in when calculating your real income.
The point is that overall, unless you are actually sleeping rough, AFAICS your real income and/or wealth must almost certainly be rather more than the maximum 'equitable' limits to which you refer.
I am not accusing you of conscious dishonesty here, any more than, however you may have chosen to interpret my earlier post, I was accusing you of conscious spiritual pride. But I am suggesting that if you are indeed, as you appear to be, based in the UK, part of your argument, as it relates to your own position, is almost certainly based on incorrect factual assumptions.
[ 26. October 2015, 20:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
True, true. Silly poor people will spend that £1,000 on perishables items and things that lose value, like food and clothing,
<snip>
If your belief is 'fuck the poor' then there isn't much to discuss.
I think that is an unfair interpretation of what I said. I was not implying criticism of anyone but it sounds as if you think I was, I was simply stating a fact.
______________
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Dafyd:
I do generally object to taking one aspect of equality i.e. wealth equality, and calling it equality.
My reason for raising the issue of courtship is to point out that wealth equality ( given you have the minimum ) may not be your top priority, and also that societies have found ways to reduce sexual success potential differences, namely arranged marriages, which many today still think to be a good idea, despite the reduction in freedom. Here most on the UK would reject it. Equally well, societies have found ways of reducing wage equalities (Cuba for example) and plenty of people are willing to accept the controls needed to achieve that. You might have got on well in the GDR, I don't deny that many did nor to I want to deprecate them.
But they are different to your typical Tory, who would hate to have that degree of control. That doesn't mean they are happy at inequality, and most would admit that
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
. . . in itself it is a bad thing. That's why I said that the circle can't be squared. We all want both. But our decisions will be based on which has the higher priority, and in my case it is freedom.
Your's may be different, and I can see the case for socialism and think you can make a decent one. Hence most of us drift to centre-left or in my case centre-right.
[ 27. October 2015, 07:25: Message edited by: anteater ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
This is the sort of saying that is attractive because it has a "just so" feel about it. But the fact of the matter, such an experiment has never really been tried, so we don't know if it really is true or not. To really know if it's true we'd have to not only give everyone the same sum of money, but also strip them of both debt and assets and resources such as relatives or parents to help support them. If we could really restart our random sampling of 100 or so people at the same starting point, while I'm sure there'd be some variation (based, as others have noted, on other sorts of inequalities such as inborn intellect or unique skill sets) I'm not sure the inequality would be as great as we imagine. We really just don't know.
I agree – and we never will know because human life just hasn’t evolved that way. quote:
In my work with the homeless, it has been observed that "homelessness is a failure of community." Because, while it is true that for most (but by no means all) of our clients we can point to some sort of mistake or bad judgment on their part that lead to their current circumstances (e.g. addiction, criminal record) we can also observe that for the most part their errors of judgment are not all that different from similar mistakes made by the housed-- the difference being that the homeless don't have someone to bail them out (even if it's just letting them sleep on their couch for a few weeks) when they do.
Thank goodness (not God!) that there are people who do the work you do. That is sincere, just in case anybody wonders.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I was simply stating a fact.
Not a fact - I would say a prediction. Did you actually perform that experiment?
The issue with what you are trying to do by stating your prediction for these people's behaviour is the invitation to attach value judgements to the various scenarios. I sense you find spending reprehensible, regardless of what was purchased, or the circumstances of those purchases. Increasing the money I sense you regards as a good thing. It could have been acheived by stealing from or defrauding the other participants. And just keeping the sum the same - well I wonder how many could acheive that without some other source of income.
Investment involves risk. Risk involves loss. Should that loss be personal to the individual taking the risk, or shared by those who may have indirectly gained from the investment?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There is a complex relationship between inequality and equity, simply because some folks make themselves poor by profligacy and others are poor simply because of where they are born and the circumstances (sometimes the prior deeds) of their parents. Without some adjustments, a fair society will inevitable degenerate into an unfair society from the POV of succeeding generations because of inherited wealth.
Redistribution of wealth doesn't eliminate inequality simple because folks are variable in both talents and character. But it does make room for the disadvantaged to flourish on merit. So I think both inequality and inequity need to be taken into account together in public policy.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
If you gave 100 people £1000 each and left them to sort things out for a month or so, they might well decide that their money had no real value. If they were on a desert island, say, coconuts and fish would be the priority. Needing those resources they might gather according to ability and share according to need. Then again they might fulfil more cynical expectations, organise themselves into competing gangs and fight to control the best fishing shallows and palm groves. If they did the latter, would anyone want to argue that this revealed an essential truth about human nature and was thus the way all societies should be organised?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
.... If they did the latter, would anyone want to argue that this revealed an essential truth about human nature and was thus the way all societies should be organised?
No. It would sadly reveal an unfortunate truth about human nature, and demonstrate why societies need to be organised.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
And if we all agree that violence and coercion can and has to be controlled, we can do it for economic abuse.
I want to de-deify the original post. If it is anti-Christian to benefit from inequality, then it should be possible to parse that as a wrong against humanity rather than a sin against God. I don't think it's hard to do this, but it's not often done well. What is the problem with inequality?
This is an important question. To be relatively poor today is not too bad. Loads of brilliant TV, games, internet, healthcare, travel. Is that enough? In the UK, the Tories have cut inheritance tax, which will increase inequality. They are going to have to moderate the extent to which the poor fund this by a bit, but not too much and not for long. What precisely is wrong with a society where the poor have enough and the rich soar away, higher and higher?
[ 27. October 2015, 08:25: Message edited by: hatless ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
To be relatively poor today is not too bad. Loads of brilliant TV, games, internet, healthcare, travel.
I think you have a false view of what life on benefits is actually like - either that or you are comparing and contrasting with people who aren't really poor.
quote:
What precisely is wrong with a society where the poor have enough and the rich soar away, higher and higher?
Well, if you want a purely pragmatic answer, because in the long term it corrodes democracy and leads to slower economic growth for everyone. An innovative society, with lots of technological advances and economic growth relies on a fairly large consuming (middle) class.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I'm thinking of low wage lifestyles, not benefits. I'm asking what's wrong with a society where most people earn the minimum wage or minimum plus twenty, thirty or forty percent, and a few people earn multiples of the minimum wage. Teaching assistant on 14k, teacher on 20k, head teacher on 100k rising to 250k if the school performs well, 500k for the CEO of an academy.
Healthcare Assistant on 14k, nurse on 20k, doctor on 100k, consultant on 200k, hospital CEO on 500k, 1M for teaching hospital.
And if that depresses economic growth, that won't matter to the people at the top.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And if that depresses economic growth, that won't matter to the people at the top.
Of course it will, where do you think that the margin to pay these wages comes from?
Also, I hope they are happy with a far lower level of technological progress - or even technological stagnation - plenty of the newer technologies are only economically viable when driven by scale.
[ 27. October 2015, 09:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Have you tried living on £14k? With or without working tax credits. And I'm not asking about £14k clergy stipend with housing provided (which is worth another £6k plus pa, depending on where you live in the country.)
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It doesn't appear to matter to the Tories at the moment. They are choosing policies that economists believe to favour inequality and low growth.
But as you said, it's a purely pragmatic point, appealing to financial self interest. And financial self interest (aka greed) is what got us into this mess.
I would want to answer in terms of damage to our relationships. You can't really have a proper team where responsibility is shared and where all can contribute, both critically and creatively, if some members of that team are being paid, are "worth", twenty times what others are worth. That won't matter much in a factory making widgets, or a call centre, but it does in a school or a hospital. You need reasonable parity of regard between professions in order to take good decisions.
Low paid workers increasingly become a commodity. They have to be trained up, but they exercise little true responsibility, and all decision making is handled by the people at the top (what are we to call them? Lords, I suppose). This carries over into society at large, enhanced by the fact that wealth is power in society, too. People are dehumanised by their commodification, and because humanity is reciprocal, our lords lose their humanity, too.
Of course poor and rich inhabit separate sections of society within which everyone is more equal. It's uncomfortable trying to socialise with people whose incomes are different by several multiples. So we can tolerate inequality by avoiding places where it is visible, living, travelling, holidaying, shopping and socialising apart.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It doesn't appear to matter to the Tories at the moment. They are choosing policies that economists believe to favour inequality and low growth.
But as you said, it's a purely pragmatic point, appealing to financial self interest. And financial self interest (aka greed) is what got us into this mess.
Yes, and I was answering along those lines because ISTM from your question that you were asking for an answer phrased in terms of self interest (aka 'what's in it for the rich').
There are also societal costs and the erosion of democracy too.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Have you tried living on £14k? With or without working tax credits. And I'm not asking about £14k clergy stipend with housing provided (which is worth another £6k plus pa, depending on where you live in the country.)
Not for a long time, but I know many people who do. I work in a hospital where most of the work is done by people on that level of pay.
You need someone else to share the rent, and you have to economise hard, but you have access to the best entertainment the world has ever known, you can follow sport, read extraordinarily well, converse around the globe, learn about anything. That is real wealth.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It doesn't appear to matter to the Tories at the moment. They are choosing policies that economists believe to favour inequality and low growth.
But as you said, it's a purely pragmatic point, appealing to financial self interest. And financial self interest (aka greed) is what got us into this mess.
I would want to answer in terms of damage to our relationships. You can't really have a proper team where responsibility is shared and where all can contribute, both critically and creatively, if some members of that team are being paid, are "worth", twenty times what others are worth. That won't matter much in a factory making widgets, or a call centre, but it does in a school or a hospital. You need reasonable parity of regard between professions in order to take good decisions.
Low paid workers increasingly become a commodity. They have to be trained up, but they exercise little true responsibility, and all decision making is handled by the people at the top (what are we to call them? Lords, I suppose). This carries over into society at large, enhanced by the fact that wealth is power in society, too. People are dehumanised by their commodification, and because humanity is reciprocal, our lords lose their humanity, too.
Of course poor and rich inhabit separate sections of society within which everyone is more equal. It's uncomfortable trying to socialise with people whose incomes are different by several multiples. So we can tolerate inequality by avoiding places where it is visible, living, travelling, holidaying, shopping and socialising apart.
You truly believe this rubbish?
Inequality does not breed content. Your bread and circus justification doesn't either.
Ayn Rand would be proud. Jesus? Not so much.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not for a long time, but I know many people who do. I work in a hospital where most of the work is done by people on that level of pay.
You realise of course that under a system of massively unequal pay (with a hollowing out of the middle - as you describe) the health service will have to be scaled back to track significant falls in tax take.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
A note on the give people X amount and see how they fare.
It is a rubbish thought experiment.
It is impossible to level the field completely with existing people. You would need to take children at birth, raise them equally and then perform your experiment. Actually would need to do this on a multi-generational level. But the real question is why pose this experiment.
If you are trying to demonstrate not all people are the same, no need, we know this.
If you are trying to use the example to justify weath inequity, it is more difficult. Most rich people are not rich because of their own talents. It is a hell of a lot more situational than inherent skill.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
If my child needed to receive a kidney transplant to avoid a life on dialysis, and if I were a match, I would donate one of my kidneys to him or her.
Is there an unrelated child on the waiting list for a kidney for whom I am a match? It seem possible, even probable.
I believe absolutely that that unrelated child in need of kidney is of absolutely equal value to my child. Is *that* where the meat meets the cleaver? Should I be donating a kidney to a stranger?
If I don't, does it mean I don't truly believe in the intrinsic equal value of that stranger?
One thing is for sure: God is magnetised by our poverty - drawn, irresistibly, to it.
Poor comfort though it is to the starving (and those on the kidney waiting list), He will shower wealth on those who are now experiencing material poverty.
And me, with *my* poverty - my tiny, fearful faith? He has endless graces to pour out on me too. I just have to keep recognising my own poverty and asking Him for a new, more generous heart.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I remember the celebrations at school for the 60th birthday of one of the school cleaners. Some years after mine. I had thought she was considerable older than me. She lived by doing a number of jobs through the day, walking at a brisk pace between them - scurrying rather - as she could not afford any other transport. She had brought up a small family - I don't recall the father being visible at any time. She looked like their grandmother. Her hair was grey and straggly, her teeth snaggly, she was worn to a frazzle. She didn't have any time to take advantage of the world's goodies, nor the money to do so either.
She was poor. More hardworking than the self-satisfied (idiot*) who's going to walk into a baronetcy some day. More hardworking than most people I know. But very, very poor.
In the employ, instead of the Education Committee, and thanks to Thatcherite "reforms" of a succession of very similar companies who kept changing at the end of two years so none had to cover her for sickness (she couldn't afford a day off), pension contributions, or any of the other public goods that unions had fought for through the century.
If she could not clean to their standards with the inadequate materials she had to use** or risk her job, in the time they allocated without any reference to actual circumstances***, she could lose the job. That is poverty. And it is intolerable that there are people who think it is an OK way to organise society.
*Please substitute any suitable noun - I just used one I have never used before when the unbearable tones of a man who can't accept that he is wrong or perceive any reason why that might be came over the radio - but this isn't hell.
** Maybe there was a tie-up with the company producing the stuff. It was so useless that the women, who wanted to do a good job, brought their own materials from home, only to be threatened with the sack. These very poor people were prepared to spend their own pittances on doing a good job.
*** I think the estimates on cleaning toilets were based on London office timings, and not on primary schools where the loos can be much dirtier, either through accidents, or, occasionally, deliberate malice.
