View Full Version : Levels of privilege
I have noticed over the past few years a very noticeable rise in levels of privilege by those who can afford to pay for it. Whether it is a first class seat on a flight, paying to bypass security or board early, driving in the fast lane on the toll road, it seems to be showing up everywhere. Toll roads in general taking over what were once public highways that anyone could drive on. Locally, I noticed one can pay to get early admittance to an annual holiday festival. I guess this has been going on since the beginning of time, but it bothers me that as a society we seem to be caving to privilege and further separating ourselves because some of us can. I understand paying more for a better seat, etc but paying to get special privilege seems wrong. Thoughts?
catherine
12-1-14, 11:36am
As far as travel goes, I am very thankful that I can take advantage of both my elite airline status and my TSA Pre-check. When you spend a couple of weeks a month in airports, I see nothing wrong with the airlines/airports cutting frequent fliers a break.
TSA Pre-check is not a paid privilege--it's common sense for people who travel all the time not to clog up the security lines when they have been proven to not be a threat. I was invited to register for it based on my level of travel. No one asked me for a dime.
Boarding early is only a paid privilege if you use airline mileage as the currency. I get the right to board first because I've flown 25k miles. I think you can pay for it now on some airlines, but I don't.
So, sorry, pinkytoe, I'm going to happily claim my unpaid privileges as far as travel goes, and honestly, I am not seeing more of this pay-for-privilege than I used to. I remember going to DisneyWorld years ago. and they had special VIP lines, for instance.
But in principle I agree with you.
I don't know about other states, but in IL, using the electronic toll payment transponder results in tolls 50% LESS than paying cash.
iris lilies
12-1-14, 11:58am
I have noticed over the past few years a very noticeable rise in levels of privilege by those who can afford to pay for it. Whether it is a first class seat on a flight, paying to bypass security or board early, driving in the fast lane on the toll road, it seems to be showing up everywhere. Toll roads in general taking over what were once public highways that anyone could drive on. Locally, I noticed one can pay to get early admittance to an annual holiday festival. I guess this has been going on since the beginning of time, but it bothers me that as a society we seem to be caving to privilege and further separating ourselves because some of us can. I understand paying more for a better seat, etc but paying to get special privilege seems wrong. Thoughts?
I like the concept of tiered service.
Generally, I think it is stupid to pay more for getting to the same European city on the same plane as everyone on the plane. Or getting "better" access to an event by gaining early access with cocktails. Or etc. etc. Let them who have the dinero pay for that which they value, but I usually don't value that stuff, I think that most luxury choices are completely not worth it. But I would never argue to remove the choice, there is no valid philosophical basis for that outside of Karl Marx. And as someone who has worked on plenty of fundraisers I can tell you that every little bit of $ you can squeeze from donors helps, and if offering extra perks to get those bigger dollars accomplishes that, it's all to the good.
Once in a while, depending on the event, I will pay top dollar for special access to something I think is worthwhile. I don't see these issues you raise as being any different from Neiman Marcus clothing vs. Kmart clothing. Surely you would not advocate that only 1 brand be available for all?
But it is EXACTLY your concern that makes me deeply skeptical of the concept of single payer health care with no option for tiered service. Your discomfort could translate into legislation that removes choices for me, choices for things I am willing and able to pay for. Thank you for expressing this and I know that your thoughts are shared by many. In America we have this idea that class and privilege doesn't exist if we look the other way, or that "should" not exist.
Please tell me how that is ok, for you to control my options. "Further separating ourselves" is a problem in your perception, in my opinion.
catherine
12-1-14, 12:07pm
Once in a while, depending on the event, I will pay top dollar for special access to something I think is worthwhile.
…..
But it is EXACTLY your concern that makes me deeply skeptical of the concept of single payer health care with no option for tiered service.
With regard to Comment #1, I agree it's within the right of the ticket-sellers to provide these incentives, but what I hate is when there's a concert that's bound to be a sell-out, and they give American Express card holders first dibs. I admit it--that's frustrating, because I might not get a ticket.
As for Comment #2, I don't think you can put healthcare in the same bucket as concert tickets or airline travel. If two people have terminal cancer and Patient #1 dies because they can't afford the level of care that Patient #2 can, that just doesn't seem fair, or humane.
But I'll still take my pre-boarding privileges, thank you.
iris lilies
12-1-14, 12:36pm
...
