Sometimes I'm writing to clarify my own thoughts, and sometimes it's easier to clarify things when I create a target audience. A mental figment of my imagination. So some of my posts are directed inward, and some are directed more to my mental figment of a target audience.
Is that figment based on reality? I don't know. I imagine it's the mindset of our movers and shakers. The ones we'd have to persuade if we wanted change. (yes, yes, grassroots can be pretty effective as well. My 'mental figment' could be a stand in for the general public, and sometimes it is. For some topics, however, the general public is not who needs to be persuaded.)
So anyways. I know this figment is a stand in for a group of people like anyone else. They have different opinions. They are good people and bad, and most are probably a mix of both. And in my head - they're not bad people, not really. Just...
Human. And study after study shows humans are likely to justify things in their self-interest. Claim they are in everybody's interest. Not out of any ill will, they've probably convinced themselves more than anyone else. (Biases are inevitable. Some people use that argument to justify acting on their biases, since it's impossible not to. I think that's yet another self-serving argument for doing what you want. I make this point so we can do a better job of identifying those biases and trying to make good decisions despite them.)
On top of which, humans have a natural desire to believe we deserve the good things that happen to us. So if we're a success, it's obviously because we deserve it. We worked harder. We're smarter. We did the right things. Anyone could do it, and anyone who thinks differently is just a bunch of sour grapes. Unwilling to admit that they did it to themselves, and chose poorly in life.
So I try to capture the events in my own life. The ones that have broadened my perspective, made it easier to see our interconnectivity. I could be affected by my own background - some studies show that the type of crop a farming community grows can make them more or less cooperative. If you need to help each other out to get the harvest in, your more cooperative...and my grandparents were farmers.
Actually, at the local level I think many Americans are more cooperative. Tocqueville's work demonstrated that, though modern society is a bit different. There's concern we've lost some of that social capital, but there are still a number of organizations you can join. If you want. It's just that local communities are more representative of us (with some heavy caveats).
There's a distrust of larger governments - federal in particular - that goes back to a feeling that we don't really own it. Sometimes this is more obvious than others...it's the feeling of some alien outside force coming in and making us do things we don't want to. (That's the heart of complaints about 'big government'.)
Anyways. This figment of my imagination is succeeding, but probably doesn't feel like they're that well off. These are the ones who write long op-eds or blogs about all the nasty comments people make about the 1%. After all, they're struggling to pay for their nanny, and housekeeper, and student loans, and school, etc. (I say this with an exasperated laugh, btw. I know it feels that way. Whether you're trying hard to 'keep up with the Joneses' or live in a big expensive city where you're spending all your money just on house/car/school like so many others.)
Which is another key point for this mental figment. Since they probably live in a community of people who make the same amount of money, work with people with similar lifestyles, are friends with people who have similar lifestyles...they have absolutely no perspective on what it's like for the vast majority. They think their experience is the norm.
I'll illustrate with another Brigade position. Someone suggested we should eliminate taxes on anyone making less than $100,000 a year. Sounds like a nice progressive, liberal position to take right? Help out the less fortunate, make it up by squeezing those who can afford it, etc. Consider, though, that the median household income is about $52,000 a year. Eliminating taxes like this would eliminate taxes on everyone except about 6 or 7% of our population.
Key points here - First, this is household income. That means either single individuals or the combined income of two parents. That also means each individual in a dual-income family is probably making less than $50K...probably more like 20K and 30K each.
Second, this is the median. It's important to note the difference between median and average, and I picked median for a reason. The median means that half of our entire population makes less than $52,000 a year. And half make more. Yes, cost of living matters. $52,000 gets you a lot more when you live in a small town, and a lot less if you live in New York or Chicago. Yet the median income in New York isn't much different than the national income, which means if you think you're struggling in New York with a six figure salary...half the population is trying to do the same on $50,000 or less!
The '1%' you've heard so much about starts with an annual income of around $345,000. And anyone who makes six figures or more is about 6 or 7% of our population.