Don't tell me that such poverty of outcome is acceptable. Or that wealth in the world to come makes it OK.
[ 27. October 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
May we come back, PV, to what you said about your personal circumstances.
Indeed we can. I have nothing to hide. I live in an inner city, single bedroom council flat. I do get housing benefit, but I am expected to pay part of my rent out of my benefit. Including housing rent as a benefit (which I think not entirely fair, as the council charge me whatever they think I can afford, and on the open market the rental value would fall, not rise) The total comes to £6760 ($9360) per year, still less than $10,667.
Meanwhile, my net worth in purely financial terms, not including the appliances, computer, books, tools and other knick knacks I have accrued, is around £300 ($459) in the red.
So, there you have it. That's the reason I get to eat a lot of baked beans on toast.
Nevertheless, it's not my personal position that concerns me. I know in less kind countries than the UK, I would simply not survive. We have a secure safety net, that catches people like me, and sustains them, if not in luxury, at least in a way that allows them a degree of dignity.
My real concern is the third of the global population that eke out their meagre lives on less than $1.50 a day. That is the inevitable shadow-side of a world that thinks excessive wealth acceptable, even desirable.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Thank you for that clarification. It looks as if your rent is rather low but I do see that your income is below the $10000-odd you think reasonable, even taking account of the HB- which you should count as part of your income: it does as you say relate to rent as well as income but nonetheless it is income. If you were in the privaate sector you would be getting the money and having to pay the rent yourself out of it. (BTW have you factored in Council Tax Reduction to that?)
I am pleased to hear that you find the safety neyt effective and one that allows you a degree of dignity. Most of what I hear about it, through organisations such as Church Action on Poverty, suggests that that is, alas, incresaingly an unusual experience.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Have you tried living on £14k? With or without working tax credits. And I'm not asking about £14k clergy stipend with housing provided (which is worth another £6k plus pa, depending on where you live in the country.)
Not for a long time, but I know many people who do. I work in a hospital where most of the work is done by people on that level of pay.
You need someone else to share the rent, and you have to economise hard, but you have access to the best entertainment the world has ever known, you can follow sport, read extraordinarily well, converse around the globe, learn about anything. That is real wealth.
You can enjoy all those things if you're not exhausted by the 3 hour commute each way in cattle truck conditions (standing room only, nose to armpit) taking the long way around and travelling on buses to economise. After you've spent the evening eking out cheap ingredients into edible meals to economise. After you've mended every garment you own over and over because you can't afford anything new until next pay day, and you're praying that nothing is going to break because that will eat up any savings you've made to try and climb out of this poverty. And all of that tripled if you have children.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Ah, but Ck, it is your fault for not being clever enough to rise out of those circumstances to something greater.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I don't know anyone with a three hour commute in my Midlands home town. Even in rush hour you are out the other side in three quarters of an hour.
In case it's not been clear, I am not in favour of inequality. I'm challenging myself and others to say what's wrong with it. PV has done it in terms of faithfulness to the Christian Gospel. What about other arguments? I like the point that it damages democracy. I don't think it's going to sway the rich, though.
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
PV: quote:
Is, then, the extent of our bank balance the measure by which we do not love our neighbour as ourselves, and thus the extent to which we are not Christian? Or are we merely being prudent, as we accrue wealth, looking after our own interests, and those of our dearest, in a cold-hearted, indifferent world?
Can it not be both. Just not heroic christian. As you have still not chosen to disclose your religious orientation, I would guess that you subscribe to the view that only heroic christians are real christians. And to be fair, a lot of people do, especially in the Evangelical wing, where "saint = saved in heaven and no-saint is . . ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I doubt many on this ship do. But I cannot deny that a fair reading of the gospels would show that Jesus was very anti-riches.
But at the same time, he didn't seem to think poor people should moan about it, since they were actually blessed. I'm not aware of Jesus campaigning for a higher standard of living.
Not even a council flat. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
So absolutely everyone at this hospital lives and works in the same town? No-one commutes in from neighbouring villages or towns? I would be very surprised if that was the case.
Inequality in the form that it now is hurts people because the barriers to change are getting more powerful, not less. It's harder to move out of poverty into a successful lifestyle as the routes are tougher - no real apprenticeships, no value on many working class jobs, no routes into various fields unless you have mentors supporting you in ...
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
You really don't want inequality because it results in a huge amount of raw talent being wasted. The economy would be stronger and we would all be better off if we were able to realise the true value of the potential of every person. Instead of which, because of inequality, some of the people who might have the capacity to lead, design, solve problems, are not getting the chance to try.
How's that for an argument - one that I do believe, though I would find it difficult to back it up with evidence.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
PV: quote:
Is, then, the extent of our bank balance the measure by which we do not love our neighbour as ourselves, and thus the extent to which we are not Christian? Or are we merely being prudent, as we accrue wealth, looking after our own interests, and those of our dearest, in a cold-hearted, indifferent world?
Can it not be both. Just not heroic christian. As you have still not chosen to disclose your religious orientation...
Dear Anteater, I have mentioned it before, but let me now state it explicitly, so there is no misunderstanding.
I am a Christian. I have no denomination. I am a CS Lewis 'mere' Christian, holding those tenets true that are logically sound or which resonate with my experience, or both, and no others. I hope this clarifies for you.
Now, can we get off the subject of me, my finances and my beliefs, as if these were relevant in any but an ad hominem context, and back to thread topic?
Thanks, PV.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You truly believe this rubbish?
Inequality does not breed content. Your bread and circus justification doesn't either.
Ayn Rand would be proud. Jesus? Not so much.
Hatless is not justifying inequality. He's attacking inequality.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But there is, I think, a difference between the government acting as umpire, and the government playing an active role, and nudging the ball in particular directions.
An umpire's role does sometimes go a good bit further than just resolving whether a move was legal. Calling for a line-out or a corner kick moves the ball about much more than just nudging it.
The role of government here is not just to enforce the rules of the game. The government is also the body that decides what rules set up the game. If the government wants to set up a rule that under certain circumstances the ball is transferred to the other team at some other point in the field, that's not interference. That's a rule - whether it's a good rule depends on whether it makes the resulting game more interesting to watch and play.
It's only interference when the umpire gets in the way of the ball in a manner not allowed by the rules.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I was simply stating a fact.
Not a fact - I would say a prediction. Did you actually perform that experiment?
I wasn't going to respond to thisbut changed my mind. Can you name or refer to any time, ever, throughout human history and pre-history, when there was not inequality?
You know as well as I do that the hypothetical situation where such an experiment could be conducted is totally impossible, but our evolution was probably helped by the fact that some were natural leaders, some the get up and do things, some the home-makers, etc etc. Some would Have seen the need to find a way to store food for times when it was scarce, some would not think ahead. So the basic hypothesis is, I would say, a logical one . quote:
The issue with what you are trying to do by stating your prediction for these people's behaviour is the invitation to attach value judgements to the various scenarios.
You judge wrongly. quote:
I sense you find spending reprehensible, regardless of what was purchased, or the circumstances of those purchases. Increasing the money I sense you regards as a good thing.
Again, you are quite wrong.
Why do you think you know what I’m thinking better than I do?!!
[/QUOTE]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
For the reasons I laid out above - purely pragmatically, if you are rich and want to continue to benefit from the increases in the quality of healthcare and technology over your lifetime, then inequality is a bad thing. If you are relying in inherited wealth then slower economic growth is also a bad thing.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
This doesn't happen often, but I'm going to have to side with SusanDoris here. This post accurately describes why it is difficult to achieve equality in a monetary society, and some of the criticisms levelled at this post haven't been on the mark.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My reason for raising the issue of courtship is to point out that wealth equality ( given you have the minimum ) may not be your top priority, and also that societies have found ways to reduce sexual success potential differences, namely arranged marriages, which many today still think to be a good idea, despite the reduction in freedom.
The point of arranged marriages was never as far as I know to reduce inequalities in sexual success. Their point in the past was usually to preserve inequalities in wealth.
From what I hear of the US, most people in the US have less freedom than they have here in the UK. If you don't have money you don't have any sort of freedom that matters. Contrariwise, I don't think governments generating money by taxing financial transactions reduces freedom. Both sides of the transaction are able to negotiate the size of the transaction taking taxation into account.
Contrast health and safety regulation, which does reduce the freedom of employers to carry on in disregard of their employees' safety. (I think it's a trade-off that's well worth making, but it is in some obvious sense a reduction in freedom.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This post accurately describes why it is difficult to achieve equality in a monetary society, and some of the criticisms levelled at this post haven't been on the mark.
Why hasn't it been on the mark?
If all anyone was proposing was to hand out bundles of cash to people without taking notice of their prior economic circumstances and without giving any thought to subsequent action, and they believed that would totally eliminate inequality, her thought experiment would be on point.
But nobody, not even Jeremy Corbyn, is proposing doing that.
Besides, there is a lot of room to reduce inequalities in wealth and income before we get to the point where everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth. There is a long way to go between where we are here and the kinds of levels that are inevitable given character, luck, and other random noise in the system.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
There is a book, called The Spirit Level that lays out some basic arguments. I have the book, but not yet read it. So many books, so little time...
Cheers, PV.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But I cannot deny that a fair reading of the gospels would show that Jesus was very anti-riches.
But at the same time, he didn't seem to think poor people should moan about it, since they were actually blessed. I'm not aware of Jesus campaigning for a higher standard of living.
Not even a council flat.
When Jesus is asking the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus to give away all that they have, where do you think it is going? Isn't it going toward the poor to raise their standard of living?
The NT often seems very practical to me. And it is a book written not to rich Westerners living in a democracy, but to mostly poor people living in an occupied nation with a powerful ruler. So, no, Jesus doesn't ask his followers to advocate politically for a living wage-- because such a statement would have been meaningless in the 1st c. Instead, he asks them to do what they can-- sometimes radically so.
The same call is issued to us today to do what we can. But we can do today as rich Westerners in a democracy is different from what could be done then.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Dafyd: Why hasn't it been on the mark?
For example, this post assumed that Susan was criticising poor people for their consumers' choices. I don't see that she was doing that. There are other examples of people reading things into her post that she didn't say.
You for example. I don't see Susan suggesting that someone made this proposal of dividing money equally. The way I see it, she is suggesting a thought experiment, and I do find this thought experiment relevant to discussions about equality.
I'm all for equality. I have doubts whether it can be achieved in a monetary society. Susan expressed one of these doubts rather well. And I think that's an interesting starting point for a discussion.
[ 27. October 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: Why hasn't it been on the mark?
For example, this post assumed that Susan was criticising poor people for their consumers' choices. I don't see that she was doing that. There are other examples of people reading things into her post that she didn't say.
You for example. I don't see Susan suggesting that someone made this proposal of dividing money equally. The way I see it, she is suggesting a thought experiment, and I do find this thought experiment relevant to discussions about equality.
I'm all for equality. I have doubts whether it can be achieved in a monetary society. Susan expressed one of these doubts rather well. And I think that's an interesting starting point for a discussion.
To be fair, it was an unclear line of thought. Susan proposed a thought experiment, but also predicted a certain outcome-- one that is usually associated with certain conclusions about efforts to redistribute wealth. Dafyd perhaps jumped on it too hard in assuming that's what Susan meant, but it's not totally out in left field. Then Susan responded by saying "I'm just stating facts"-- when actually she was not stating facts, but making a prediction in an untried experiment-- that's not a fact. On the other hand, later (long after that exchange), when I and others predicted a quite different outcome for the experiment than the one Susan predicted, she apparently agreed with me. So I think you're right that Dafyd misinterpreted her meaning, but the context was so murky that I think it was understandable.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When Jesus is asking the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus to give away all that they have, where do you think it is going? Isn't it going toward the poor to raise their standard of living?
Well, yes, directly. But whose needs is Jesus addressing? Not, primarily, those of the poor in those cases: rather, the needs of the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus. The real question here is 'what is it in your life that is keeping you from Me?' I do believe, on Christian grounds, in equality, and that includes a substantial level of material equality. But I don't base that belief on these two encounters.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
There is a book, called The Spirit Level that lays out some basic arguments. I have the book, but not yet read it. So many books, so little time...
Cheers, PV.
I haven't read it either, but hearing about it I believe you are right. It argues that greater inequality is bad for the rich. For example, healthcare outcomes in the US are obviously worse for the poor, but it turns out that, for instance, perinatal child mortality is higher for the rich, too, as compared to more equal societies.
But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together. And that stops team work, destabilises society, feeds criminality and so on, but worst of all, it stops us having normal human relationships.
How do you talk to someone who is worth forty times more / less than you? Literally, what form of address do you use? How do you dare or condescend to speak to them? And what on earth do you talk about! Your holidays? Your plans for retirement? Your children's careers? It will be painful if you do.
I want to live amongst people who can understand me and my life, and I want to understand theirs. That means less inequality. I would say three to one is plenty. Between the minimum wage and three times the minimum wage there is a broad enough band to enable us to fix our pay differentials. The realities of life for someone paid three times as much as another are very different, but not beyond comprehension, and not enough to prevent a natural conversation. When we might arrive at a similar narrowing of inequality between countries I don't know, but things are moving.
I suspect that those who earn mega bucks are uncomfortable about it. It's so random. If you happen to have the marketable talent for the moment, or if you're just in the right place, or your face fits, your book gets well reviewed, you're well-connected, you get noticed or whatever, then you get the huge rewards. You know that others are equally deserving, but it just happened to you. You don't turn the money down, of course, but unless you're very vain and lacking in awareness, you know you don't deserve it, you know that it gets in the way of good and enjoyable relationships, and you probably wish the world was different and more fair.