As for Comment #2, I don't think you can put healthcare in the same bucket as concert tickets or airline travel. If two people have terminal cancer and Patient #1 dies because they can't afford the level of care that Patient #2 can, that just doesn't seem fair, or humane.
But I'll still take my pre-boarding privileges, thank you.
Fairness, now there's a concept. I think we all remember what our mothers said about that in life. And the "humane" label can sometimes be a knee jerk reaction to vague feelings of discomfort about differences in treatments of groups of people, just as the OP illustrates.
If both patients have Standard Western Medical treatment available and one of them wishes to pay for some sort of experimental treatment, you are not ok with that? Since no outcome can be guaranteed I wouldn't express this as one patient died and the other did not. I'd express it as options for treatment.
If someone wishes to jump to a head of the line by visiting Harley Street physician when patient #2 stays in the line, even if it means that #2 will be seen and treated in a reasonable way that meets standards, why is that not ok?
catherine
12-1-14, 12:50pm
Shoot, if we're about to embark on another healthcare discussion, that will totally hijack pinkytoe's thread.
However,
My point is to say that healthcare should not be treated the same as other products such as tickets or travel or t-shirts. And that's a purely philosophical difference that you and I will have until the cows come home, IL. :)
In general, I think that a) the culture has to completely change in order to be supportive of good health so that the paying-for-it part isn't as horrible as it is now and b) I believe that we each have a right to equal access to healthcare, just like we each have a right to equal access to voting.
In answer to your questions, in the first situation, I do think people die, lots of them, because they can't afford a basic level of care (which Obamacare has started to address, thankfully). As far as experimental treatments, how many of those are actually efficacious? Because of that I don't have as much of a problem with people paying extra for experimental treatments.
As far as your second situation, as long as the Patients-in-Waiting eventually get the same treatment as the Rich Leap-Frogging Patient, I have no problem with that either, as long as people in line don't die waiting.
What is "wrong" about it? That people are receiving different quality goods and services for different prices?
"Further separating ourselves" is a problem in your perception, in my opinion.
Must be the way I was raised but I never stop wondering how "those less fortunate" navigate this world or what motivates people to do certain things. Would I feel differently if I were wealthy or if my company paid for it? I can't say for sure since that is not my reality. I don't recall these layers of payment extending to just about everything. Not to mention how it complicates what should be simple choices. I am glad we have options but for many, that is not the case. I am concerned that we just don't care.
Some of this "separateness" is likely due to the technology now being available. The toll issue for example. You didn't have the transponders 30 years ago. For the record, many of the highways in the Chicago area are tollways.
I'm not sure that anything mentioned so far constitutes a privilege any more than paying extra for broccoli from Whole Foods when cheaper broccoli can be had from Kroger is a privilege. I think what many people are willing to pay extra for is some sort of value added experience or convenience, and I don't see any problem with that.
There have always been levels of separateness. People would pay for better hotel rooms, private train sleeping compartments, so they're not sleeping in a seat.
If some people chose to pay for convenience and the like, so what?
There will always be people with "more." Even under the Commies.
iris lilies
12-1-14, 3:03pm
Must be the way I was raised but I never stop wondering how "those less fortunate" navigate this world or what motivates people to do certain things. Would I feel differently if I were wealthy or if my company paid for it? I can't say for sure since that is not my reality. I don't recall these layers of payment extending to just about everything. Not to mention how it complicates what should be simple choices. I am glad we have options but for many, that is not the case. I am concerned that we just don't care.
OP, so far you haven't given any examples that define unwarranted privilege that I should care about. And, I use the adjective "unwarranted" loosely since that would be up for debate.
I consider my lack of unhappiness at the privileges others have to be a mark of my good mental health. Should I really whip myself into an unhappy frenzy just because some socialite pays $250 for a ticket to see the Impressionist exhibit at the Art Center the night before it officially opens to the general public? Really? (The great unwashed public pays nothing, by the way.)
The fellow in the slip next to mine has a $4 million yacht, capable of crossing oceans in far greater comfort and style than my wee tugboat. I have to walk past that thing every day. It's shameful...
I'm not sure that anything mentioned so far constitutes a privilege any more than paying extra
Perhaps you're right...
Perhaps you're right...