So yes, dear figment of my imagination, you have it good. Damn good. If need be, you have the resources and could find a way to live with a lot less than you have. Most people do.
This isn't to say you have to live with less. It's just pointing out that the vast majority of Americans are perfectly capable of doing so.
Immediately I feel a wall go up. That's why I made the point above. You start talking about how good the 7% have it, and they start thinking you intend to take it all away. They earned this money, they can't sustain their lifestyle without it, and they don't feel like any sort of redistribution of income would be fair. I could get into a whole slew of economic arguments here. (Penalizing the ones who are working hard, enabling those who don't, unsustainable spending...you've pretty much heard them all and are already familiar with them.)
At this point, I kind of feel like nothing I can say would break down that wall. These beliefs are built on a strong foundation, there's arguments and counterarguments and the figment of my imagination is not willing to be easily persuaded.
Which is a shame, since the figment I just described is yet another step in the rise and fall of nations. We've seen this before, though the story plays out over hundreds of years. An elite solidifies it's hold on the levers of power. It has all sorts of arguments for why it should be where it is, and is resistant to alternative voices. So resistant, in fact, that other parts of society are stifled and resentful. Without hope. Ripe for revolution.
Although economic arguments may not see the need to share the wealth, as a society we need people to have a stake in the system. Sure, 9 out of 10 will put their heads down and try to get by. But that 10th? If they feel they can't succeed under the established rules, they start looking outside the rules. (An example I like to give is tied to water and land use in Afghanistan. There were Afghans who built farms around our base in Helmand. The Afghan government calls them 'squatters' and claims that they have no rights to the land. Given the history of the region I'm not sure I believe the Afghan government - it's not like they've been able to produce titles going back hundreds of years - but in some ways it's more about control of resources. This tribe wants control of the irrigatable land, after all they want to eat. Make a living. And the more they have the better, right? Except what do you think the people who 'lose' are going to do? At the point I was aware of, this is mostly theoretical since the Afghan government had not yet pushed the squatters out. But if they did, what would the ones who now have no lands, no way to make a living, and no way to grow food do? Just roll over and die? Or maybe join the Taliban?)
Same point we tried making to the Shi'a in Iraq. Iraq didn't have much of a private sector. Most of the jobs came from the government. And the ban on Ba'athists and those who were employed by the Saddam basically meant the Sunni no longer had any way to make a living. Almost everyone could see what would happen. If the Shiites didn't find a way of giving the Sunnis a place within the system, the Sunnis wouldn't support the system in the first place. (This is easy to see as an outsider, hard to see when you're within the system...and even harder to do. After all, with all the bad blood and history of repression why on earth would the Shiites play nice with the Sunni?)
To try to bring that outsider perspective to our messy internal one - our system works in part because of the American Dream. The belief that if you work hard you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Why should you resent the people who've made it if you're capable of getting there as well?
The complaints about the 1%, the tensions today, the worries about growing inequality...all are tied with the sense that the American Dream is dead. That the door has closed. That you can not succeed by these rules any more.
I am not saying it's right or wrong, but the mental figment of my imagination doesn't understand that you can work your butt off and still drown. I've had employees who were working two full time jobs, plus the obligatory overtime. I do Big Brothers Big Sisters, and my Little's mother is a CNA who also works her butt off...and can't afford a mortgage.
Many are working hard. Very hard. But it's getting harder and harder to get by, and while you are working your butt off the little things that helped you stay afloat are going away. Schools may not be able to provide free lunches to the less well off. (And do you think that kid is going to be able to achieve the American Dream if s/he is too hungry to pay attention in class?) WIC gets cut. And any disaster can wipe you out completely.
Meanwhile, the people who benefited from all your hard work are living it up. Why work 50+ hours a week, struggling from paycheck to paycheck, just so some CEO can by himself a yacht? Or a shareholder, for that matter.
The pressure for change, the things that cause mutterings of 'redistribution of wealth' and 'unfair'...it's not just because of ignorance and envy. It's also because people are questioning the system as a whole. Questioning why should they support it, be a part of it, keep on working when so much of the benefit is going to so few.
