I would say the opposite is true. If you don’t plan to “pull your own weight”, then who do you think is supposed to work to support you?
The implication is that a fair number of people have glommed onto philosophies like the one put forth by Ayn Rand which can be basically summed up in terms of “if you can’t support yourself through your labor, you are SOL.”
The reality is a lot more complex.
On occasion, CEOs have also been known to run companies that employ people and produce products and services people use.
But let me put it a different way. I heard one commentator make a comment that “he doesn’t want to live in a world where the batboy makes the same amount as Derek Jeter.” But why is a world where we pay someone tens of millions of dollars to play what is essentially a children’s game any better?
One of the failings of free markets is that while they are great and allocating capital to meet the needs and wants of the people, it is the people with the most capital who tend to get their needs and wants met.
Supply and demand. If what a person brings to society is a commodity, which a batboy is, he gets treated as one. Who are we to determine that the millions of people willing to work to earn money to pay to watch a baseball player, who can demand a high salary as a result, are wrong?
If equality were truly important to the left, which it isn’t, the left wouldn’t have billionaires accumulating more and more wealth and power while billions live in poverty.
I’m not whining for others’ stuff, I’m whining about my own. Take the example of taxes: I’ve payed taxes for twelve years, and of that been to the hospital once, for three days. I am entitled to all the various social programs I qualify, and should qualify for(by having firmly stayed below the poverty line in terms of income ever since I became independant, and by being a Norwegian citizen). If you had actually read my post instead of instantly calling me “entitled”, you might have undersood why I don’t “qualify” for those and why I feel entitled to them. By the way, I believe you should feel just as entitled as me to a government that invests in it’s people, not in global corporations, security, banks and ever-expanding, inefficient bureaucracies. I’m not gonna play some game, this is my life and I should be able to lead that life according to my own principles as long as they do not infringe upon the rest of society. I refuse to belive society should be modelled after some game.
Complain about whatever you want, call me a parasite and a leech, my eight-limbed friend. But, you’ll see that your grip will begin to release above water, since your agruments holds none.
Another example of obscene waste. Derek Jeter is an entertainer. All professional athletes are, fundamentally, in the entertainment industry. Their work serves absolutely no purpose except in that people take (inexplicable) pleasure in watching them do whatever their talent is. There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with this so long as our resource surplus remains consistently high. But when/if our resources drop below the point where the surplus can support everyone, I suspect all those farmers and laborers will much far less willing to trade their limited food to watch someone throw a baseball.
Nascar almost makes me sick to my stomach. We know damn well that our fossil fuel supply is limited, yet we give people money to squander it driving in circles. It’s disgusting.
That’s because you live in a society that has an incredible surplus of resources. The poor, the disabled, and the stupid cost you nothing. Or rather, almost nothing (in the grand scheme of things).
The instant those resources run out, do you seriously believe that you will still be so generous? If you had to make a choice in who lives and who dies, whose life would you give up so that a quadriplegic can live? Your spouse? Your child? The big guy that guards the village? Or the carpenter that maintains your shelter? At that point, it would be profoundly immoral to squander your resources on a person who provides nothing to the community.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve read a great deal of literature written by people who have been subjected to starvation through various calamities. The fact that is that even the most kind-hearted and selflessly liberal person experiences a rather abrupt change of heart when they no longer have the resources to provide for themselves.
The problem with all of this is how the elderly will be treated. If we are judging people by their contribution to society, I think it seems clear that the question should not be “what do contribute?”, but “what have you contributed lately?”
You get no argument from me there. I design my own web pages as a hobby. I did a year of art school. I love to paint and draw. I love movies and books.
But Art/Stories are not as valuable as food, clothing, shelter, etc
I think the thing that people are missing here is that the idea of “pulling one’s own weight” is an IDEAL, not some kind of black or white moral judgement, and the usual and customary punishment is opprobrium, not being cast out of the tribe, or tossed out an airlock, or whatever.