As I said above, I agree with you in principle--and that principle is that the less we can separate people on the basis of money or class or privilege or any other false construct, the better off we'll be. I think your discomfort is really a lot bigger than the examples you've provided--Charles Eisenstein (Ascent of Humanity) and Tom Shadyac ("I AM") speak very eloquently about this issue of The Story of Separation. Here's 2 minutes of Charles Eisenstein. If you get a chance to watch the documentary I AM, you'd probably enjoy it
http://www.iamthedoc.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XSetJdaJm28
Are we seeing this argument being played out in the "net neutrality" debate?
Are we seeing this argument being played out in the "net neutrality" debate?I think they're very similar in that both net neutrality and the lamentation of "privilege" pre-suppose that if one chooses to pay extra for added value, those who choose not to/cannot afford to pay extra are somehow harmed.
In practicality both create a "lowest common denominator" environment where luxury cars, first class tickets, gourmet coffee, etc., violate some sort of fairness doctrine where "fair" is defined by others.
Gardenarian
12-1-14, 7:36pm
I think the privilege thing has a sort of snowball effect.
For example, you grow up with middle class parents who make sure you get to the dentist and orthodontist.
They nag you to do your homework, and improve your personal grooming, and apply to college.
You grow up eating a healthful diet and have a wealth of activities that both educate you and keep you in shape. Maybe you travel.
You go to college and end up hanging out with people like yourself, and those friendships, connections, and the way you learn to relate to people all help you when you go to apply for a job.
They also help determine what field you might be likely to choose. Auto mechanic or architect? Software designer or hair stylist?
Which then generally leads you to a certain income bracket and a particular lifestyle.
Then you have kids...
I never signed up for the TSA security thing, but DD and I are always allowed to skip the whole thing. Why? Because we have traveled enough that they know we are not a risk? I don't know - but I suspect if we were poor people of color getting on a plane for the first time, we'd have to do the full check.
(I wasn't able to watch the video - maybe later.)
kimberlyf0
12-1-14, 7:59pm
We've noticed that many theme parks have this as well. Not just a reservation system that everyone can use, but the opportunity to pay more to get to the front of the line. Now, I'm over theme parks anyway (not so young anymore, I guess) but it seems like it just makes everyone else wait longer.
As for early access to art exhibits, those are usually fund raisers for the museums and I won't begrudge them that.
We live in an area with toll roads; we have a transponder because one of the toll roads is free if you have three people in the car but you must have the transponder. We use it occasionally on pay toll roads if traffic is terrible; not only do we save time, but we create fewer emissions by not creeping along in traffic. But most of the time we choose not to use it if it isn't free. One could argue that the lanes be available to all, but they wouldn't even get built in that case; private companies build them and collect the tolls.
I think money has always been able to get you more. Higher quality clothing, front row tickets vs. nosebleed, etc.
ApatheticNoMore
12-1-14, 8:09pm
I wouldn't assume all middle class parents are like that. We went like 5-6 years of not going to the dentist at kids because parents were so absentminded (it really wasn't even money, though it may have been cheapness). But maybe we had good nutrition, as we had no cavities when we finally went to the dentist again, so I guess that bet paid off. I only wish my teeth were that resilient as an adult.
Yes we had to do homework, personal grooming, eh we bathed and brushed our teeth and so on, though I was constantly teased for my appearance and never knowing what to do with my hair, but yea I bathed at least. Apply to college well we were encouraged to apply to Cal States and really encouraged to go to the community college. We did go to the community college, it was pushed heavily.
I never had any help applying for a job (I had to learn how to dress for a job interview). I wish I had any help determining which field to choose. I talked to professionals about that as I was basically on my own with the decision (as a young adult) but I never got good help there either, in fact mostly got pretty horrible help. It's mostly luck and some innate qualities things didn't end up worse.
Yes we were middle class, but I mostly feel I raised myself regardless of what "class" my parents were in. Isn't class a pretty poor shorthand for good parenting anyway? As in extremely inaccurate ... there's middle class parents that are both alcoholics etc.
I would not support tolls roads (I might use them but ...).
Teacher Terry
12-1-14, 8:53pm
In general I agree with IL but not on healthcare. That is very different from the other things mentioned. Actually people that qualify for experimental treatments don't pay-the drug companies do if you are chosen. Much of the criteria is based on your health at the time.