I think the argument has to be about relationships and society, not economics because, as I said, being on a low wage in the UK (as long as you're not paying London rents or funding a three hour commute or bringing up kids without tax credits) is not that bad. Perhaps the worst thing is the knowledge that your children, however bright and hard working, are likely to be part of the huge, de-skilled workforce on minimum wage, hoping for minimum x2, while the high paying jobs, higher and higher paying jobs, go to the people whose parents did what you couldn't, and sent their children to private school and paid for internships.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When Jesus is asking the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus to give away all that they have, where do you think it is going? Isn't it going toward the poor to raise their standard of living?
Well, yes, directly. But whose needs is Jesus addressing? Not, primarily, those of the poor in those cases: rather, the needs of the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus. The real question here is 'what is it in your life that is keeping you from Me?' I do believe, on Christian grounds, in equality, and that includes a substantial level of material equality. But I don't base that belief on these two encounters.
Agreed-- and a good point: we should be generous not only because there is need, and really even in a hypothetical world where there is not need-- because we need to give. Which renders some of our discussions about the "worthy" vs. "unworthy" poor meaningless.
As much as that is a faith-based proposition, I think it applies to secular society as well: that when our economic policy/ common narrative is so narrowly focused (as it is on the US) with grasping and keeping as much as we can for ourselves, it shifts something in our society in a way that damages us every bit as much as it does the marginalized.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This doesn't happen often, but I'm going to have to side with SusanDoris here. This post accurately describes why it is difficult to achieve equality in a monetary society, and some of the criticisms levelled at this post haven't been on the mark.
Thank you LeRoc, much appreciated.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
There is a book, called The Spirit Level that lays out some basic arguments. I have the book, but not yet read it. So many books, so little time...
Cheers, PV.
It argues that greater inequality is bad for the rich...
But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together.
I think you are right, in two ways. Firstly, to point your argument towards the rich, who need to be persuaded to (voluntarily) forego their wealth, and secondly that statistics about, say, drug addiction are marginal to the argument. For me, the issue is about Christian love, agape, the centre of Christian relationships, and the existential pain and discomfort of conscience that huge inequalities present to us. Which is why I have raised this matter on a Christian forum. If we can find arguments that would persuade an unbeliever that inequality is an evil, why, that would be a result far in excess of my hopes for this thread!
Cheers, PV
[ 27. October 2015, 15:00: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together. And that stops team work, destabilises society, feeds criminality and so on, but worst of all, it stops us having normal human relationships.
It is unclear to me what you actually want (there is a reasonable case to make that the things you mention above are just as 'marginal' as the things like democracy).
Furthermore:
quote:
What about other arguments? I like the point that it damages democracy. I don't think it's going to sway the rich, though.
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
Do you mean that you want an argument that has emotional force for someone who is very rich?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you LeRoc, much appreciated.
Ditto for subsequent post.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You truly believe this rubbish?
Inequality does not breed content. Your bread and circus justification doesn't either.
Ayn Rand would be proud. Jesus? Not so much.
Hatless is not justifying inequality. He's attacking inequality.
In that quote, yes, must have skimmed it, apologies for that.
This quote from him is what likely set me off:
quote:
You need someone else to share the rent, and you have to economise hard, but you have access to the best entertainment the world has ever known, you can follow sport, read extraordinarily well, converse around the globe, learn about anything. That is real wealth
I think Ck has addressed this well, so I won't at the moment.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I haven't read it either, but hearing about it I believe you are right. It argues that greater inequality is bad for the rich. For example, healthcare outcomes in the US are obviously worse for the poor, but it turns out that, for instance, perinatal child mortality is higher for the rich, too, as compared to more equal societies.
But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together.
I believe, having heard the authors of The Spirit Level talk, that they hypothesise that the fact that inequality prevents us from being in it all together is part of the mechanism that leads to health outcomes being worse for even rich people.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Dafyd perhaps jumped on it too hard in assuming that's what Susan meant, but it's not totally out in left field.
I've never in this thread responded directly to SusanDoris. I think the poster you're thinking of who jumped on SusanDoris was LilBuddha.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wasn't going to respond to thisbut changed my mind. Can you name or refer to any time, ever, throughout human history and pre-history, when there was not inequality?
You know as well as I do that the hypothetical situation where such an experiment could be conducted is totally impossible, but our evolution was probably helped by the fact that some were natural leaders, some the get up and do things, some the home-makers, etc etc. Some would Have seen the need to find a way to store food for times when it was scarce, some would not think ahead. So the basic hypothesis is, I would say, a logical one .
Well, no. Because our modern life is not an exact model of our evolution, it is an adaptation to living in such high density. A cultural adaptation. Actually many adaptations. And more complexed and nuanced.
Your example implies, intentionally or not, that people are generally in their proper place economically. But it simply doesn't work this way. It also implies the cream rises to the top, the most fit rule. Our several worldwide depressions should put paid to that notion.
The experiment has so many fallacies, that it is only good for cherry-picking conclusions
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together. And that stops team work, destabilises society, feeds criminality and so on, but worst of all, it stops us having normal human relationships.
It is unclear to me what you actually want (there is a reasonable case to make that the things you mention above are just as 'marginal' as the things like democracy).
Furthermore:
quote:
What about other arguments? I like the point that it damages democracy. I don't think it's going to sway the rich, though.
How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?
Do you mean that you want an argument that has emotional force for someone who is very rich?
Yes, and not an argument against them, but one that appeals to them, to their better nature if you like, that invites them to support the change to a fairer society.
But you're right that my point about solidarity being undermined by inequality does sound marginal and feeble.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
hatless:
quote:
But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, . . , it stops us having normal human relationships.
How do you talk to someone who is worth forty times more / less than you? . . . Your children's careers? It will be painful if you do.
There's a lot in that, but I would argue that what you say is true of any differences, and some is just not true.
How would you talk to someone who is your exact financial equivalent, but different in other ways. If you have no language in common, you're stuffed. Are you a fan of Esperanto? But you can have little in common for other reasons. I have met people where I could find no mutual point of contact - nothing to do with money. Many were colleagues at work and they find me far too serious and I was out of my depth talking about shagging strategies. All we could do to get on was get pissed.
But why can you not talk to someone who is significantly less/more affluent than you? Do you assume you have nothing in common? I can and do do both. That may be a boast, except I don't think it's remarkable. I've had good friends worth more than I am by an order of magnitude. It was never a problem. Yes, I was a bit envious at times, but it was not a barrier. And good friends a lot less well off.
And lots of other things could, for example, make talking about your children's careers difficult, like someone I know who son ended up in jail. Would you then avoid them? I doubt it. You would find a way.
My best guess is that the tension is caused by the belief that your riches are (at least partially) causing the other's poverty or vice versa. And that is a common belief. Property is theft and all that.
So it's not just like talking to someone whose marriage had failed, more like talking to someone whose marriage failure you feel some guilt about. If you say that's bollocks, I'll accept it, but guilt is often associated with wealth. And I accept that Jesus' teaching doesn't help here. There is quite a strong case that he showed influence from the cynics, in the radical rejection of material goods. I can't prove it but I bet he was anti-art.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wasn't going to respond to thisbut changed my mind. Can you name or refer to any time, ever, throughout human history and pre-history, when there was not inequality?
You know as well as I do that the hypothetical situation where such an experiment could be conducted is totally impossible, but our evolution was probably helped by the fact that some were natural leaders, some the get up and do things, some the home-makers, etc etc. Some would Have seen the need to find a way to store food for times when it was scarce, some would not think ahead. So the basic hypothesis is, I would say, a logical one .
Well, no. Because our modern life is not an exact model of our evolution, it is an adaptation to living in such high density. A cultural adaptation. Actually many adaptations. And more complexed and nuanced.
I am sorry you inferred that from my posts - I was thinking of the broader picture. quote:
Your example implies, intentionally or not, that people are generally in their proper place economically.
That was the last thing on my mind! quote:
But it simply doesn't work this way. It also implies the cream rises to the top, the most fit rule. Our several worldwide depressions should put paid to that notion.
Again, something that was not in my thoughts;
Equality or even anything close is a practical impossibility. All we on a small scale, and governments on a larger one, can do is the best we can at the time and hope we have made some small improvements.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For example, this post assumed that Susan was criticising poor people for their consumers' choices. I don't see that she was doing that. There are other examples of people reading things into her post that she didn't say.
You for example. I don't see Susan suggesting that someone made this proposal of dividing money equally. The way I see it, she is suggesting a thought experiment, and I do find this thought experiment relevant to discussions about equality.
You're telling me a couple of things that you don't think Susan was doing. But I'm not seeing what it is you think Susan was doing. She says her thought experiment illustrates that equality is an utopian ideal and impossible. Not merely 'impossible in a society that uses money'; just plain impossible.
If nobody made the proposal described in her thought experiment, then what does her thought experiment illustrate? A proposal that nobody has made. Quite how this is supposed to illuminate any proposal that anybody has made is not clear, nor how it illuminates any ideal that anybody has actually put forward.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
PS Does anyone know a good word for "excessive" or "gross" inequality. The phrase is long so people don't bother using it.
It gets confusing when people inveigh against inequality only to end by saying that "of course" some inequality is acceptable.
Forgive my black and white mind but x equals y is not the same as x may be say 3 * y, certainly not 40 * y, and maybe at a stretch 5 * y.
How about "comparability"?
[ 27. October 2015, 17:06: Message edited by: anteater ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I don't think difference is necessarily a problem in relationships. It can make things difficult, but it also makes them worthwhile. People unlike us are interesting.
I think you're right, anteater, that it's the fact that money is a medium of exchange that makes disparity an issue. One person can buy more of another person's time than vice versa. It's a power imbalance.
I can't think of a good word for gross inequality.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Susan Doris,
I appreciate you did not mean what I thought you meant. However I maintain your thought experiment a poor one.
No, not everyone is the same, that is not a question. How we value people is.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Dafyd perhaps jumped on it too hard in assuming that's what Susan meant, but it's not totally out in left field.
I've never in this thread responded directly to SusanDoris. I think the poster you're thinking of who jumped on SusanDoris was LilBuddha.
Agh. Apologies: I was posting pre-coffee this morning, I plead diminished capacity.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Susan Doris,
I appreciate you did not mean what I thought you meant. However I maintain your thought experiment a poor one.
Maybe so, but it is not a new idea, is it.
Coincidentally, yesterday evening I was listening to a BBC Radio 4 investigative programme (8:0 to 8:40 p.m.) about the huge amounts of money the UN receive from UK for humanitarian purposes. Most of it seems to go on admin so one cannot help wondering about how much equality is being considered there. quote:
No, not everyone is the same, that is not a question. How we value people is.
I have been thinking about this for a couple of hours already. Have I ‘valued’ people enough during my life? I can't say, of course, but hope very much that I have. Having been not valued at all for eight years by my ex, I vowed never to do that to anyone and have tried to do the best I can to maintain that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Dafyd: If nobody made the proposal described in her thought experiment, then what does her thought experiment illustrate? A proposal that nobody has made. Quite how this is supposed to illuminate any proposal that anybody has made is not clear, nor how it illuminates any ideal that anybody has actually put forward.
You do understand what a thought experiment is? I have to say that I'm a bit baffled by why people find her example so hard to understand. Interesting.
(PS I do agree with the first part of your post. Her conclusion 'therefore, equality is impossible' was too strong.)
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
I can't help feeling that the idea that economic equality has never yet, through history, existed, does not necessarily entail that it never could, and never should. I agree with the first, empirical observation. I disagree with the second, moral, conclusion. You cannot derive an ought from an is.
Cheers, PV.
[ 28. October 2015, 10:18: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You do understand what a thought experiment is? I have to say that I'm a bit baffled by why people find her example so hard to understand.
The problem isn't that her thought experiment is too complicated to understand. It's that her thought experiment is too simple. It's like saying, suppose you have a terrorist and the only way to get him to reveal the location of a nuclear bomb is to torture him. Or like saying, the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. It has that kind of specious simplicity that looks solid if you don't want to think about it but falls apart if you do.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
We're getting lost in meta-communications here, and I'm busy for at least the next two days. I'll see whether I'm in the mood again to take this up when I get back.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
I'm wondering what a truly equitable world would look like. No one owning private jets, no one dieing of hunger. No one buying whole Caribbean islands, no one lacking clean, fresh water. No one earning exorbitant rents, no one living in corrugated iron shacks. No one getting priority medical treatment, no one ignored by doctors. I can't think that this would be a worse world, all things considered, only that the powers that be don't want it, for obvious reasons.
Cheers, PV.
[ 28. October 2015, 13:33: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
PilgrimVagrant: quote:
No one getting priority medical treatment, no one ignored by doctors.
That's not equality, as any triage nurse will tell you. If you're bleeding to death or you've stopped breathing, you absolutely do need priority treatment. I always find it reassuring when I am kept waiting in Casualty; it means I'm not as seriously injured as I thought I was.
What's wrong with 'From each according to his/her ability; to each according to his/her needs'?