To the end of it being an IDEAL, it’s almost inherent in the concept that it doesn’t really apply to those physically or mentally incapable of pulling their own weight. And it doesn’t really address the idea of someone whose resources are such that they aren’t a drag on society, but don’t really contribute either; in a sense, that notion is a different ideal separate from pulling your own weight.
So really the ideal is most concerned with able-bodied people of sound mind, and whether or not they’re being a drag on society or not. A “trust fund punk” isn’t really being a drag on society, unless they’re such a spendthrift that they’re out of funds and relying on public welfare. Similarly, a disabled person (mentally or physically) isn’t really considered in the assessment, as they’re not able to perform to the same level as others. But I think there is an expectation that they should at least put some effort forth, even if they can’t be independent.
But various slackers, drug addicts, and general dumb-asses who seem to take more from society than they contribute? The opprobrium that they get is likely deserved.
I suppose it depends on if you think it’s more important to have your street cleaned or to get Series A funding for your startup.
Yes, I studied graduate level economics in business school.
The problem is that people, as a whole, are not particularly good at assessing long-term needs or risks. That is to say, left to their own devices, most people probably wouldn’t pay for police, fire or ambulance service until such time as they actually need a cop, fireman or EMT.
This is a strange non-sequitur statement that sounds like you pulled it from some right-leaning blog.
First of all the “left” doesn’t “have billionaires accumulating more and more wealth”. I’m not even sure what that means. The left typically advocates for greater taxes and regulations to pay for social safety nets, provide worker protections and keep corporate greed in check. It is typically the right that advocates for the elimination of those safety nets, worker protections and regulations. The right routinely issues tax breaks for the wealthy under the guise that they are “wealth creators”.
We ought not judge individuals by their perceived utility to society, because the good and the bad of some people is not fully revealed for generations after their lives. I think of philosophers like Socrates. He was thought of as a bum during his time, but much of modern western thought evolved from his ideas.
Rather, we ought to judge society by how well it allows its members to flourish. Society exists for the benefit of its members. It is created by its members to serve its members. Society itself would not exist sans its membership. It is an abstract, and is incapable of being benefited or harmed. The measure of benefit or harm should be whether or not its members are living more fulfilled lives or less.
Society is supposed to give individuals more freedom than they would have if the society did not exist. It is supposed to liberate us, not enslave us.
Wasn’t calling you a parasite or a leech. Rather a particular line of thought you expressed. Look, I agree people for the most part ought to be able to do what they wish as long as it’s not destructive. Yet, someone has to build and run the roads, hospitals, grow the food, make sure society is secure etc. Those people make sacrifices and trade offs and is it not fair to ask all of society to contribute as well? Merely being a citizen and choosing to do nothing and expecting others to work and sacrifice is a leech. I’m not saying that’s you, but there are many that do fit into that category.
How is it a waste when the currency spent is never exhausted? The only thing truly wasted is time watching the man play and a the man hours of Jeter and friends. But do you think that society gains more subjective value by watching him play vs an extra bushel of grain or ton of iron ore? The market says otherwise. And who is any one individual to say that the aggregate decisions of hundreds of millions is wrong? On what basis?
The fact that rich societies don’t sacrifice their own standard of living for poor countries proves your point. We make ourselves feel better by enriching the lives of a few poor fellow citizens but fellow humans making a $1/day are more or less on their own.
And how generous is it really to make others pay for your kindness via a larger voting block?
Beyond a certain point what is the marginal value of one additional bolt? Comparing commodities to a rare talent like Derek Jeter, the statue of David, or Prince is missing the point. A random person swinging a stick at a pine cone is not worth much but someone in the top 0.01% of the participating population is. Yes, needs need to be met. But once they are and if you have a secure stable society which is not uncommon you can spend more and more on luxuries and arts. Civilization I-IV ought to have you taught you that.
Valuable is subjective once needs are met. And needs are somewhat subjective as well. And this is why a lot of the commentary is made with the qualifier of a surplus.