Taxes and government regulations are a crude way to address this.
Is that figment based on reality? I don't know. I imagine it's the mindset of our movers and shakers. The ones we'd have to persuade if we wanted change. (yes, yes, grassroots can be pretty effective as well. My 'mental figment' could be a stand in for the general public, and sometimes it is. For some topics, however, the general public is not who needs to be persuaded.)
So anyways. I know this figment is a stand in for a group of people like anyone else. They have different opinions. They are good people and bad, and most are probably a mix of both. And in my head - they're not bad people, not really. Just...
Human. And study after study shows humans are likely to justify things in their self-interest. Claim they are in everybody's interest. Not out of any ill will, they've probably convinced themselves more than anyone else. (Biases are inevitable. Some people use that argument to justify acting on their biases, since it's impossible not to. I think that's yet another self-serving argument for doing what you want. I make this point so we can do a better job of identifying those biases and trying to make good decisions despite them.)
On top of which, humans have a natural desire to believe we deserve the good things that happen to us. So if we're a success, it's obviously because we deserve it. We worked harder. We're smarter. We did the right things. Anyone could do it, and anyone who thinks differently is just a bunch of sour grapes. Unwilling to admit that they did it to themselves, and chose poorly in life.
So I try to capture the events in my own life. The ones that have broadened my perspective, made it easier to see our interconnectivity. I could be affected by my own background - some studies show that the type of crop a farming community grows can make them more or less cooperative. If you need to help each other out to get the harvest in, your more cooperative...and my grandparents were farmers.
Actually, at the local level I think many Americans are more cooperative. Tocqueville's work demonstrated that, though modern society is a bit different. There's concern we've lost some of that social capital, but there are still a number of organizations you can join. If you want. It's just that local communities are more representative of us (with some heavy caveats).
There's a distrust of larger governments - federal in particular - that goes back to a feeling that we don't really own it. Sometimes this is more obvious than others...it's the feeling of some alien outside force coming in and making us do things we don't want to. (That's the heart of complaints about 'big government'.)
Anyways. This figment of my imagination is succeeding, but probably doesn't feel like they're that well off. These are the ones who write long op-eds or blogs about all the nasty comments people make about the 1%. After all, they're struggling to pay for their nanny, and housekeeper, and student loans, and school, etc. (I say this with an exasperated laugh, btw. I know it feels that way. Whether you're trying hard to 'keep up with the Joneses' or live in a big expensive city where you're spending all your money just on house/car/school like so many others.)
Which is another key point for this mental figment. Since they probably live in a community of people who make the same amount of money, work with people with similar lifestyles, are friends with people who have similar lifestyles...they have absolutely no perspective on what it's like for the vast majority. They think their experience is the norm.
I'll illustrate with another Brigade position. Someone suggested we should eliminate taxes on anyone making less than $100,000 a year. Sounds like a nice progressive, liberal position to take right? Help out the less fortunate, make it up by squeezing those who can afford it, etc. Consider, though, that the median household income is about $52,000 a year. Eliminating taxes like this would eliminate taxes on everyone except about 6 or 7% of our population.
Key points here - First, this is household income. That means either single individuals or the combined income of two parents. That also means each individual in a dual-income family is probably making less than $50K...probably more like 20K and 30K each.
Second, this is the median. It's important to note the difference between median and average, and I picked median for a reason. The median means that half of our entire population makes less than $52,000 a year. And half make more. Yes, cost of living matters. $52,000 gets you a lot more when you live in a small town, and a lot less if you live in New York or Chicago. Yet the median income in New York isn't much different than the national income, which means if you think you're struggling in New York with a six figure salary...half the population is trying to do the same on $50,000 or less!
The '1%' you've heard so much about starts with an annual income of around $345,000. And anyone who makes six figures or more is about 6 or 7% of our population.
So yes, dear figment of my imagination, you have it good. Damn good. If need be, you have the resources and could find a way to live with a lot less than you have. Most people do.