ISTM that the polarisation of political discourse and media scaremongering obscures quite a lot of common ground. Most people would agree that the above is a good goal to aim for (it wasn't even Marx's original idea; he just picked up the ball and ran with it). We may disagree about how to get there, but is there anyone who seriously disapproves of a society where everyone can reach their full potential and where noone has to worry about whether they can afford food, shelter and basic medical care? Apart from Ayn Rand, that is.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Indeed, dear Jane, just so. I did of course mean, priority by means of ability to pay, rather than priority according to the urgency of need. But thank you for picking up the point, and forcing me to clarify.
Best wishes, PV.
[ 28. October 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What's wrong with 'From each according to his/her ability; to each according to his/her needs'?
It rewards those who minimise their ability while maximising their needs.
To put it another way, if you're going to receive exactly the same amount of provision whether you're a doctor working 90 hour weeks in a ridiculously difficult and stressful job or an unemployed layabout playing video games all day then what kind of idiot would choose option a?
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What's wrong with 'From each according to his/her ability; to each according to his/her needs'?
Well, as a first pass, I would say that there is no guarantee that the sum of abilities equals or exceeds the sum of needs. I like the sentiment, and applaud you for noting it. But I think, despite the emotional appeal of this maxim, we need to ensure we are not breaking anybody's bank balance. Including that of this or that nation. I incline to the idea of economic equality as calculable, deliberate, financial fact, rather than a nice thought. It's pursuit is a moral issue, but the goal needs careful, objective definition.
Cheers, PV.
[ 28. October 2015, 14:21: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What's wrong with 'From each according to his/her ability; to each according to his/her needs'?
It rewards those who minimise their ability while maximising their needs.
To put it another way, if you're going to receive exactly the same amount of provision whether you're a doctor working 90 hour weeks in a ridiculously difficult and stressful job or an unemployed layabout playing video games all day then what kind of idiot would choose option a?
Well, obviously someone outside would identify the ability and the needs, and no-one would assume that the abilities of the doctor and the lay-about were equal, nor that their needs were. Not a good example.
The present government's interpretation is that the ability of the poorest to contribute is greater than that of the wealthiest, and the needs of the wealthiest are greater than those of anyone else.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
To put it another way, if you're going to receive exactly the same amount of provision whether you're a doctor working 90 hour weeks in a ridiculously difficult and stressful job or an unemployed layabout playing video games all day then what kind of idiot would choose option a?
Well, some people obviously do. Maslow had a few ideas about why.
It's not just about money, you know. Some people place value on other things.
[fixed link]
[ 28. October 2015, 16:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
One thing fascinating to me is the refusal to take risks necessary to not be poor. Such as giving up a job and returning to school, such as investing in a fund which could provide gains or losses rather than a slow and low savings account. It is not possible to remain in a job because it provides security and income, not taking the necessary risks to change your situation.
On the other side of this, I would suggest it would be a lot easier for people if the taking of risks wasn't so stressful and the consequences of disaster so dramatic.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
no prophet, the answer is in the post above yours: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If people are struggling to feed and house themselves (meet their physiological needs), there are quite a few levels to go before the esteem to see self-improvement as an option (self-actualisation).
Equality is always complicated, as to achieve equal outcomes the provision needs to be unequal. A recent example was of two students with very different needs, one a sixth former with a fairly sophisticated understanding, the other a primary student who has a toddler's level of understanding. Both have been in trouble for assaulting others, the sixth former for assaulting a much younger pupil, the primary aged student for hitting a member of staff. The sixth former has had a fixed term exclusion, the primary aged child is having additional provision put in place to try and support the members of staff and help him understand why his behaviour is wrong. A certain amount of irritation has been voiced as to why there are two different rules because assault should always mean an exclusion, shouldn't it?
[ 28. October 2015, 18:13: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Maslow's hierarchy is a good tool for thought. It has been modified and updated, somewhat, since first published; some think there are more goals in the pyramid than he first delineated, some that we pursue multiple goals simultaneously, or at least serially in the ordinary course of any given day. Whatever, I'm quite happy to think in terms of an equality that sees everyone meeting, say, their physiological needs before anyone justifiably works on esteem, or self-actualising needs. If you like, a psychological alternative to: no-one gets two Rolls-Royces, before everyone has at least one Rolls-Royce.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One thing fascinating to me is the refusal to take risks necessary to not be poor. Such as giving up a job and returning to school, such as investing in a fund which could provide gains or losses rather than a slow and low savings account. It is not possible to remain in a job because it provides security and income, not taking the necessary risks to change your situation.
On the other side of this, I would suggest it would be a lot easier for people if the taking of risks wasn't so stressful and the consequences of disaster so dramatic.
A couple of thoughts on this:
1. Some of what you're saying is consistent with what we're seeing in our work with the homeless re: internal vs. external locus of control. People with internal locus of control believe their choices to some degree determine their fate. They are more likely to engage in long-term thinking/strategizing. So, when these folks become homeless it's usually short-term. They will think strategically about the assistance offered them in the terms you're describing-- would the $20 handout be better spent on food, on getting a new shirt for a job interview, or saved up for a job training course? Most of our long-term homeless have an external locus of control-- "stuff happens". They take the good and the bad of life-- a handout, a medical ailment, a job loss-- as all part of the mix of "fate". They're less likely to engage in the sort of long-term thinking you're describing because it doesn't factor into their view of the future. Any handout is apt to be spent on short term needs (food) rather than long-term investment. The interesting question is the chicken-and-egg one-- are they homeless because they have an external locus of control (don't take responsibility for their choices)-- or do they have an external locus of control because their life on the street has demonstrated that no matter how hard they work/sacrifice, they never get ahead?
to that point:
2. To take the sorts of risks you are describing, one has to have access to the sort of social capital we have described upthread. If you're going to give up your job to go to college, you have to either have someone to support you or access to loans to cover your cost of living while you study (especially true in the US). The more privileged your background, the more likely you are to have access to that sort of social capital-- whether it's living in mom's basement or parents' co-signing a student loan, etc. And the social isolation that's been described upthread-- the fact that we socialize mostly with people "like us"-- means those social advantages are mostly invisible to those of us who have them-- it doesn't even occur to most of us that other people don't have access to those sorts of advantages. Which, as has been noted above, is that problem with Susan's thought experiment and also why it has an assumed logic to it that doesn't necessarily follow.
3. Similarly, the risks you're describing are often far greater than we realize. For example, one of the causal factors with homelessness we're seeing a lot of is relocation for work. During the recession, many unemployed persons were encouraged to relocate to find jobs in more advantageous regions-- one of those risks that intuitively makes sense. The additional layer of unrecognized risk that accompanies that move though is the fiscal impact of that loss of community when you move away from friends and family (another form of social capital). Many of our homeless took just such a risk, and then something happened-- they became injured or sick, their child care fell through, their car broke down-- soon after they started their new job. Were they back in their old neighborhood they would most likely have had friends or family they could turn to for help in those circumstances. But in a new community with no friends these seemingly minor setbacks can become life-changing, leading to loss of employment and soon thereafter, homelessness.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One thing fascinating to me is the refusal to take risks necessary to not be poor. Such as giving up a job and returning to school, such as investing in a fund which could provide gains or losses rather than a slow and low savings account. It is not possible to remain in a job because it provides security and income, not taking the necessary risks to change your situation.
On the other side of this, I would suggest it would be a lot easier for people if the taking of risks wasn't so stressful and the consequences of disaster so dramatic.
This isn't a balanced thing. On one hand this, on the other that.
The possibility of catastrophic failure is there regardless of the willingness to risk.
This is not true for those more well off.
It is the difference between stepping onto a high-wire across the Grand Canyon with a worn cable and no safety net and doing so in a circus with a net and having been raised by a high-wire family.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
PennyS:
quote:
Well, obviously someone outside would identify the ability and the needs
This is the problem with all these utopian schemes. They depend on a central authority.
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate. Probably sometimes it is necessary, but it will always produce sub-optimal results.
I know people will say socialism does not imply centralisation. Well, if I see a democratic socialist setup which is not governed by centralised power, I'd probably go for it. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One thing fascinating to me is the refusal to take risks necessary to not be poor. Such as giving up a job and returning to school, such as investing in a fund which could provide gains or losses rather than a slow and low savings account. It is not possible to remain in a job because it provides security and income, not taking the necessary risks to change your situation.
On the other side of this, I would suggest it would be a lot easier for people if the taking of risks wasn't so stressful and the consequences of disaster so dramatic.
This isn't a balanced thing. On one hand this, on the other that.
The possibility of catastrophic failure is there regardless of the willingness to risk.
This is not true for those more well off.
It is the difference between stepping onto a high-wire across the Grand Canyon with a worn cable and no safety net and doing so in a circus with a net and having been raised by a high-wire family.
Yes. All of which really increases the economic divide. Precisely because the wealthy have good safety nets in place (such as the million dollar loan Trump got from his dad starting out) they are able to take the sorts of risks that pay off big time and allow them to amass greater wealth. And precisely because they cannot afford to take those risks-- it would often be irresponsible to do so-- the poor have fewer opportunities to get ahead.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(such as the million dollar loan Trump got from his dad starting out) they are able to take the sorts of risks that pay off big time and allow them to amass greater wealth.
Funny thing about Trump. He is worth half of what he could have been had he simply invested in S&P 500. Not only is is not quite the investment genius he claims, but think where he would be if he were born poor.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(such as the million dollar loan Trump got from his dad starting out) they are able to take the sorts of risks that pay off big time and allow them to amass greater wealth.
Funny thing about Trump. He is worth half of what he could have been had he simply invested in S&P 500. Not only is is not quite the investment genius he claims, but think where he would be if he were born poor.
And yet if a poor person took similar sorts of risks that ended up failing, causing him/her to be bankrupt and have to depend on food stamps to support their family, they'd be castigated from the right for acting irresponsibly and expecting the public to bail them out. (Don't get me started on the banks...)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate. Probably sometimes it is necessary, but it will always produce sub-optimal results.
What produces optimal results? Nothing. It's wishful thinking to say the market is going to take care of the poor. It's not. Socialism may be suboptimal we will never have optimal, and without centralized persuasion the rich will never do their share.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
What produces optimal results? Nothing.
You're probably right, but it is still possible that some types of organisation are better than others. And it is my belief that distributed control systems produce better results that centrally controlled ones.
I admit I wouldn't care to prove it, but everything leads me to believe it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Well, obviously someone outside would identify the ability and the needs, and no-one would assume that the abilities of the doctor and the lay-about were equal, nor that their needs were. Not a good example.
On the contrary. Firstly, the "needs" of the two people would, all other things being equal, be exactly the same - sufficient food and housing to maintain good health. Ergo, they would receive exactly the same provision from your "somebody outside". And even if all other things were not equal - if one of them had a disability, say - it would not be within their control to change what their "needs" are determined to be by "somebody outside".
Given all that, the question about abilities becomes almost sinister. Who is this "somebody outside" to determine what a person is capable of? And how are they going to compel people to try as hard as they can to maximise their abilities when, by definition, there is no reward for doing so?
Basically, you would end up with something very similar to what the DWP do now - judging whether someone is 'fit to work' or not based on governmental edict and the subjective opinion of the assessor. Except it would be done to everyone, and it wouldn't just be whether you're fit to work but exactly which job you're fit to work in. Don't want to be a farmer? Too bad - "someone outside" has determined that that's where your abilities can best be used, so you'd better learn to like it!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
It's not just about money, you know. Some people place value on other things.
It's true that there are people who would genuinely keep doing their jobs even if they didn't need the money. But they are in the minority, and there certainly aren't enough of them to keep everything running.
That someone gets "self-actualisation" from being a doctor, priest, teacher or so on I can believe. But does anybody get it from garbage collection?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Years ago, I can remember a poorly paid university lecturer. He enjoyed his job but was complaining that he got paid far less than an accountant. Somebody suggested to him that didn't the accountant deserve to be paid more? It was recompense for having to spend his life doing a job that was desk bound and incredibly boring.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
ISTM that the thing about "making everyone the same" is this: it's been tried. It’s called Communism. Nice theory, doesn't end well in practice.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate.
You mean, except for all the countries that more-or-less successfully manage to operate one.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That someone gets "self-actualisation" from being a doctor, priest, teacher or so on I can believe. But does anybody get it from garbage collection?
Don't the majority of us get some degree of "self-actualisation" from garbage collection or its equivalents in the context of family life? Because we love the people we're doing the chores for, and we love creating a clean, happy, functioning place for us all to feel at home in together.
If we could only feel that same love for everyone, we'd serve everyone with the same joy. Isn't that the Good News?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate.
You mean, except for all the countries that more-or-less successfully manage to operate one.
Yes, I had to double check that one. Without a centralized system, lots of things wouldn't work. The other day, I think it was Dafyd (apologies if it wasn't), who made the point that the free market relies on the state.
Another point to make, certainly about Marxist views, is that traditionally the idea was that the state would disappear, (or 'wither away', in the jargon). This now seems ridiculously idealistic, but it counteracts the view of a top-heavy bureaucracy being central to socialism.
[ 29. October 2015, 10:55: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
PennyS:
quote:
Well, obviously someone outside would identify the ability and the needs
This is the problem with all these utopian schemes. They depend on a central authority.
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate. Probably sometimes it is necessary, but it will always produce sub-optimal results.
I know people will say socialism does not imply centralisation. Well, if I see a democratic socialist setup which is not governed by centralised power, I'd probably go for it. But I'm not holding my breath.