My experience was much like ApatheticNoMore's. I was expected to do well in school, but that was about it. The only advice I got was that it was as easy to fall in love with the president of a bank as with the spittoon cleaner. Equally attractive options...Thanks Mom!
Someone once said of Tom Harkin "He's a self-made man and he has the chip on his shoulder to prove it." I know exactly how he feels.
ok, I'll throw one out there that is probably in line with what the OP is concerned about. Luxury building was built on the upper west side of manhattan recently. In order to receive certain tax breaks the owners/builders had to include a specified number of "affordable housing" units for non-rich people. The building has 2 entrances. A front entrance for full price residents and a side entrance for the "affordable housing" units.
Fair?
iris lilies
12-1-14, 11:45pm
ok, I'll throw one out there that is probably in line with what the OP is concerned about. Luxury building was built on the upper west side of manhattan recently. In order to receive certain tax breaks the owners/builders had to include a specified number of "affordable housing" units for non-rich people. The building has 2 entrances. A front entrance for full price residents and a side entrance for the "affordable housing" units.
Fair?
Is that even enforceable? Do the low income residents have a whole different elevator? I'll bet that they do. I'll bet that their lobby is plain.
Seems right to me, they are paying less for fewer amenities. At least, if I were the rich tenants in this case I would expect my lobby to be built to impress my friends and I am paying for that.Probably I have a better address as well, maybe Park Ave. while the others have a 7th ave address or something like that.
As as poor person I'd be happy that I managed to get a great new apartment in a nice neighborhood and I don't have to pay nearly as much for it as the fool on Park Ave.
iris lilies
12-1-14, 11:49pm
Agree with catherine that turning this into another interminable discussion about health care in America derails the thread. But I see tiered service work in the animal health care world because I use a variety of veterinarians ranging from just-the-basics to high end specialists. If it's good enough for dogs, it's good enough for humans.
There's another example from manhattan involving a building that is about 1/3 rent stabilized and the remainder market rental price. The owner, in an attempt to get the max rent he can for the full price units, installed a gym and, I believe, a couple of other 'amenities'. The rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use those amenities. Separate lock on the gym door with keys only given to the full price tenants and signs on the door saying don't let people in who don't have a key. No option for the stabilized tenants to pay extra for the use of the gym.
Also fair?
ApatheticNoMore
12-2-14, 12:18am
On a day to day basis, for living daily life and not at all a luxury good, access to freeways is a lot more important than healthcare, unless one happens to be immediately in need of healthcare.
The owner, in an attempt to get the max rent he can for the full price units, installed a gym and, I believe, a couple of other 'amenities'. The rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use those amenities. Separate lock on the gym door with keys only given to the full price tenants and signs on the door saying don't let people in who don't have a key.
If I was one of the rich tenants I'd probably be sneaking the poor tenants in ("I didn't see anything .... how did they get in the gym?"). But I doubt I'm the target market for an apartment like that.
iris lilies
12-2-14, 12:35am
There's another example from manhattan involving a building that is about 1/3 rent stabilized and the remainder market rental price. The owner, in an attempt to get the max rent he can for the full price units, installed a gym and, I believe, a couple of other 'amenities'. The rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use those amenities. Separate lock on the gym door with keys only given to the full price tenants and signs on the door saying don't let people in who don't have a key. No option for the stabilized tenants to pay extra for the use of the gym.
Also fair?
Again, seems right to me.
I remember a job I had decades ago at a University. The staff room was defined for use by full time staff but not students in work-study or other positions. I didn't know that and invited a friend who was working there in a student job into the lounge. ack, that was awkward.
At another place of employment professionals and managers (defined by the degree and position) earned more vacation than non-professionals. That was also awkward, and that changed soon after to an across-the-board rate of vacation for all.
Bus company has a policy of making some people sit in the back of the vehicle but lets others sit in the front of the vehicle.
Still fair?
What if they allow certain passengers to pay an extra nickel to,sit in the front of the bus but tell other passengers "I won't accept your extra nickel to sit in the front. Go sit in the back."
Still fair?
I guess the question I'm asking is does it make a difference if we're talking about an "occasional" perquisite like a faculty lounge or airport high mile frequent flyer lounge versus something as basic as amenities at the person's home. Is it all the same or is there something 'wrong' with limiting access to perqs in some situations but not others? And is the right to something as basic as the right to use the front door of a building really just another perquisite or does it speak to injustice on a deeper level?
flowerseverywhere
12-2-14, 8:13am
I am old enough to remember restaurants and water fountains with "whites only" signs. Now that was ugly.