I’m not advocating a pure free market with no tax and spend policies. Many government/societal decisions made by wiser individuals than the average citizen are highly useful for increasing productivity. I’m just pointing out that a carrot, a haircut, a bead necklace made by a hippy, and an hr at the opera have no intrinsic dollar value. And just because someone spends their life producing any of the above doesn’t mean they generate the economic value to demand anything from others. What they earn is the economic value.
There are many leftist billionaires who accumulate more wealth. Warren Buffet, George Soros? If they were so convinced of the nobility of the cause of reducing wealth and income inequality they could very easily write a check and prove it.
And yet without these individuals, we wouldn’t have social workers, criminologists, police officers, public defenders, or prison wardens. Or rehab facilities. If it weren’t for criminals, there would be little demand for guns, self-defense classes, security guards, and home security systems.
I owe my livelihood to the existence of water pollution. If it weren’t for “bad guys” discharging pollutants into surface waters, yours truly wouldn’t be a productive member of society.
Or maybe I would. Maybe I’d be doing something else, like running a soup kitchen (for people too lazy to work) or running a literacy program for adults too lazy to learn when they were youngsters. But I guess not, if we are to subtract these people out of the picture too.
If it weren’t for sinners, there would be no need for religion. Priests, preachers, ministers, and rabbis would be rendered obsolete if you were to remove the dregs of social morality. Mind you, I think this is a good thing. But the people who show their worth through ministry would probably disagree.
Such things make life more livable. Without art, philosophy, literature, entertainment, and such pleasures, what would we be? A central part of the human experience is wanting more than simple subsistence. Why bother to live if you don’t get to do anything other than eat, sleep, and shit? Food, clothing, and shelter make living possible, but art, literature, philosophy, entertainment, and so forth are what make living worthwhile.
Of course. But does she have less value as a human being? Not as an economic entity.
And economics would say that if that CEO didn’t do the job, the hole would be filled. i.e. he doesn’t have worth in aggregate in a monetary value as an individual. Those people working for that company might not have jobs when he puts the company under, but other people somewhere else working for another company would when the hole is filled.
Or, they could engage in political advocacy to raise taxes on the wealthy, while giving away vast sums to charity, like Buffet does. That would actually achieve their goals, which is why they do it.
Okay, first off, thanks. Because from my perspective, I’m often treated as such by both The Government and people opposed to said government, on both sides, but mostly by people on the right. I’m not one opposed to government either, even if I’m on the far far left. And I agree that there are a lot of useless people everywhere. No argument there from me. I’m just saying that a lot can and should be done on a societal level to achieve the same success as we have in science and technology and that the solutions aren’t necessarily economic ones, fundamentally. Maybe some sectors would thrive with little government-interaction, apart from third-party commisions evaluating transparency and practice. But some sectors needs active encouragement, facillitation and policing by the government to actually function. Any sacrifice I make benefit some, on some level, if that money is mine or not is actually a technicality. If I buy a sweater from H&N, I support H&N and their practises with my money on an ideological level. If the money I spent was technically a loan from my government, does that then mean that my government endorses my endorsement? Are they as my provider responsible for how I use the money they lend me? Should they be responsible in teaching me how to spend my money? If I give away the hypothetical sweater to some cold bastard on the street in the middle of the night, does that mean that he takes over my endorsement? Is he the cynic now, and am I free again? Do we share the responsibility of buying and wearing endorsements from H&N and their childworkers together, or am I perhaps alone in that responsibility?
…
Everyone fits into many different, sometimes strange categories, but at some point its getting pretty irrelevant which category it is. You’re doomed to lose perspective. People are people and will continue to put up with it or not, no matter what happens.
Some people think it’s pretty cool building roads. I thought it was pretty nice cleaning toilets, as long as I had time to do other things off hours. Lots of people like being an electrician, even if it is really hard work. Most people find something they like doing, many need more time figuring out what that is than is expected of our respective societies, and so many people make mistakes or detours along the way. Some get lost and need rehabilitation. Not much more we can aim for, really.