Hmmm. I do not see why a moral society necessarily depends on a moral central authority. Far more cohesive, far more comprehensive, would be a moral society that depends on the moral stature of it's component people. Centrally to my world view, this is the goal I argue for, the assumption underlying all my posts. Take from the people the power to be moral, because that is how they perceive the good, and you infantilise them. Depend on it, and grow them. Governments should not be moral in place of us, but because of us.
Cheers, PV.
[ 29. October 2015, 11:04: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That someone gets "self-actualisation" from being a doctor, priest, teacher or so on I can believe. But does anybody get it from garbage collection?
I once saw a TV interview with a garbage collector who was a devout Christian. He said he collected garbage to the glory of God, and he was very happy.
Obviously, people like that are extremely rare.
Moo
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It's a socially valuable job, and 'theology of the Incarnation expresing itself through a concern with the drains' and so on. I'd be more inclined to ask whether it was possible to achieve self-actualisation in, say, telephone sales.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's a socially valuable job, and 'theology of the Incarnation expresing itself through a concern with the drains' and so on. I'd be more inclined to ask whether it was possible to achieve self-actualisation in, say, telephone sales.
There is, in any labouring, professional or semi-professional work, the possibility of excellence in your chosen field. And that is no mean feat. But, 'tis my belief, having got there, that then one begins to ask questions like 'so, what's it all about, then?' and that is the inkling of the idea that the world could be, and should be, a better place for all concerned.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
Yes, I had to double check that one. Without a centralized system, lots of things wouldn't work. The other day, I think it was Dafyd (apologies if it wasn't), who made the point that the free market relies on the state.
Of course a degree of centralisation is needed in any system. But I have a distinct bias towards distributing decision making wherever possible.
I am trying to get up to speed on socialist thought, so I may be wrong in thinking that it has an inbuilt preference for centralisation, but that is my current view. The Nye Bevan view that
if a bedpan dropped in a hospital corridor, the reverberations should echo in Whitehall.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Years ago, I can remember a poorly paid university lecturer. He enjoyed his job but was complaining that he got paid far less than an accountant. Somebody suggested to him that didn't the accountant deserve to be paid more? It was recompense for having to spend his life doing a job that was desk bound and incredibly boring.
Exactly. I find it very hard to support the assumption that 8 hours of X job are somehow inherently more worthy than 8 hours of some other job.
Some of our assumptions about good and bad jobs are flawed as well. An interesting study (I'm too lazy to look it up) challenged our assumptions that higher paying jobs with greater responsibility (CEO, doctor, principal) deserved greater pay because of the greater stress associated with them. The study found more markers of stress in folks with lower-paid jobs with low levels of responsibility (sales clerk, nurses' aid, custodian). That might be due to the stressors of trying to live and raise a family on minimum wage, although the authors hypothesized that being in a job with low responsibility meant you had less control over your work situation/environment, that having lots of responsibilities also gave you more control over your fate and therefore was less stress producing.
[ 29. October 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Yes, I had to double check that one. Without a centralized system, lots of things wouldn't work. The other day, I think it was Dafyd (apologies if it wasn't), who made the point that the free market relies on the state.
Of course a degree of centralisation is needed in any system. But I have a distinct bias towards distributing decision making wherever possible.
I am trying to get up to speed on socialist thought, so I may be wrong in thinking that it has an inbuilt preference for centralisation, but that is my current view. The Nye Bevan view that
if a bedpan dropped in a hospital corridor, the reverberations should echo in Whitehall.
Well, that's social democracy, isn't it?
Socialism has archaeological layers. If one goes back to Ur-socialism, then the idea of the state withering away was put forward by Marx/Engels, but it was a very idealistic and one might say, unrealistic, programme. It sounds strangely anarchist today, the idea of multiple organizing foci, I suppose, and it rested on the idea of an abundance of material goods. Well ...
Then left currents split into Leninist and social democracy, with some hybrids, and you got all kinds of adaptations to capitalism, of course.
For example, I think that pre-war German social democracy had an enormous bureaucracy, which ran insurance schemes, unions, obviously, banks, and other welfare schemes.
Of course, the German left was fatally split, oh well, Nachträglichkeit is a wonderful thing, (afterwardness).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Addendum - of course, the Leninist left was extremely top-down also. Some element of the original idea of the state withering away was preserved in the libertarian left, who tried to marry left-wing and anarchist ideas. But they themselves exist in different flavours, I suppose Chomsky could be described thus. One might say that they could not organize sex in a brothel.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If we could only feel that same love for everyone, we'd serve everyone with the same joy. Isn't that the Good News?
Well sure. If that was the case we wouldn't need any form of government whatsoever, because everything would be taken care of and everyone would be looked after anyway.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Far more cohesive, far more comprehensive, would be a moral society that depends on the moral stature of it's component people. Centrally to my world view, this is the goal I argue for, the assumption underlying all my posts.
Fair enough. I thought you were talking about what we can do in the real world, but apparently not.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[Garbage collection is] a socially valuable job
Yes, it is. In fact, I'd go further and say it's a socially essential job. It's also a really shit one that very few people would choose to do if they didn't need the wage to provide for themselves and their families. In a society where that need will be met regardless of what job (if any) a person does, the only way the garbage will be collected on anything like a regular basis will be if the government forces some people to do it.
I don't see how that's a better society than the one we have now.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I once saw a TV interview with a garbage collector who was a devout Christian. He said he collected garbage to the glory of God, and he was very happy.
Obviously, people like that are extremely rare.
Moo
My youngest son was born with severe visual impairment. From the time he was 2 until 13 years, he had to go every month to the pediatric opthamologist. Since there was only one in our medical group, that entailed driving to downtown L.A. and sitting for an hour or so in rush hour traffic. Once we got there there'd be an endless wait in a crowded waiting room with little to do, uncomfortable eyedrops, another long wait for dilation to take effect, a long and uncomfortable examination, followed inevitably by a disappointing outcome ("yes, you have to continue wearing a patch..."). Month after month. For an active toddler, not a great experience.
To cap off the experience, as we exited the underground parking garage, they hit us up for another $2 parking fee, always collected by the same man sitting in a small booth near the exit. In time I came to think about what this job was like for him: confined to a very small booth in a dark and smelly underground garage, inhaling exhaust fumes all day. Not even a bathroom accessible, much less a coffee maker or snack machine. Nothing entertaining or beautiful to see or hear, no colleagues to chat with. A job so ridiculously mundane and unskilled it has now been replaced by an automated ticket-taker.
And yet, every month, this man would greet my son, ask about his day, have a smile and something cheerful and kind to say. He always had some sort of small treat to give him-- the sort of inexpensive thing you could buy in bulk at Costco. Something to brighten an otherwise dreary exercise.
Our exchanges were brief. I have no idea if he is a man of faith or not. But I have always thought he exemplified the Christian notion of vocation.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
In a society where we don't work for needs, I think we might work for luxuries or more choice hours.* For instance, someone might say "Yes you enjoy your clean desk job more, but I enjoy working half as many hours, and I love how laid back the other garbage workers are. I wouldn't trade garbage collection for a desk job any day. I know someone who works long haul trucking, and if you switch out the details, he seems to basically feel that way.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The only garbage man I know is an ex-con (and an occasionally-attending Anglican) and he once told me how much he liked the job. He saw the city at dawn, was always moving around, was outside, there were always people saying hello, the work was physical, and he didn't have to share a shower room with two dozen anti-social people after work. He felt good after work, but wasn't sure if everyone had the same feeling after their day. He said it was great for a few years, but then he found a job as a farmworker, with many of the same benefits, but with better food.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In a society where that need will be met regardless of what job (if any) a person does, the only way the garbage will be collected on anything like a regular basis will be if the government forces some people to do it.
It's a good thing that in our society market forces have organised things so that an unpleasant job like rubbish collection is rewarded proportionately to the degree nobody wants to do it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In a society where we don't work for needs, I think we might work for luxuries or more choice hours.
In which case we would still have inequality, just on a different basis.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's a good thing that in our society market forces have organised things so that an unpleasant job like rubbish collection is rewarded proportionately to the degree nobody wants to do it.
Garbage collection does in fact pay considerably more than many other jobs that might be considered more pleasant.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Far more cohesive, far more comprehensive, would be a moral society that depends on the moral stature of it's component people. Centrally to my world view, this is the goal I argue for, the assumption underlying all my posts.
Fair enough. I thought you were talking about what we can do in the real world, but apparently not.
There is always a cynic. It keeps us grounded. But it doesn't inspire anyone, to be better than they might otherwise be.
Cheers, PV.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In a society where we don't work for needs, I think we might work for luxuries or more choice hours.
In which case we would still have inequality, just on a different basis.
Just to bring this back to the central issue of the thread, we lucky Western people might negotiate around luxuries or choice hours or the discongeniality of our work, but still, I say, fully one third of the world's population get less than $1.50 per day. Are we being partial, in our considerations?
Cheers, PV.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
This is the problem with all these utopian schemes. They depend on a central authority.
My rejection of socialism is my rejection of centralised systems, and not even because they are morally wrong, just they are too difficult to operate. Probably sometimes it is necessary, but it will always produce sub-optimal results.
My problem with arguments like this is the incredible amount of myopia involved. Socialism requires "centralized systems", but the massive legal and enforcement mechanisms we have for preserving private property (as an example) doesn't count as "centalized" because . . . reasons! I suspect it's one of the those 'does a fish notice the water?' situations, where the central authority is so ubiquitous and long-lasting that we no longer notice it and consider it some kind of natural artifact. Not an endorsement of socialism, just an observation that alternatives require pretty much the same degree of centralization, rendering the argument moot.
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Just to bring this back to the central issue of the thread, we lucky Western people might negotiate around luxuries or choice hours or the discongeniality of our work, but still, I say, fully one third of the world's population get less than $1.50 per day. Are we being partial, in our considerations?
Probably, but given that the agenda typically driving such observations is not raising up the global poor but rather suppressing the fortunes of "lucky Western people" (one-third of the world's population get less than $1.50/day, so my employees should consider themselves lucky to get paid $1.00/hour) or telling the global poor that they should feel lucky that Western corporations give them jobs that pollute their cities with toxic foam or in sweatshops that only sometimes collapse.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One thing fascinating to me is the refusal to take risks necessary to not be poor. Such as giving up a job and returning to school, such as investing in a fund which could provide gains or losses rather than a slow and low savings account. It is not possible to remain in a job because it provides security and income, not taking the necessary risks to change your situation.
On the other side of this, I would suggest it would be a lot easier for people if the taking of risks wasn't so stressful and the consequences of disaster so dramatic.
This isn't a balanced thing. On one hand this, on the other that.
The possibility of catastrophic failure is there regardless of the willingness to risk.
This is not true for those more well off.
It is the difference between stepping onto a high-wire across the Grand Canyon with a worn cable and no safety net and doing so in a circus with a net and having been raised by a high-wire family.
Yes. All of which really increases the economic divide. Precisely because the wealthy have good safety nets in place (such as the million dollar loan Trump got from his dad starting out) they are able to take the sorts of risks that pay off big time and allow them to amass greater wealth. And precisely because they cannot afford to take those risks-- it would often be irresponsible to do so-- the poor have fewer opportunities to get ahead.
Which is why I see a fundamental contradiction in Tory philosophy. One the one hand they want people to be self-sufficient, to start businesses, but on the other they want to reduce the safety net that enables people to take the risk of doing exactly that. I have considered one or two self-employed options over the years, and whilst I haven't availed myself of any of them as yet, I will only be able to do so if I so choose because there is a safety net that will stop me and my family from starving to death in the street if I fail. In the logical conclusion of the Tory philosophy - right-wing libertarianism, I would consider anyone taking that sort of risk to be an absolute idiot. In a welfare state, it is a considerably more rational option.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Probably, but given that the agenda typically driving such observations is not raising up the global poor but rather suppressing the fortunes of "lucky Western people" (one-third of the world's population get less than $1.50/day, so my employees should consider themselves lucky to get paid $1.00/hour) or telling the global poor that they should feel lucky that Western corporations give them jobs that pollute their cities with toxic foam or in sweatshops that only sometimes collapse.
Dear Croesos, the whole idea is to raise up the poor, and diminish the wealthy, unto such a point as the $241 trillion of world wealth is fairly, equitably (not necessarily, equally) distributed. I cannot see a different way to end economic inequality; if you can, I am interested.
Cheers, PV.
[ 30. October 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
I would argue no.
They certainly involve a degree of centralisation - in so much as any nation state does, but not necessarily excessive (which is the hallmark of totalitarian states, be they communist or fascist). However, the aims of the social democratic state are different to the aims of a neo-liberal free market state, and so they put the centralised mechanisms of state to work differently.
The idea that a neo-liberal free market state is less centralised has, I believe, been shown to be utter bunk.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem with arguments like this is the incredible amount of myopia involved. Socialism requires "centralized systems", but the massive legal and enforcement mechanisms we have for preserving private property (as an example) doesn't count as "centalized" because . . . reasons! I suspect it's one of the those 'does a fish notice the water?' situations, where the central authority is so ubiquitous and long-lasting that we no longer notice it and consider it some kind of natural artifact. Not an endorsement of socialism, just an observation that alternatives require pretty much the same degree of centralization, rendering the argument moot.
