Labour - where now?
- Thread starter Slothrop
- Start date
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
This is quite possibly true, but is it not the case that, in the absence of income differences people will inevitably let their envy fix to differences in social status, physical attractiveness, sporting talent etc? In other words, envy itself will not be eliminated just by depriving it of a likely object.
Personally speaking, I try to encourage a regression to that childlike state in which I was deliriously happy to see a Ferrari drive past me rather than burn up with self-defeating envy, knowing that such envy is liable to spread to an infinite number of points of comparison between my perceived situation and others'. In any case, the envy is in bad faith as I cannot truthfully say that I have striven to put myself in the position of its driver.
Furthermore, the driver may well be a top surgeon, designer of my superior internet browser or holder of a highly responsible and stressful management position and thus as thoroughly deserving of his prize as I would be unjustified in my feelings of having been denied something due to me.
Regarding paying people well or allowing them to make lots of money, there are great advantages to it: 1) rich people redistribute their wealth to the poor (perhaps more effectively than government does) by spending it on goods and services (and envy-generating conspicuous consumption does this especially well!) 2) high salaries allow people to reorganise their time and effort whilst unsalaried (as well as act as patrons for others) 3) people are attracted to roles that would otherwise be very hard to fill, especially if intensive training or demanding jobs were not to offer compensatory status benefits (in the absence of monetary reward, we might just continue to create a good stock of doctors but not of bankers) 4) the prospect of unusual monetary reward motivates people to undertake risky (launching a creative new business), arduous (musical or sporting training) or downright dull (1000s of hours coding and fine-tuning software) projects and funds these projects retrospectively.
Last edited:
Hmmm.
Doesn't living in a deprived area surrounded by lots of other miserable poor people contribute to feeling 'poor' as well? I reckon given the same income I would feel richer living in a well-to-do part of town than I would in some blighted hole, although I would probably have to pay a bit more for my croissants.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I hear what you're saying m_b, but I think there's a bit of straw-mannery going on here, as I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for the desirability (to say nothing of feasibility) of reducing income disparity to zero - just that things might be a bit better if it was somewhat less stark than it is now.
Also, arguments about hard-working, resourceful rich people ignore two things: the enormous disparity in inherited wealth/general social privilege (dragged up on a sink estate vs. Eton->Oxbridge->er, prime-ministry...) and the fact that it's far, far easier to make lots of money if you already have lots of money (from whatever source) than if you're starting from very little. For one thing, once you have enough money to invest - be it in the stock market, property or whatever - you can generate income that is not "earned" in the same sense as someone who earns a living growing food, making stuff or providing a service to people.
I mean, c'mon, this isn't exactly wacky Marxo fringe economics I'm talking about here....
Also, arguments about hard-working, resourceful rich people ignore two things: the enormous disparity in inherited wealth/general social privilege (dragged up on a sink estate vs. Eton->Oxbridge->er, prime-ministry...) and the fact that it's far, far easier to make lots of money if you already have lots of money (from whatever source) than if you're starting from very little. For one thing, once you have enough money to invest - be it in the stock market, property or whatever - you can generate income that is not "earned" in the same sense as someone who earns a living growing food, making stuff or providing a service to people.
I mean, c'mon, this isn't exactly wacky Marxo fringe economics I'm talking about here....
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
i heard that was very good - thanks for the reminder.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well in London the poor, deprived bits are often cheek-by-jowl with the very up-market areas, aren't they? In Pimlico there's a road that separates a grotty-looking '60s estate from a patch of unbelievably swish Georgian townhouses full of top lawyers, surgeons and portfolio managers. It's the combination of living in a locally depressed area but within spitting distance of a luxury you could never feasibly achieve that gets on people's tits, I think.
And that's without even talking about gentrification and the way people on lower incomes can be effectively priced out of the area they've perhaps lived in all their lives if it becomes "up and coming" and the developers move in...
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
1) whilst I agree that beneficent rich people are necessary for a number of reasons, the main one isn't buying goods and services, i don't think. More direct redistribution, as with charitable trusts; 2) patron point is ok, but otherwise I don't see how what you've said is a good thing; 3) i'd rather more good doctors/teachers etc than good bankers - they're far more necessary; 4) risky jobs - as I understand, for most people the risk/adrenalin itself is the buzz*; arduous jobs - both the things you've mentioned aren't arduous, but very privileged positions to be in, if ijndeed you ARE lucky enough to get paid to do them; dull jobs - a point here, sure. giving shares to workers as well in these cases, so they're directly involved in company success? But loads of people do dull jobs because they have to to get by, and don't get paid loads.
* much as he gives me the creeps, Duncan Bannatyne's (Dragon's Den) line about the only reason to make loads of money is then to be able to give it away (even if slightly disingenous) is a good, sane one.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
And also (as I'm sure you agree) the well-founded sense that there is no meaningful sense in which most rich people have earned what they have.
Yeah, gonna happen to Elephant soon, so it seems...
Yes, and there are surely reasons, even identifiable and potentially addressable ones, why that disparity is highly unjust and unnecessary.
But I'm kind of with biscuits on the envy thing, whether they were being completely serious or not. There's so much stuff around, I don't feel the need to own all of it to appreciate it. I can go for a walk, use my imagination, or look at the sky. Or if I really do want something I can make it my aim to get it. Also I can be glad to be me and not someone else.
It's tricky as well because allowing a sense of dissatisfaction to take hold can in itself contribute to a place being shit.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Well, for reasons of self-actualisation and -determination, it's preferable to have the opportunity to earn twice what you need over one year and spend the surplus on a year out than to attempt to do whatever interesting thing you want to do in short, tired bursts after each day at work.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
But this argument is kind of like "I don't see that poor people / black people / women are disadvantaged, I'm a poor person / black person / woman and I just got on with it and made something of my life..."Yes, and there are surely reasons, even identifiable and potentially addressable ones, why that disparity is highly unjust and unnecessary.
But I'm kind of with biscuits on the envy thing, whether they were being completely serious or not. There's so much stuff around, I don't feel the need to own all of it to appreciate it. I can go for a walk, use my imagination, or look at the sky. Or if I really do want something I can make it my aim to get it. Also I can be glad to be me and not someone else.
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
But it's not preferable than a minority of people have the opportunity to do this, further contributing to inequality, is it? You're simply describing the priivleges wealth confers upon wealthy people in that particualr point, not its worth to society.
How about 3/4 day weeks for everyone? That would address the ludicrous work/life balance that many people are forced to negotiate under the present 'system' (though I have zero sympathy for people with lots of choice who choose to go into a profit-oriented job to be milked dry and then complain about it).
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
My argument was against the idea of the reduction of income disparity per se being the royal road to happiness rather than a disavowal of the importance of the cards that life might deal you.
In no way have I said this. But we do have the power to choose our own attitudes to situations. That's empowering, not looking down on people or trying to diminish their problems. Although nothing wrong with diminishing problems.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Well, that would be fine; what I'm against is the imposition of an upper limit - for instance, of encouraging conditions in which no-one would find themselves in a position of being able to have a 1/2 day week.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I agree that envy is to some extent a natural human emotion, for whateevr various reasons.
But there's a huge difference between doing what you say with respect to a Ferrari (which no-one needs) and beign envious of things such as a decent place to live.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
er, depends what kind of surgeon and what kind of work this manager is in - working hard in and of itself does not make you thoroughly deserving of anything,a s it depends what you are doing.... This to me is one of the prime attitudes that people have to grow out of. Many people work all hours to further oppression of various kinds....
Edit: i was thinking of a plastic surgeon in this case...not so much oppression as preying on people's insecurities, but that's for another discussion!