It it is easy to forget that most societies were built on the privileged exploiting to less priveliged. Poor people toil away in dirty dangerous factories while the owners and bosses reap the profits. Many of the U.S. founding fathers were salve owners. Modern day elected officials all over the world receive perks and favors we can only dream of.
it is my choice how hard I want to work and what I want to spend my money on. Communism, working for the collective good did not work out so well in Russia.
Miss Cellane
12-2-14, 8:15am
Is there some new kind of toll road? We have tolls on the interstates around here, but everyone has to pay them. People who get the transponder can occasionally go through a fast lane that doesn't require them to stop or slow down, but that's the only benefit I can see.
But this argument brings up something I've been thinking about. So many people have been dying from Ebola, yet most of the US citizens who have caught it have survived. I can't help thinking that is because, as a whole, people from the US are better fed, have had better health care all their lives than many or most of the victims in Africa. Because even the poorest in the US have some access to better food and health care than many in Africa.
Better health care after contracting Ebola is also a factor, but I've been wondering if just having a stronger, more robust immune system, developed through years of better eating and better medical care, isn't a factor as well.
That's a huge level of privilege.
I see nothing wrong with paying extra to get something extra. i belong to a private country club, I like to golf and generally the private clubs are much nicer. I'm an equity member so I have a stake in keeping things nice, as do the other members. And many here also pay extra to get to see the better doctors, they pay a few hundred a month for the doctor to accept them as patients. And they still have to make sure they accept their insurance.
But like Bae and his boat,I pass by some very nice jets at the airport next to my hangar for my lowly single engine plane. Why don't we all get to own jets?
In general, I think that a) the culture has to completely change in order to be supportive of good health so that the paying-for-it part isn't as horrible as it is now and b) I believe that we each have a right to equal access to healthcare, just like we each have a right to equal access to voting.
This is the crux of the matter: where is the line drawn between rights and privileges, between needs and wants. When the line slides too far, it becomes a threat to a solid existence; for example, for a displaced Sudanese child to have to pay for clean water, even a sip from a hose, the line has shifted from wants (lemonade) to needs (drinking water).
I get it, even in that situation - or especially in that situation - if there is not enough for all, those with a sou will get what they need and those without will not, they will die. It's the ultimate example of supply and demand. But even in a society like ours where basic human rights are met for everyone, there is still an uneasy feeling if it seems that line is creeping closer to the bone. Today my lemonade is gone, tomorrow will I have anything to drink at all?
Although it grates to be a "have not" at times, I think it's important to recalibrate my feelings on occasion; am I envious of someone else's lemonade, or am I dying of thirst?
catherine
12-2-14, 11:20am
]
it is my choice how hard I want to work and what I want to spend my money on. Communism, working for the collective good did not work out so well in Russia.
With all due respect, that's like saying I'm going to stop driving a car because my Dodge Dart was a piece of crap. It's that kind of either-or thinking that will keep us from finding a way out of the atrocious inequalities and environmental devastation we have today. (I'm not picking on you, flowers.. the assumption that capitalism and a growth economy is the only way has been imprinted in our collective DNA)
I'm not an economist and I would find it difficult to articulate in this forum what some alternatives might be, but they do abound. Read Korten, Eisenstein, Piketty, Speth.
At the very least, the Danish people don't seem to be complaining about the high tax rate they have which provides cradle-to-grave security. They're the happiest country, and have been for several years.
I think kib comes closest to understanding what I am trying to convey and apparently not getting across. Another line of thought occurs to me...maybe this is mostly about corporate profits being at the heart of many of these changes. And if that's the case...those who choose to pay extra might be the fools for blindly accepting and "paying" the price. As an example, one by one, highways in my city are being privatized and turned into tollways. These are roads that have already been paid for through federal and state funds/taxes but now turned over to corporations to "manage". Those of us who don't want to pay have the option in most cases but not all of driving "down below" on the access roads where we have to stop at those pesky stoplights. Another example...back to the airlines. On many carriers, one pays extra for early boarding, extra leg room, etc. Or one can save a little by sitting in the teeny-tiny seats back by the stinky toity. I seem to recall a time when all economy seats were the same size and price and the only separation was business/first class. Trying to think of other examples...
