To be clear, Lloyd, I am FULLY on board with the concept of sufficiency.
A bit about me for context. I'm 60. My average annual income from age 18 to present is well under $20k. Likely close to $15k. It did not cross the $10k line till I was past the age of 50. I've never been in debt. I've never been homeless. I've never wanted for food. …
To be clear, Lloyd, I am FULLY on board with the concept of sufficiency.
A bit about me for context. I'm 60. My average annual income from age 18 to present is well under $20k. Likely close to $15k. It did not cross the $10k line till I was past the age of 50. I've never been in debt. I've never been homeless. I've never wanted for food. I've had a rich life. (And no, I'm not a trust fund baby!)
Up until my mid 40's, I really believed that the problem was us (individually) and that I couldn't be critical if I didn't walk my talk 110%. I've done almost a full 180 from that position in the past 15 years. Yes, we still have some responsibility as individuals but I firmly believe that the vast majority of the problem is systemic and not solvable by individuals.
However...
It has been driving me a little crazy as of late that it is so difficult to push for cultural change. I think cultural change is a better way to think about individual change. Any one of us or even a lot of "one of us's" (no idea how the hell to spell that!) Is not going to move the dial. But a lot of us's will. So yeah, cultural change. And the pushback against that is so strong and angry. As you point out here, the false equivalencies are ridiculous. As if there is nothing between living in a mansion and living in a hole in the ground wearing a hair shirt. It's just ridiculous! I have no problem with the idea of some people living in a big house and some people living in small apartments. However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires. And just say that today in our culture gets you labeled as a communist, libtard, woke whatever. Even our governments won't talk about it.
This was super long-winded but I just want to say thanks for pushing sufficiency but at the same time, let's keep the pressure on the rich m'kay?
That is why I think that sociologists should be given more prominence and influence. I heard a lecture on 'practice theory' that got close to what we need to understand why groups (not individuals) behave in particular ways and provide clues as to what might effect change. Elizabeth Shove is a case in point in the UK and Dana Fisher is a sociologist at the American University with a new book Saving Ourselves.
>>” However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires.“
Why not? And why is YOUR world vision the correct one? Because you’ve lived a life of austerity which most people would never accept for themselves?
Those billionaires that you loathe are, for the most part, just like you and I—only they were more innovative, clever, intelligent, or accepting of risk tolerance than virtually everyone else on the planet. If someone builds a better mousetrap, and EVERYONE wants that mousetrap, does he not build them their mousetraps? Does he not deserve compensation?
What exactly is the problem with capitalism here that sticks in your craw?
No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want. After all, an ethical person would never be a billionaire, as they would use that money and the power associated with it to do good in the world. No-one needs to be a billionaire, it's just pure, selfish, unethical greed, nothing more.
"No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want."
And your concrete proof is...what?
Look, I personally don't know any billionaires so I can't speak to their moral compasses. Maybe I do but never knew they were that successful because they acted like normal people.
However, I do know a number of millionaires and they got that way because they were smart and could recognize opportunity when it appeared and when it did, they were READY because they had put in the effort to train themselves to be ready when it showed up. They also had SEVERELY elevated work ethics and the overarching sense of goal setting for themselves. They plain just outwork "normal" people.
And you are dead wrong about being "thoroughly unethical". And no, I am far from being in that socioeconomic stratosphere so I'm only able to gauge their behavior and not their riches.
While I know a couple that might fit your talking point description, most are kind, friendly, and willing to help when they can. However, know that they have to make hard decisions about their companies because they know that they are providing for their employees. They don't always get it right and that might be what you are complaining about in having to cut people loose but remember, is some aren't let go, EVERYONE is let go.
To be clear, Lloyd, I am FULLY on board with the concept of sufficiency.
A bit about me for context. I'm 60. My average annual income from age 18 to present is well under $20k. Likely close to $15k. It did not cross the $10k line till I was past the age of 50. I've never been in debt. I've never been homeless. I've never wanted for food. I've had a rich life. (And no, I'm not a trust fund baby!)
Up until my mid 40's, I really believed that the problem was us (individually) and that I couldn't be critical if I didn't walk my talk 110%. I've done almost a full 180 from that position in the past 15 years. Yes, we still have some responsibility as individuals but I firmly believe that the vast majority of the problem is systemic and not solvable by individuals.
However...
It has been driving me a little crazy as of late that it is so difficult to push for cultural change. I think cultural change is a better way to think about individual change. Any one of us or even a lot of "one of us's" (no idea how the hell to spell that!) Is not going to move the dial. But a lot of us's will. So yeah, cultural change. And the pushback against that is so strong and angry. As you point out here, the false equivalencies are ridiculous. As if there is nothing between living in a mansion and living in a hole in the ground wearing a hair shirt. It's just ridiculous! I have no problem with the idea of some people living in a big house and some people living in small apartments. However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires. And just say that today in our culture gets you labeled as a communist, libtard, woke whatever. Even our governments won't talk about it.
This was super long-winded but I just want to say thanks for pushing sufficiency but at the same time, let's keep the pressure on the rich m'kay?
That is why I think that sociologists should be given more prominence and influence. I heard a lecture on 'practice theory' that got close to what we need to understand why groups (not individuals) behave in particular ways and provide clues as to what might effect change. Elizabeth Shove is a case in point in the UK and Dana Fisher is a sociologist at the American University with a new book Saving Ourselves.
>>” However, NOONE should be living on the street and NOONE should be living in a mansion! There's no room in my world for billionaires.“
Why not? And why is YOUR world vision the correct one? Because you’ve lived a life of austerity which most people would never accept for themselves?
Those billionaires that you loathe are, for the most part, just like you and I—only they were more innovative, clever, intelligent, or accepting of risk tolerance than virtually everyone else on the planet. If someone builds a better mousetrap, and EVERYONE wants that mousetrap, does he not build them their mousetraps? Does he not deserve compensation?
What exactly is the problem with capitalism here that sticks in your craw?
No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want. After all, an ethical person would never be a billionaire, as they would use that money and the power associated with it to do good in the world. No-one needs to be a billionaire, it's just pure, selfish, unethical greed, nothing more.
"No, most billionaires got there by being thoroughly unethical, willing to hurt people, animals and the planet to get what they want."
And your concrete proof is...what?
Look, I personally don't know any billionaires so I can't speak to their moral compasses. Maybe I do but never knew they were that successful because they acted like normal people.
However, I do know a number of millionaires and they got that way because they were smart and could recognize opportunity when it appeared and when it did, they were READY because they had put in the effort to train themselves to be ready when it showed up. They also had SEVERELY elevated work ethics and the overarching sense of goal setting for themselves. They plain just outwork "normal" people.
And you are dead wrong about being "thoroughly unethical". And no, I am far from being in that socioeconomic stratosphere so I'm only able to gauge their behavior and not their riches.
While I know a couple that might fit your talking point description, most are kind, friendly, and willing to help when they can. However, know that they have to make hard decisions about their companies because they know that they are providing for their employees. They don't always get it right and that might be what you are complaining about in having to cut people loose but remember, is some aren't let go, EVERYONE is let go.
And the true minimum wage is $0.
Kind of like all politicians are crooks? Or is it just "most"?
I do not tolerate personal attacks on readers. I have deleted your last comment.