You can't seriously think that government protecting individuals from violence, theft and fraud but otherwise leaving them to their own devices is "pretty much the same degree of centralisation" as government dictating exactly how much each individual is allowed to own, can you?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I find these caricatures "Socialism wants to decide how much everyone is allowed to own" more than a bit dishonest.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
Communism, as taught to me in college, is definitely about the idea that the state can plan better the economic requirements of it's citizens than the free market can. Socialism, on the other hand, seems to be a looser, less authoritarian concept. Some forms of socialism, notably that of the Blair government in the UK, have embraced the free market as a means to distribute goods and services and generate tax revenue, while putting that revenue (and, some would say, more than that revenue) back into community projects such as health centres, social housing, educational provision, and so on.
Cheers, PV.
[ 30. October 2015, 15:20: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find these caricatures "Socialism wants to decide how much everyone is allowed to own" more than a bit dishonest.
Consider the alternative: we could have a dozen people owning everything for us.
Oh, wait...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My problem with arguments like this is the incredible amount of myopia involved. Socialism requires "centralized systems", but the massive legal and enforcement mechanisms we have for preserving private property (as an example) doesn't count as "centalized" because . . . reasons! I suspect it's one of the those 'does a fish notice the water?' situations, where the central authority is so ubiquitous and long-lasting that we no longer notice it and consider it some kind of natural artifact.
You can't seriously think that government protecting individuals from violence, theft and fraud but otherwise leaving them to their own devices is "pretty much the same degree of centralisation" as government dictating exactly how much each individual is allowed to own, can you?
Not sure there's a huge practical distinction between "protecting individuals from violence, theft and fraud" and "government dictating exactly how much each individual is allowed to own". Preventing theft (or recovering stolen property) is a form of telling people they can't own certain things. Ditto for using the civil courts to adjudicate disputed property. We don't recognize these as exercises of central authority because they're so ubiquitous.
To illustrate this with an historical example wherein property rights were defined somewhat differently than today, consider Harriet Tubman. Ms. Tubman was most historically notorious for stealing the property of various farmers in Maryland. Of course, her main objection was that the particular variety of property she repeatedly stole should not have been classified as such. Nonetheless, a huge amount of governmental authority was put in to the efforts to prevent such thefts and Ms. Tubman's arguments would have likely been considered unpersuasive by the state had she ever been caught. We only recognize the degree of centralization that was involved because most of us today have accepted Ms. Tubman's position regarding this particular variety of property.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Croesus:
Strange. All I get is that HT was a leading campaigner against slavery, releasing many, a campaigner for women's rights. You link to Wikipedia which offers the following verdict: quote:
Harriet Tubman, widely known and well-respected while she was alive, became an American icon in the years after she died. A survey at the end of the 20th century named her as one of the most famous civilians in American history before the Civil War, third only to Betsy Ross and Paul Revere.[152] She inspired generations of African Americans struggling for equality and civil rights; she was praised by leaders across the political spectrum.
How did you get from this to notorious property thief? You may be right but it doesn't leap out of any description I have read of her.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
Strange. All I get is that HT was a leading campaigner against slavery, releasing many, a campaigner for women's rights. You link to Wikipedia which offers the following verdict: quote:
Harriet Tubman, widely known and well-respected while she was alive, became an American icon in the years after she died. A survey at the end of the 20th century named her as one of the most famous civilians in American history before the Civil War, third only to Betsy Ross and Paul Revere.[152] She inspired generations of African Americans struggling for equality and civil rights; she was praised by leaders across the political spectrum.
How did you get from this to notorious property thief? You may be right but it doesn't leap out of any description I have read of her.
Also from the Wiki article:
quote:
Over eleven years Tubman returned repeatedly to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, rescuing some 70 slaves in about thirteen expeditions, including her three other brothers, Henry, Ben, and Robert, their wives and some of their children. She also provided specific instructions to 50 to 60 additional fugitives who escaped to the north.
Once again, I'd suggest that the reason Tubman's thefts "doesn't leap out of any description [you] have read of her" is because our ideas of 'property' are more in line with hers than with her contemporaries in the Maryland slaveholding class.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Presumably you're advocating a similar form of change to our current concepts of property. To what, may I ask?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Presumably you're advocating a similar form of change to our current concepts of property. To what, may I ask?
It seems rather to me that he is pointing out how culturally bound our notions of "centralized government control" might be. "Preventing theft/ protecting private property" sounds like a pretty benign form of government control to most of us as compared to what seems to us a much more intrusive control in communist countries. The Tubman example is showing us another, much less benign (in retrospect) pov on government "preventing theft/ protecting private property". Which begs the question-- to what degree does the role the government plays in protecting private property play when it comes to say, banks using the bankruptcy courts to enforce highly questionable foreclosure practices, as we saw at the height of the recession?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Presumably you're advocating a similar form of change to our current concepts of property. To what, may I ask?
Not at all. Just pointing out that what we call "property law" represents a huge amount of "central authority", despite the popularity of claims to the contrary. We may find it a more palatable central authority than other varieties, but pretending that it's not is deceptive, and very often self-deceptive.
[ 30. October 2015, 19:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
In theory no, but in practice yes. The only way of achieving material equality is by force.
Incidentally, and changing the subject, was it ever argued in the slave states that slaves who escaped were stealing themselves?
[ 30. October 2015, 20:52: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
In theory no, but in practice yes. The only way of achieving material equality is by force.
Incidentally, and changing the subject, was it ever argued in the slave states that slaves who escaped were stealing themselves?
I don't know if runaway slaves were ever charged with theft-- they were already slaves, so what would you gain from such a charge? But definitely anyone (such as Tubman) who aided and abetted their escape would be charged with theft. This was true even in the Northern free states, which is why Tubman's underground railroad had to stretch all the way up to Canada.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are all forms of socialism about centralisation?
In theory no, but in practice yes. The only way of achieving material equality is by force.
It's just as easy to argue that force is equally necessary to maintain material inequality, given the vast legal and enforcement mechanisms that seems to be required.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, and changing the subject, was it ever argued in the slave states that slaves who escaped were stealing themselves?
As cliffdweller notes, it was argued that abolitionists who aided slave escapes were engaged in theft. Admitting that slaves themselves had motivations and desires that should be taken in to account was something those in the slave states assiduously avoided discussing. Frederick Douglass was fond of forcing recognition of this omission by starting his public speeches on the subject of abolition with the statement "I appear before you this evening as a thief and a robber. I stole this head, these limbs, this body from my master and ran off with them"
[ 30. October 2015, 21:50: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm not a socialist (I'm probably something even weirder), but I talk a lot with them. I'm not even sure if all of them want material equality.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not a socialist (I'm probably something even weirder), but I talk a lot with them. I'm not even sure if all of them want material equality.
I'm not even sure that a few of them want material equality. It's not a concept that turns up in most socialist thought.
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not a socialist (I'm probably something even weirder), but I talk a lot with them. I'm not even sure if all of them want material equality.
I'm not even sure that a few of them want material equality. It's not a concept that turns up in most socialist thought.
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
As well as the understanding that "socialism" exists on a continuum. It's not simply a binary question of "socialist" or "not socialist". Even the US is "socialist" to a degree. Other nations could be considered to be "more socialist" relative to the US, but "less socialist" than others.
[ 31. October 2015, 00:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
I am not even sure, though this seems to be the consensus assumption of the thread, that what I am advocating is socialism. The voluntary limitation of wealth to $33,000 or so per person, and income to $11,000 approx per year per person, does not, to my knowledge, appear in Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, etc. Or, to take a British perspective, Kier Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald, James Callaghan, Tony Blair or even Jeremy Corbyn. To me, what I suggest just seems fair. So I propose to call my call, not socialism, but equitable economic voluntarism, or EEV, if you want a snappier, more memorable, label.
Cheers, PV.
[ 31. October 2015, 11:21: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
According to Wikipedia, socialism is quote:
a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
By this description, I don't think what you've talked about so far qualifies as socialism; you haven't said much at all about the ownership and control of the means of production, let alone proposed something that could be described as a system.
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
Thanks for that. No, I don't propose a system; just an idea of social justice that could be grown into general movement, should that prove to be a popular notion. As for systems and 'big' political ideas; well, we have the whole of the twentieth century, which has left us a legacy of war, famine, preventable disease and premature death, to give us twenty-first century people enough reason to be suspicious of them.
Cheers, PV.
[ 31. October 2015, 12:03: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
"We twenty-first century people" - like all other people throughout history - are only alive because of the systems we have. Being suspicious of "systems" per se is like being suspicious of "language" or "culture"; if you're a human, you've got them whether you like it or not, it's only a question of what kind of system you've got.
A movement that just says "everyone should voluntarily commit to having about the same amount of money as everyone else" but says nothing about any other aspect of socioeconomic relations seems rather like a movement based on the idea that "everyone should try to be nicer to each other".
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"We twenty-first century people" - like all other people throughout history - are only alive because of the systems we have. Being suspicious of "systems" per se is like being suspicious of "language" or "culture"; if you're a human, you've got them whether you like it or not, it's only a question of what kind of system you've got.
Indeed so; but I propose an unsystematic system, which people can choose, or not choose, according to whatever system they might prefer, or might not prefer.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
A movement that just says "everyone should voluntarily commit to having about the same amount of money as everyone else" but says nothing about any other aspect of socioeconomic relations seems rather like a movement based on the idea that "everyone should try to be nicer to each other".
Just so. But I think many of our problems of 'socioeconomic relations' would fade to nothing in a context of a more equitable distribution of net worth and income. And, why shouldn't we be nicer to each other? Agape, Christian love, needs expression to be demonstrably real.
Cheers, PV.
[ 31. October 2015, 13:15: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Distributivism is, as far as I can see, only half an idea, but it has the feature of a low profile state, widely distributed ownership and decision making, and the hope that this would limit inequality. In a small company, the pay of the boss and the cleaner shouldn't be many multiples apart. The boss of a company twice that size, twenty or twenty thousand times that size might have a proportionately high salary.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"We twenty-first century people" - like all other people throughout history - are only alive because of the systems we have. Being suspicious of "systems" per se is like being suspicious of "language" or "culture"; if you're a human, you've got them whether you like it or not, it's only a question of what kind of system you've got.
Indeed so; but I propose an unsystematic system, which people can choose, or not choose, according to whatever system they might prefer, or might not prefer.
Well, that they can do already - so mission accomplished, I guess. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
A movement that just says "everyone should voluntarily commit to having about the same amount of money as everyone else" but says nothing about any other aspect of socioeconomic relations seems rather like a movement based on the idea that "everyone should try to be nicer to each other".
Just so. But I think many of our problems of 'socioeconomic relations' would fade to nothing in a context of a more equitable distribution of net worth and income.
But why do you think that? And "Socioeconomic relations" aren't just problems (though they may be problematic) - they determine how we decide what is produced and how it is consumed. Currently both categories of decision are closely bound to our system of income compensation; proposing to upend that system without considering the effects on everything else seems somewhat less than half-baked. quote:
And, why shouldn't we be nicer to each other?
Indeed we should!* But trite platitudes are not a basis for a movement, any more than strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a basis for a system of government.
*Most of us, anyway. Some of us are already nice enough, thank you very much. (You know who you are. You should ease up a little and stop making the rest of us look bad.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
On the subject of whether people wouldn't work if they weren't afraid of starvation:
MINCOME.
I am not responsible for the name.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the subject of whether people wouldn't work if they weren't afraid of starvation:
MINCOME.
That's not something I've ever said. What I've said is that people are considerably less likely to work if their income would be exactly the same either way (i.e. "to each according to their needs").
In that experiment people still had the chance to earn as much as they were capable of, it's just that the minimum amount anyone would receive was set at a given value. In other words, it emphatically was not a means of eliminating inequality.
If you offer everyone a minimum income of £10,000 with no upper income limit, then I wouldn't quit my job because I'm earning over three times that amount. But if you offer everyone £10,000 full stop, such that I'm not going to get a penny more or less whether I work or not, then I'd quit my job so fast the chair would still be spinning when I got home.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Most people are not advocating a fixed income amount, MtM.
By DocTor:
quote:
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
Interesting you focus on the money, MINCOM experiment showed a rise in education and a drop in social problems. Those strike more to the heart of what most of us are on about.
And really, income inequality is about the lack opportunity to succeed far more than it is personal ability.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most people are not advocating a fixed income amount, MtM.
By DocTor:
quote:
What does turn up is the idea of a fair recompense for labour, fair working hours, and a safety net for those unable to work. In that is the acknowledgement that some forms of labour are worth more than others, and that a 'safety net' is necessarily at a lower level than a working wage.
Interesting you focus on the money, MINCOM experiment showed a rise in education and a drop in social problems. Those strike more to the heart of what most of us are on about.
And really, income inequality is about the lack opportunity to succeed far more than it is personal ability.
An empty belly has no ears.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Apologies, Doc Tor. I used your quote to address Marvin. The follow up comment was also addressed to him, not answering your quote.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most people are not advocating a fixed income amount, MtM.
It is, however, the subject of this thread. As repeatedly confirmed by the OPer.
quote:
Interesting you focus on the money, MINCOM experiment showed a rise in education and a drop in social problems. Those strike more to the heart of what most of us are on about.
It's not entirely surprising that giving everyone a minimum income would reduce social problems - especially when one considers that on one level, crime is just another job.
quote:
income inequality is about the lack opportunity to succeed far more than it is personal ability.
No, it's about some people earning more than others. Why they earn more is a secondary issue at best.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
[ 06. November 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
...*tangent* at first I read that as a clever-if-dated partisan slam on Bill Clinton...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh, I missed that possibility completely, I'm afraid- whatever the original was just didn't get onto my radar!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
I'd have said its more that the right thinks in terms of individuals, while the left thinks in terms of society as a whole.
