Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I have an idea. Why has inequality in society (wealth, race, gender, etc.) stubbornly persisted in spite of many decades of efforts to alleviate it? Why has the discussion of privilege only intensified after much work to create equality? Here's idea:
No one actually wants an equal society.
How could you be rich if everyone had the same amount of money? How could you have the best job if all jobs were equally good? How could you be the best scientist if all scientists were equally good? How could you have an especially attractive mate if all people were equally attractive? If all posts on facebook were equally good, then why would it matter which ones you looked at?
In an equal society, there is never any chance to "get ahead" because everyone is equal. There is no such thing as "greatness" because everyone is equally good. No one wants this. Everyone wants the chance to "get ahead." Everyone wants a chance to climb to the top of the pyramid, to be a hero, and to be respected and admired above their peers.
No one wants equality. Every individual wants to live in a society where they, as an individual, are at they top of the social pyramid. People want high status, not equality.
What are your thoughts?
That a good proportion of people want equality but not everyone and certainly not the majority at this point in time. I, for example, like the idea of the type of comfort that being wealthy or selfish might bring however I realise that comes at a price that others pay on my behalf therefore I have to reject that social model because I want to reduce the amount of harm I do to others, directly or indirectly. Many people feel the same however one of the biggest mistakes that socialist thinkers have made in recent times is assuming that, deep down, everyone wants equality. Brexit and Trump are perfect examples of what I mean, as is the success of right-wing politics in Europe. Certain demographics have been convinced that their well-being is more important than that of others, taking advantage of their fear and desire for comfort, feeding their selfishness. This has caused measurable harm to those both out and in the 'in' group demonstrating a powerful message; people will actively harm themselves to perpetuate a social model that provides privilege because the notion exists that they might become one of the privileged and that they should fear not being privileged. It's a powerful message to some and they'll trample on the rights and opportunities of others to that end.
It is, in socio-liberalist terms, deplorable behaviour and the sting is that it's completely avoidable. Social studies have demonstrated that behaviour such as this is learned. We are teaching each other harmful lessons and doing a piss-poor job of policing the consequences, both in opposing those lessons to minimise their propogation, in acting to prevent any harmful actions of those who have learned them and in providing support to those who feel the consequences of those actions.
For me, the most powerful equaliser is the demonstration that no end is achievable if you remove any critical point of added value. A company requires a CEO however without a salesman, the CEO has nothing but a corporate shell; the salesman is nothing without those creating the product; groups of people, working together, require managers to help them organise effort but without the work, management is meaningless; an office may provide a suitable place for work to be carries out but without sanitation, the workforce will quickly fall ill and inoperative. There are countless examples of this however we continue to consider the CEO as more important than a cleaner. The phrase I use to counter that perspective is that 'all work of value is of equal value' consequently, given the value provided by a process or set of processes, all participants should be equally rewarded.
I also see certain governmental responsibilities as necessary to support that type of society: a median level of remuneration, housing, healthcare, education and sustenance must be provided but I think that's a different thread.
(March 6, 2017 at 4:16 am)Alex K Wrote: Indeed, not many people believe that everyone should have the same gender.
No but seriously, there's a difference between equal chances/opportunities and everyone being identical.
Indeed.
Steven Pinker Wrote:first of all, the concept of fairness is not the same as the concept of sameness. And so when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," he did not mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are clones." Rather, that all men are equal in terms of their rights, and that every person ought to be treated as an individual, and not prejudged by the statistics of particular groups that they may belong to.
(March 6, 2017 at 5:00 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Yeah, I agree with other posters that the OP confuses 'equal' with 'identical'.
Sure, everyone would like to have a stroke of luck now and then, but the overwhelming majority of people who enjoy special privileges weren't born into a privileged class, but work their arse off to get where they are (I exempt clerics, criminals, and career politicians).
Most people probably aren't so much looking for that lotto win (although I doubt many would turn it down) as they are looking for a level playing field.
Boru
Gotta disagree here. Most people want more stuff, and they know they can get more stuff by working their asses off, but they don't want to work that hard. Otherwise we'd see a lot more people working their asses off.
March 7, 2017 at 5:25 pm (This post was last modified: March 7, 2017 at 5:29 pm by Mr Greene.)
(March 7, 2017 at 12:03 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: For me, the most powerful equaliser is the demonstration that no end is achievable if you remove any critical point of added value. A company requires a CEO however without a salesman, the CEO has nothing but a corporate shell; the salesman is nothing without those creating the product; groups of people, working together, require managers to help them organise effort but without the work, management is meaningless; an office may provide a suitable place for work to be carries out but without sanitation, the workforce will quickly fall ill and inoperative. There are countless examples of this however we continue to consider the CEO as more important than a cleaner. The phrase I use to counter that perspective is that 'all work of value is of equal value' consequently, given the value provided by a process or set of processes, all participants should be equally rewarded.
Office Cleaner is a low-skilled/unskilled role, A salesman requires a particular personality type and a CEO requires a specialised skill set and thus determines a differentiation in the rate of remuneration.
ergo; minimum wage, commission based and salary respectively.
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?
March 7, 2017 at 8:04 pm (This post was last modified: March 7, 2017 at 8:07 pm by Ben Davis.)
(March 7, 2017 at 5:25 pm)Mr Greene Wrote:
Office Cleaner is a low-skilled/unskilled role, A salesman requires a particular personality type and a CEO requires a specialised skill set and thus determines a differentiation in the rate of remuneration.
ergo; minimum wage, commission based and salary respectively.
Only because of current perceptions based primarily on social class. Why shouldn't sanitation be a skilled job? Do you consider it less valuable than the so-called 'executive' roles? Your response is unsurprising but it typifies an inequitable vocational paradigm. Would it not be better for people to earn according to their contribution rather than some arbitrary social construct?
March 8, 2017 at 3:21 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2017 at 3:24 am by Autumnlicious.)
Relative scarcedy informs market value.
I would expect that if no one would take the job of a sanitation worker, then the market value of those workers would rise or find another source of labor.
March 8, 2017 at 3:08 pm (This post was last modified: March 8, 2017 at 3:11 pm by Mr Greene.)
(March 7, 2017 at 8:04 pm)Ben Davis Wrote:
(March 7, 2017 at 5:25 pm)Mr Greene Wrote:
Office Cleaner is a low-skilled/unskilled role, A salesman requires a particular personality type and a CEO requires a specialised skill set and thus determines a differentiation in the rate of remuneration.
ergo; minimum wage, commission based and salary respectively.
Only because of current perceptions based primarily on social class. Why shouldn't sanitation be a skilled job? Do you consider it less valuable than the so-called 'executive' roles? Your response is unsurprising but it typifies an inequitable vocational paradigm. Would it not be better for people to earn according to their contribution rather than some arbitrary social construct?
How long does it take to train as an office cleaner, what sort of investment would you be looking at for training?
3yrs? 6mths? 1mth? less?
Compare this with managerial training programs. Management qualifications.
This is basic economics, **** all to do with "social constructs".
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?
People want equality. If the CAN get it, they will grab more shit, yeah. If they could be a prince or princess, they would naturally jump at the chance.
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. One is a dream of reality, one is a pipe dream. People can actually want both.
Humans can be greedy jerks, undoubtedly, which is why equality must be legislated.