This isn't to say you have to live with less. It's just pointing out that the vast majority of Americans are perfectly capable of doing so.
Immediately I feel a wall go up. That's why I made the point above. You start talking about how good the 7% have it, and they start thinking you intend to take it all away. They earned this money, they can't sustain their lifestyle without it, and they don't feel like any sort of redistribution of income would be fair. I could get into a whole slew of economic arguments here. (Penalizing the ones who are working hard, enabling those who don't, unsustainable spending...you've pretty much heard them all and are already familiar with them.)
At this point, I kind of feel like nothing I can say would break down that wall. These beliefs are built on a strong foundation, there's arguments and counterarguments and the figment of my imagination is not willing to be easily persuaded.
Which is a shame, since the figment I just described is yet another step in the rise and fall of nations. We've seen this before, though the story plays out over hundreds of years. An elite solidifies it's hold on the levers of power. It has all sorts of arguments for why it should be where it is, and is resistant to alternative voices. So resistant, in fact, that other parts of society are stifled and resentful. Without hope. Ripe for revolution.
Although economic arguments may not see the need to share the wealth, as a society we need people to have a stake in the system. Sure, 9 out of 10 will put their heads down and try to get by. But that 10th? If they feel they can't succeed under the established rules, they start looking outside the rules. (An example I like to give is tied to water and land use in Afghanistan. There were Afghans who built farms around our base in Helmand. The Afghan government calls them 'squatters' and claims that they have no rights to the land. Given the history of the region I'm not sure I believe the Afghan government - it's not like they've been able to produce titles going back hundreds of years - but in some ways it's more about control of resources. This tribe wants control of the irrigatable land, after all they want to eat. Make a living. And the more they have the better, right? Except what do you think the people who 'lose' are going to do? At the point I was aware of, this is mostly theoretical since the Afghan government had not yet pushed the squatters out. But if they did, what would the ones who now have no lands, no way to make a living, and no way to grow food do? Just roll over and die? Or maybe join the Taliban?)
Same point we tried making to the Shi'a in Iraq. Iraq didn't have much of a private sector. Most of the jobs came from the government. And the ban on Ba'athists and those who were employed by the Saddam basically meant the Sunni no longer had any way to make a living. Almost everyone could see what would happen. If the Shiites didn't find a way of giving the Sunnis a place within the system, the Sunnis wouldn't support the system in the first place. (This is easy to see as an outsider, hard to see when you're within the system...and even harder to do. After all, with all the bad blood and history of repression why on earth would the Shiites play nice with the Sunni?)
To try to bring that outsider perspective to our messy internal one - our system works in part because of the American Dream. The belief that if you work hard you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Why should you resent the people who've made it if you're capable of getting there as well?
The complaints about the 1%, the tensions today, the worries about growing inequality...all are tied with the sense that the American Dream is dead. That the door has closed. That you can not succeed by these rules any more.
I am not saying it's right or wrong, but the mental figment of my imagination doesn't understand that you can work your butt off and still drown. I've had employees who were working two full time jobs, plus the obligatory overtime. I do Big Brothers Big Sisters, and my Little's mother is a CNA who also works her butt off...and can't afford a mortgage.
Many are working hard. Very hard. But it's getting harder and harder to get by, and while you are working your butt off the little things that helped you stay afloat are going away. Schools may not be able to provide free lunches to the less well off. (And do you think that kid is going to be able to achieve the American Dream if s/he is too hungry to pay attention in class?) WIC gets cut. And any disaster can wipe you out completely.
Meanwhile, the people who benefited from all your hard work are living it up. Why work 50+ hours a week, struggling from paycheck to paycheck, just so some CEO can by himself a yacht? Or a shareholder, for that matter.
The pressure for change, the things that cause mutterings of 'redistribution of wealth' and 'unfair'...it's not just because of ignorance and envy. It's also because people are questioning the system as a whole. Questioning why should they support it, be a part of it, keep on working when so much of the benefit is going to so few.
Taxes and government regulations are a crude way to address this.
No comments:
Post a Comment