That is the slippery slope of capitalism that I find worrisome, Pinky Toe. At the moment, capitalism is about the cost of lemonade (privileges). But it has crept into the cost of drinking water (rights, needs) wherever that has been made possible by corruption or scarcity. God Bless The USA and all that, but the only thing that's keeping our capitalism at the "lemonade level" is our overall level of wealth. And the further that level polarizes, the more it threatens the drinking water for the people on the bottom.
I think we're seeing this with health care. My worry is that as the cost of the deluxe package is raised to the breaking point - how much is IL willing to pay for her special process? Let's find out! - it causes creep in the overall cost. If IL can pay another $50K, surely it's not unreasonable to modify and then raise the cost $5K for everyone's care. Which is annoying if we're talking about internet or airline tickets, but it could be life threatening if it happens to an essential process.
catherine
12-2-14, 12:07pm
=My worry is that as the cost of the deluxe package is raised to the breaking point - how much is IL willing to pay for her special process? Let's find out! - it causes creep in the overall cost.
I have done several market research studies on price sensitivity--what is the breaking point in cost at which doctor's won't prescribe it or payers won't cover it. And you can bet that when drugs are launched, it is at the apex of that breaking point, and not a dime less. Trouble is, no one is actually taking all the money out of their own pockets, so that threshold is wildly inflated.
iris lilies
12-2-14, 12:08pm
I guess the question I'm asking is does it make a difference if we're talking about an "occasional" perquisite like a faculty lounge or airport high mile frequent flyer lounge versus something as basic as amenities at the person's home. Is it all the same or is there something 'wrong' with limiting access to perqs in some situations but not others? And is the right to something as basic as the right to use the front door of a building really just another perquisite or does it speak to injustice on a deeper level?
Your bus example removes the financial qualifier and makes it different from the other examples.
Housing is a good and service, it costs something, those who pay less get less. Park Ave side or 7th Ave side, one side is paying more than the other.
iris lilies
12-2-14, 12:14pm
That is the slippery slope of capitalism that I find worrisome, Pinky Toe. At the moment, capitalism is about the cost of lemonade (privileges). But it has crept into the cost of drinking water (rights, needs) wherever that has been made possible by corruption or scarcity. God Bless The USA and all that, but the only thing that's keeping our capitalism at the "lemonade level" is our overall level of wealth. And the further that level polarizes, the more it threatens the drinking water for the people on the bottom.
I think we're seeing this with health care. My worry is that as the cost of the deluxe package is raised to the breaking point - how much is IL willing to pay for her special process? Let's find out! - it causes creep in the overall cost. If IL can pay another $50K, surely it's not unreasonable to modify and then raise the cost $5K for everyone's care. Which is annoying if we're talking about internet or airline tickets, but it could be life threatening if it happens to an essential process.
I'll pay what it's worth to me. And frankly, I won't have enough money to pay for high end human health treatments, I don't have that kind of money.
But I do have that kind of money for veterinary treatments and I damned well do not want someone telling me that I can't, for instance, pay for the service that drives my dog 2 hours each way to get radiation treatment at the U of MO vet school each month because this tax supported institution should not be offering such an elitist service.
The "creep" is happening in veterinary practices. My old vets retired. Their prices were rock bottom and they practiced simply, referring more complex cases out to specialists and sending out many (most?) fluid tests out to labs. I loved them because they were the cheapest in town, they neutered my 65 lbs dog for $75. Can't beat that! But now that they are gone, their replacements are younger, they want to practice more agressive medicine, and prices are already up.
The issue for me is when the price point gets so high that some people simply can't afford an apartment at all. Price wars among the rich eventually trickle down to those with nothing.
iris lilies
12-2-14, 12:23pm
The issue for me is when the price point gets so high that some people simply can't afford an apartment at all. Price wars among the rich eventually trickle down to those with nothing.
Already in NYC many people, not just some, can't afford an apartment. If the 1% want their toilets cleaned, their children nannyed, and their pets walked, they are gonna have to come up with a way to house low paid workers near enough to them to get the jobs done.
And assuming everyone wants to be serf, that works very nicely.