It follows that if something increases individual freedom but has negative societal effects the right will support it and the left will oppose it, and if something has positive social effects but decreases individual freedom then the left will support it and the right will oppose it. I think it's pretty clear where the subject of inequality falls on that spectrum...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
"The right thinks in terms of individuals" is quite apposite.
There are rich individuals, whose rights and freedoms need to be protected at all costs, and then there are the-rest-of-us individuals, whose ability to work together to resist the powerful must be prevented at all costs.
The Right only sees us as individuals as lions see a wildebeest that's been separated from the herd: dinner.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Whereas the Left sees us as a uniform mass of workers, not unlike a nest of ants. The good of the society is the only concern, and individual freedom is an unnecessary irrelevance.
Or, and here's an idea, we could both quit using unhelpful biased stereotypes and actually have a discussion. What do you think?
The way I see it - and this is a very simplified view - the left says "what good is freedom if you have no food" and the right says "what good is food if you have no freedom". Now, obviously it's better to have both food AND freedom, but which of the two is more important is a legitimate political question with no immediately obvious "correct answer".
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The way I see it - and this is a very simplified view - the left says "what good is freedom if you have no food" and the right says "what good is food if you have no freedom".
I'd put it another way.
The left says, what good is the freedom to swing my fists if I don't have the freedom not to be punched by people who are bigger and stronger than me.
The right says, what good is the freedom to swing my fists if people who are smaller and weaker than me have the freedom not to be punched.
The right generally speaking disapproves of the freedom to form and join a union. The right disapproves of the freedom to strike. The right disapproves of the freedom to immigrate.
Generally speaking, the right believes chiefly in those freedoms that you need to have money already in order to make use of.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Oooooooh! That last line.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Dafyd:
How do you define "the Right" other than "those bastards you hate 'cause they're really mean and horrible".
Can you offer a value-free definition of "right"?
I agree with MTM that it helps to get away from stereotypes. If you cannot accept that there are people of good faith who are to the right, then there's no future for discussion.
As I said early on, people of the right and the left (of good faith) are trying to maximise two things which both hold dear and most think are incompatible: freedom to act and equitable distribution of wealth.
Most people believe the end result has to be compromise, and most people are not capitalist or socialist for everything, rather believing that some aspects of society lend themselves to a market model (like consumer goods) and others don't (like the Armed Forces).
I think that the difference is that those on the right would attach a higher value to freedom to act (although it's more lefties that favour things like liberalisation of drug laws). But it is wrong to suggest that The Right is always against central co-operation and control or that The Left is somehow against personal freedom.
Which is why moderate Tories and Labour supporters tend to agree on a large swathe of policies.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's kind of the difference between the Right and the Left. The Right tends to look at what is: the Left tends to ask why what is, is.
I'd have said its more that the right thinks in terms of individuals, while the left thinks in terms of society as a whole.
I think that the Right does tend to think in terms of individuals, and produces accounts of what happens that privilege the idea of individual agency. The Left tends to produce accounts that emphasise structures and contexts. This is not univerally true, of course: in particular, traditional conservatives do think about structures, but as the most influential people on the Right, in modern Britain and the Anglosphere at least, are liberals, they do tend to see the world in terms of individual agency.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
My thumbnail generalization would be: the left has an often naive faith in centralized government to solve social problems, and a deep distrust of the marketplace to sort out inequities/ solve social problems. Whereas the right has a naive faith in the marketplace to solve social problems, and a deep distrust in the ability of centralized government to solve social problems.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
How do you define "the Right" other than "those bastards you hate 'cause they're really mean and horrible".
Can you offer a value-free definition of "right"?
The right acts in the interests of those people who are generally happy with the current distribution of wealth and power in a society. That needs a bit of qualification for groups that want to bring back the distribution when they were growing up, or groups that think that past inequalities have been overcompensated for. And of course I'm not distinguishing between groups that want to conserve the current arrangements and groups that want to give more money to those that already have it.
But basically if you're wealthy and you vote in your own self-interest you're voting for the right (except in special cases) and if you're poor and you vote in your own self-interest you're voting for the left (except in special cases); the difference being that if you're wealthy you can afford not to vote in your own self-interest.
I'm happy to believe that there are people who are voting in good faith for the right because they think the world works that way. I also think they're wrong: the world does not work that way.
quote:
As I said early on, people of the right and the left (of good faith) are trying to maximise two things which both hold dear and most think are incompatible: freedom to act and equitable distribution of wealth.
The point is that when it gets down to policy differences that divide left and right-wing parties it just is not true that right-wing policies generally are aimed at increasing freedom to act. You yourself point out that the left is more likely to support personal freedoms in the case of drug laws. The left is more likely to support freedom to immigrate. Right-wing policies are more likely to increase freedom if you have the money to take advantage of them. For example, if you abolish health and safety laws, the people who are now free to run dangerous workplaces are the people who have enough money to employ people in dangerous workplaces. If you don't have enough money you're not any more free because of that abolition.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And the reason that some of us support a more equitable (OK, loaded word, substitute 'flat') distribution of income and wealth is that it we believe that that would give more people the resources needed to enjoy some kind of meaningful freedom to act.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
As Albertus said.
'Freedom' is a bit of an empty word unless you specify what freedom you mean. Being for freedom is meaningless until you specify what constraints you are against.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The right acts in the interests of those people who are generally happy with the current distribution of wealth and power in a society. That needs a bit of qualification for groups that want to bring back the distribution when they were growing up, or groups that think that past inequalities have been overcompensated for. And of course I'm not distinguishing between groups that want to conserve the current arrangements and groups that want to give more money to those that already have it.
I'd also add in a group that is generally happy with the overall structure of wealth and power distribution, but is perfectly happy for individuals to move between the various levels. This group would support things like improving the provision of education for disadvantaged individuals so that they can improve their circumstances, but would still expect those individuals to put some effort into the process themselves and would have little sympathy with any who refuse to do so.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm almost with you, except the elephant in the room is that you also have to allow the children of the powerful and wealthy to descend the ladder at the same time the children of the poor and merely adequate ascend it.
Once you have privilege and power, you fight tooth and nail to keep it in perpetuity. Hence we recently had a Cambridge-educated Labour MP go to Cambridge and tell Cambridge students it was up to them to save the Labour party from being run by the working classes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is much more than that Doc Tor.
The problem with MtM's "freedom of movement" is that it doesn't exist at a practical level.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The right acts in the interests of those people who are generally happy with the current distribution of wealth and power in a society. That needs a bit of qualification for groups that want to bring back the distribution when they were growing up, or groups that think that past inequalities have been overcompensated for.
I'd also add in a group that is generally happy with the overall structure of wealth and power distribution, but is perfectly happy for individuals to move between the various levels. This group would support things like improving the provision of education for disadvantaged individuals so that they can improve their circumstances, but would still expect those individuals to put some effort into the process themselves and would have little sympathy with any who refuse to do so.
I see Doc Tor has beaten me to this.
I'd certainly class that as right-wing, since it's not going to work out that way in practice.
If some members of the bottom levels work their way up the structure, but we're generally happy with the structure, then there will be holes left behind at the bottom that need to be filled.
So, firstly, of course, measures to let the people at the bottom rise will only work if there are also measures to fill the resulting holes from people who are currently on higher levels. That seems highly unlikely. For example, I don't think right-wingers, however meritocratic, are in favour of ruthless abolition of inheritance.
Indeed, the structure as a whole can only be preserved if a large number of people on the bottom levels do not put enough effort into improving themselves. There needs to be a bar of sufficient height that the effort you need overcome the bar and improve your level is discouraging.
Of course, if they don't clear the bar you've set you can tell yourself that they refused to put in the effort and you have little sympathy.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The right acts in the interests of those people who are generally happy with the current distribution of wealth and power in a society. That needs a bit of qualification for groups that want to bring back the distribution when they were growing up, or groups that think that past inequalities have been overcompensated for. And of course I'm not distinguishing between groups that want to conserve the current arrangements and groups that want to give more money to those that already have it.
I'd also add in a group that is generally happy with the overall structure of wealth and power distribution, but is perfectly happy for individuals to move between the various levels. This group would support things like improving the provision of education for disadvantaged individuals so that they can improve their circumstances, but would still expect those individuals to put some effort into the process themselves and would have little sympathy with any who refuse to do so.
I agree that very few will object to providing education that enables people to "improve their circumstances" but there's a lot more to it than that. Nowadays you can hardly participate in society without a reliable broadband connection; in fact it's difficult to do research for homework or claim benefit without! If you don't have a car then you're stuck with public transport, so your access to better, cheaper shops and leisure facilities is restricted as these are usually on the outskirts of towns nowadays.
The list goes on. Putting people in a position so that they can take advantage of opportunities, such as education, is a prerequisite to providing the opportunities, and those with greater wealth and income don't always accept the extent to which that is needed and the up-front cost of it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm almost with you, except the elephant in the room is that you also have to allow the children of the powerful and wealthy to descend the ladder at the same time the children of the poor and merely adequate ascend it.
Naturally.
quote:
Once you have privilege and power, you fight tooth and nail to keep it in perpetuity.
Of course you do. Just as those seeking to take your position fight tooth and nail to get it from you.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is much more than that Doc Tor.
The problem with MtM's "freedom of movement" is that it doesn't exist at a practical level.
That's just not true. I know several people who have risen from humble beginnings to riches. At least two are millionaires, one of them several times over.
I'll grant you that it's not easy, and that it doesn't happen for most people. But that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist at all.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If some members of the bottom levels work their way up the structure, but we're generally happy with the structure, then there will be holes left behind at the bottom that need to be filled.
Only if we have 100% employment. Until then there will always be someone available to fill the bottom rung jobs as the previous post holders move on to better things.
quote:
Indeed, the structure as a whole can only be preserved if a large number of people on the bottom levels do not put enough effort into improving themselves. There needs to be a bar of sufficient height that the effort you need overcome the bar and improve your level is discouraging.
There will, of course, always be people who are content to stay on the bottom rung. Just as there will always be people who are happy to stay on the rung they're currently on - I'm perfectly happy staying somewhere in the middle, for example.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Once you have privilege and power, you fight tooth and nail to keep it in perpetuity.
Of course you do. Just as those seeking to take your position fight tooth and nail to get it from you.
Well, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly (in Purg, at least).
I've no intention whatsoever of fighting anyone who has money or privilege. I've no intention whatsoever of fighting anyone who hasn't. This is about the ability of people in a meritocracy to find their level and be rewarded appropriately.
Again, I appreciate that this is complete gobbledegook to you, the idea that someone whose parents are wealthy but is lazy and/or stupid themselves having a lower income and standard of living than someone who started dirt poor but worked hard and/or is smart. But that's what a meritocracy means.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The general understanding is that working your way upwards is more difficult today than in the past. Perhaps it is true? Certainly we're told that in general the economic middle class is worse off than 20-35 years ago. I see with my own children and their peers that it is taking about 10 years longer to get where I was by my mid-20s. They have more access to some things like information, but they cannot aspire to things we obtained. Such as a house for $80,000 (£40 or 45,000). The same is 10 times the price today. Income is not.
I'm also struck with university tuition - university education has been a major way or advancing here - I earned just less than $400 per month for summer work 35 years ago, and a year's univ tuition was $298 (I have the form still). Thus, a year's tuition was less than a month's summer pay, and I lived on the remains for 8 months without much difficulty. Today tuition is ~$8000 and summer work will not pay the year's tuition after taxation. So only those whose parents can front them the money, or if they start the debt-slave treadmill, can they attend.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is much more than that Doc Tor.
The problem with MtM's "freedom of movement" is that it doesn't exist at a practical level.
That's just not true. I know several people who have risen from humble beginnings to riches. At least two are millionaires, one of them several times over.
I'll grant you that it's not easy, and that it doesn't happen for most people. But that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist at all.
Exceptions do not disprove a rule. You also clipped out 'at a practical level'. The Horatio Alger Myth is often promoted by those who did not achieve their position on their own merits.
I don't agree with the statement that the rich fight tooth and nail to maintain their status. It implies that it is their effort and merit that keeps them where they are and that is bullshit.
It is much easier to be king of the mountain if you were born at the top.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Meritocracy. The only way to have a true meritocracy would be in a fictional state where children were removed from their parents at birth and raised in robotic crèches.
But meritocracy is generally a flawed concept in all its guises anyway. Sanitation workers do more to prevent disease than doctors. Yes, most positions in that industry require less skill than most doctors. But their task is no less important.
So, whilst I'd not suggest that the person collecting bins should have a salary equal to the person fixing your heart, I'd would say the disparity should be less.
Where you end up in life is as much, if not more, dependent upon where you started than it is personal ability.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't agree with the statement that the rich fight tooth and nail to maintain their status. It implies that it is their effort and merit that keeps them where they are and that is bullshit.
It is much easier to be king of the mountain if you were born at the top.
I don't think that either. For effort and merit read privilege and entitlement. But they will fight, oh yes...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't agree with the statement that the rich fight tooth and nail to maintain their status. It implies that it is their effort and merit that keeps them where they are and that is bullshit.
It is much easier to be king of the mountain if you were born at the top.
I don't think that either. For effort and merit read privilege and entitlement. But they will fight, oh yes...
I did not think you did, but MtM's interpretation is another matter. Of course they will fight. One of the most powerful tools they use is creating the myth that enabling them enables everyone.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If some members of the bottom levels work their way up the structure, but we're generally happy with the structure, then there will be holes left behind at the bottom that need to be filled.
Only if we have 100% employment. Until then there will always be someone available to fill the bottom rung jobs as the previous post holders move on to better things.
If your social structure relies on having a sufficient pool of unemployed to fill any jobs made available by people moving up a rung, then the unemployed status is a rung, and the previous analysis stands.
That said, there's a special problem attaching to the status of being unemployed. How are the unemployed people supposed to better themselves by working hard, when the fact that your system is set up to require a pool of unemployed people means that they have no job to better themselves by working hard at?
quote:
quote:
Indeed, the structure as a whole can only be preserved if a large number of people on the bottom levels do not put enough effort into improving themselves. There needs to be a bar of sufficient height that the effort you need overcome the bar and improve your level is discouraging.
There will, of course, always be people who are content to stay on the bottom rung. Just as there will always be people who are happy to stay on the rung they're currently on - I'm perfectly happy staying somewhere in the middle, for example.
I thought you were telling us how you were better off under the present government, and I think from what you said you're doing a bit better than somewhere in the middle.
I think it is probably easier to be perfectly happy somewhere in the middle than perfectly happy somewhere at the bottom.
'I fear Mr Pope and Mr Jenyns have never suffered the evils they imagine so easy to be borne.' Dr Johnson, from memory.
[ 10. November 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Dafyd:
quote:
The right acts in the interests of those people who are generally happy with the current distribution of wealth and power in a society.
Well that's a clear definition but I don't go along with it. Maybe all discussions about left-right, socialist-capitalist etc are useless because of the fluidity of definition. Christianity is in the same boat. Perhaps the only worthwhile discussions are on specific issues, like how value should be determined in a state, whether state ownership of industry is beneficial etc.
So the weakness of your definition IMO is that in any government there will be a tendency to favour one or other groups, given that all states are client states to an extent. They may be left or right. So in countries like Greece there are enormous privileges for beaurocrats, union bosses etc, which proliferate under left wing governments. So those with large state pensions or cozy business arrangements with the state will vote to keep it in power. But they would be viewed as left.
Equally I think it unjust to suppose that all right of centre people think the current distribution is justifiable. Take David Willet's book Pinch, about the grossly unfair skewing of wealth to the older generation.
For me, the difference between right and left is more about how you solve the problem of this inequity, than whether you believe it is real.
Of course a lot of people will vote with their wallet, and generally the more "establishment" a person is the more they will vote Right in the UK now. But that's because UK has had about 40 years of centre-right governments.
In the whole of the 20-21st centuries, I doubt we have had as many as 10 years under democratic socialist governments. Perhaps it's just not British.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
. . mind you, I suppose I may not have given enough weight to the fact, that if you are prosperous with the status quo, it is easier to convince yourself it's ok. But not if your one of the losers. I'm not rich but I'm definitely in the former class, and it's a brave man who denies the possibility of bias.
[ 11. November 2015, 15:22: Message edited by: anteater ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
For me, the difference between right and left is more about how you solve the problem of this inequity, than whether you believe it is real.
The Right in this country (the US) doesn't WANT to solve the problem of inequity. It doesn't see it as a problem. In this they are perfectly Nietzschean, which makes sense, as their god is Ayn Rand, whose god was Friedrich Nietzsche. Those who are well off DESERVE to be well-off, and those who are not deserve not to be. Because effort, etc. The Left in this country may have their own agendas that involve other things than helping the poor, but at least they see helping the poor as something that needs being done. The people bankrolling the GOP and pulling its strings do not.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
mousethief:
I assume Ayn Rand has more influence in the US than here, where if she is known at all it is as an author. Which in my view, she nearly succeeds in, but finally goes so over the top that she ends up risible. But she could certainly right very good prose. Neither is Nietzsche influential over here.
I can't contradict you, since I'm not a resident of God's own country, but I entertain slight skepticism about George W perusing Neitzsche's Ecce Homo every night tucked up in bed.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
mousethief:
I assume Ayn Rand has more influence in the US than here, where if she is known at all it is as an author. Which in my view, she nearly succeeds in, but finally goes so over the top that she ends up risible. But she could certainly right very good prose. Neither is Nietzsche influential over here.
I can't contradict you, since I'm not a resident of God's own country, but I entertain slight skepticism about George W perusing Neitzsche's Ecce Homo every night tucked up in bed.
Famously, Paul Ryan, a legislator, gave copies of Atlas Shrugged to all his staffers one Christmas and strongly suggested they read it. He has since backed away from her, for murky reasons. Another politician, Rand Paul, was actually named after her by his father. She has a good deal of clout here with the political right wing. Her idea that there are people who are unworthy of our support -- Untermenschen to use Nietzsche's term -- is still alive and kicking in the Republican Party.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think hardly anyone in this country will have heard of Ayn Rand.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
There was a rather good documentary series about her on BBC2 a couple of years ago.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Specifically, this series of three programs: http://tinyurl.com/q276qnv , well worth watching if you can find it. Is rather unconventional in style - the series is titlled All watched over by machines of loving grace. Looks at Rand in the context of the rise of sillicon valley and the finance markets.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think hardly anyone in this country will have heard of Ayn Rand.
It was reasonably popular amongst older teenagers of a certain type when I was growing up. Similarly it doesn't necessarily have to have mass appeal in order to be influential - just appeal to certain people.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think hardly anyone in this country will have heard of Ayn Rand.
It was reasonably popular amongst older teenagers of a certain type when I was growing up. Similarly it doesn't necessarily have to have mass appeal in order to be influential - just appeal to certain people.
Among American conservatives, I would say her work is popular among only a small, rather elite group-- the 1%ers who have the time & inclination to read her books (my brother, a "wealth manager" sent me & each of my siblings a copy of Atlas Shrugged for Xmas as well-- must be a "thing" among that group). They read, and know, her philosophy well (as described above). But what they spin for the rank-and-file voters is a very carefully selected edit. Which I think is a factor in the curious divide we see in American conservatism-- where so many lower-and middle-class Americans are voting against their interests and for the huge federal giveaways to the uber-rich.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Dafyd:
quote:
The right acts in the interests of those people who are generally happy with the current distribution of wealth and power in a society.
So the weakness of your definition IMO is that in any government there will be a tendency to favour one or other groups, given that all states are client states to an extent. They may be left or right. So in countries like Greece there are enormous privileges for beaurocrats, union bosses etc, which proliferate under left wing governments. So those with large state pensions or cozy business arrangements with the state will vote to keep it in power. But they would be viewed as left.
I don't believe that the numbers of overpaid union bosses and bureaucrats under any democratic socialist government are sufficient to significantly shift the overall power structures within any society.
They may be higher up the ladder than they would be in a more right-wing society, but I doubt they'll be near the top.
quote:
Equally I think it unjust to suppose that all right of centre people think the current distribution is justifiable. Take David Willet's book Pinch, about the grossly unfair skewing of wealth to the older generation.
Perhaps I should talk about power distributions between classes. One difference between a power distribution by class and a power distribution by age is that we can all hope to get older.
Even if your analysis were true of the present arrangements, it fails if you look back before the 1980s. It's really only since 1980s, with some stirrings from anti-communist ideology more generally since the Second World War, that the right-wing even claimed to be more committed to freedom. In the nineteenth century, free trade was in the UK at least a left-wing cause. (Less so in the US, but the US had a different class structure, and back then was further to the left overall.)
quote:
In the whole of the 20-21st centuries, I doubt we have had as many as 10 years under democratic socialist governments. Perhaps it's just not British.
Maybe if you only count Attlee's government. But Attlee's government is probably the most influential government of the twentieth century.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Dafyd:
quote:
[union bosses and bureaucrats] may be higher up the ladder than they would be in a more right-wing society, but I doubt they'll be near the top.
Possibly, but I was only arguing against your contention that The Right votes for the status quo. As if the "status quo" would only ever favor capitalists. Which in places like Greece and Venezuela, it doesn't.
quote:
Perhaps I should talk about power distributions between classes. One difference between a power distribution by class and a power distribution by age is that we can all hope to get older.
I'd rather you didn't 'cause Class isn't someting I get. Unless you could give a summary of the Classes? My Mother, who was pretty low down in the pecking order, called herself "Lower Middle Class" 'cause she earned some money from Rents. I've always considered myself Working Class, since I lived by my labour. But now I live by pensions, so am I now Middle Class? Your comments about "we can all hope to grow old" presumably means that you don't believe we can hope to change our class. So no American Dream. And just because Old = Relatively Better Off now, it may not mean that in the future, and for many it doesn't mean it today. All Willett argues is that too much wealth is concentrated in the Grey Class, which is why, I expect, that us silver/skin/dye-tops tend to vote Tory. And my point, again, was limited to saying that righties can spot inequity just as well as lefties.
quote:
In the nineteenth century, free trade was in the UK at least a left-wing cause.
I thought it was a Whig cause, and the Whigs sort of morphed into the Liberals who in these matters were more to the right than the Tories. I agree that Tories were not usually free-traders, but then again they were once largely Jacobite. Having been around for so long they've morphed quite a lot.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The Tories in the earlier C19 were striongly attached to protection, as being in landowners' interests: although it was Peel, seen as the father of the Conservative Party if I remember my A level history, who repealed the Corn Laws, look how controversial and divisive that was among his own supporters (and Peel was a new man and an industrialist, not a Tory landowner). Liberals and radicals, meanwhile, called for cheap food which meant free trade. Then IIRC later in the C19 there was a consensus in favour of free trade, but Joe Chamberlain, by then in alliance with the Conservatives, played the protection card and by about 1904 the Conservatives were for 'tarriff reform' (protectioon) while the Liberals hel out for free trade. Again this was divisive- it's why e.g. Churchill crossed the floor to enter on the most left-wing stage of his career, as a Liberal reformer.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Dafyd:Possibly, but I was only arguing against your contention that The Right votes for the status quo. As if the "status quo" would only ever favor capitalists. Which in places like Greece and Venezuela, it doesn't.
I think this is at best a complication within the overall picture rather than an actual counter-example.
Greece has had a centre-right government in and out of power for the past forty years; I don't think you can claim it's been consistenly left-wing. Venezuela, maybe, but I believe Chavez' support came at least as much from poorer people who believed he was making their lives better as from bureaucratic elites.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps I should talk about power distributions between classes. One difference between a power distribution by class and a power distribution by age is that we can all hope to get older.
I'd rather you didn't 'cause Class isn't someting I get. Unless you could give a summary of the Classes? My Mother, who was pretty low down in the pecking order, called herself "Lower Middle Class" 'cause she earned some money from Rents. I've always considered myself Working Class, since I lived by my labour. But now I live by pensions, so am I now Middle Class? Your comments about "we can all hope to grow old" presumably means that you don't believe we can hope to change our class. So no American Dream. And just because Old = Relatively Better Off now, it may not mean that in the future, and for many it doesn't mean it today. All Willett argues is that too much wealth is concentrated in the Grey Class, which is why, I expect, that us silver/skin/dye-tops tend to vote Tory. And my point, again, was limited to saying that righties can spot inequity just as well as lefties.
Social mobility in the UK and US is about as low as it's been since the Second World War. So, no, no American dream.
I suppose 'class' means a group of people with similar economic and social prospects and concerns.
I don't believe old does mean relatively better off now, except among the already wealthy. And there, it seems to me a bit of a pseudo-inequity.
quote:
quote:
In the nineteenth century, free trade was in the UK at least a left-wing cause.
I thought it was a Whig cause, and the Whigs sort of morphed into the Liberals who in these matters were more to the right than the Tories. I agree that Tories were not usually free-traders, but then again they were once largely Jacobite. Having been around for so long they've morphed quite a lot.
I think that the difference between the Tories and the Liberals in the nineteenth century defines right and left. By definition, the Tories were to the right and the Liberals to the left. That's why I don't think you can define right and left by specific policies, but only by which sections of the population they favour.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that the difference between the Tories and the Liberals in the nineteenth century defines right and left. By definition, the Tories were to the right and the Liberals to the left. That's why I don't think you can define right and left by specific policies, but only by which sections of the population they favour.
The Liberals being led by such notorious left-wingers as the Cavendishes, the Russells, and their revolutionary ilk.
AIUI, the Liberals under that name did not emerge until the 1850s, with the Whigs taking in the followers of Peel and some other disparate groups. The Whigs were the great aristocracy (with virtually only the Cecils being Tory) along with a surprisingly large amount of support in Scotland and Wales. Until then, he Whigs promoted parliamentary reform as a means of continuing their own policy of limiting the power of the King while retaining their own, a policy which went back at least the 1630s, if not before.
It was not until the Home Rule issue arose under Gladstone that many of the Whigs moved via the Unionist Party into the Conservative wing. It is still the Conservative and Unionist Party. A good account is in Bullock and Shock's book The Liberal Tradition from Fox to Keynes.
If you look at the family of Harold Macmillan, in the 1850s they were Scottish crofters. Two brothers moved to London and found considerable success as publishers. Although Liberals when they arrived in London, they opposed Home Rule and thereafter supported the Unionists. Thus it was that young Harold (I wonder if he were ever called Young Harry?) ended up on the staff of the Duke of Devonshire, a Unionist politician, when he was GG of Canada.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0