Seriously that is true, those who want to reign supreme will have to find a way of supporting the people underneath them, but it's not a great system; leaving the well being of the poor in the hands of the rich tends to work out a lot better for the rich.
Housing is a good and service, it costs something, those who pay less get less. Park Ave side or 7th Ave side, one side is paying more than the other.
Agreed. In the running for the first world problem of the year. Suppose the rent controlled folks could find something more grand in their price range a short train ride away in Queens? I just can't manage to work up much sympathy when the comparison of lifestyles is at that level. But that doesn't negate the OP...
In the US I think about vacuum cleaners. At the nosebleed end of the spectrum you can buy the Suckmaster 5000 that comes with one micron filters, aromatherapy, virtually silent operation, GPS, a trained operator in a French maid outfit, etc. and costs about triple what the average American makes a year. Does such a wondrous machine make the lives of the uber-rich better? Arguably, yes. It will suck up more dirt, mites, dead skin or whatever than a $39 Hoover from WalMart. But that's not the question, is it? The question is whether or not someone owning the Suckmaster make the lives of the people who can't afford it (or are too sensible to buy it) worse? Some of those folks might be jealous of the high end sweeper, but they are not worse off because it exists or because someone else is willing to pay for it. And it would not be right for the government to attempt to guarantee a Suckmaster in every closet or lemonade in every fridge.
the price point gets so high that some people simply can't afford an apartment at all.
Gentrification is occurring all over the central areas of my city since upper income folks want to add a close in location to their checklist of attainments. Developers are given incentives to put a few lower cost units in their sky towers but they can buy their way out of it by coming up with some other thing like an extra tree.
Then we can get into the privilege of eminent domain, where destroying someone's home for "the public good" means that Trump can build another casino in Atlantic City. (I just signed a petition in support of keeping one man's family home from demolition by the Casino Development Authority in AC.)
Teacher Terry
12-2-14, 1:10pm
Vet care costs a fortune here & I have known people that have had to either PTS their pets or give them to the humane society because they could not afford it. The HS here provides the treatment or surgery but then adopts out to a new home-they can't go back to the previous owners. It really is a shame that things have gotten so out of hand because it will affect pets ability to get a home. I bet the vets here are doing better then the doc's. Low malpractice because you can only sue for the worth of the pet since they are property.
Your bus example removes the financial qualifier and makes it different from the other examples.
Housing is a good and service, it costs something, those who pay less get less. Park Ave side or 7th Ave side, one side is paying more than the other.
Except for the apartment with the gym example. In that situation the owner of the building will not even let the stabilized tenants pay extra to use the gym. His goal is clearly not to recoup the cost of the gym, it's to make the stabilized tenans feel like second class citizens and hopefully slink off in shame to live somewhere else thus freeing up their apartment to become market rate.
Then we can get into the privilege of eminent domain, where destroying someone's home for "the public good" means that Trump can build another casino in Atlantic City. (I just signed a petition in support of keeping one man's family home from demolition by the Casino Development Authority in AC.)
Didn't Revel go out of business? (I might be wrong on that)
Aren't there enough casinos in AC already?
ToomuchStuff
12-2-14, 1:28pm
I'll pay what it's worth to me. And frankly, I won't have enough money to pay for high end human health treatments, I don't have that kind of money.
But I do have that kind of money for veterinary treatments and I damned well do not want someone telling me that I can't, for instance, pay for the service that drives my dog 2 hours each way to get radiation treatment at the U of MO vet school each month because this tax supported institution should not be offering such an elitist service.
The "creep" is happening in veterinary practices. My old vets retired. Their prices were rock bottom and they practiced simply, referring more complex cases out to specialists and sending out many (most?) fluid tests out to labs. I loved them because they were the cheapest in town, they neutered my 65 lbs dog for $75. Can't beat that! But now that they are gone, their replacements are younger, they want to practice more agressive medicine, and prices are already up.
Part of it is creep, and part of it is higher expenses. New practice means no history of no malpractice, etc (higher insurance), as well as new equipment, building space, etc. that have to be paid for (higher costs and guess where they get passed along to).
I have done several market research studies on price sensitivity--what is the breaking point in cost at which doctor's won't prescribe it or payers won't cover it. And you can bet that when drugs are launched, it is at the apex of that breaking point, and not a dime less. Trouble is, no one is actually taking all the money out of their own pockets, so that threshold is wildly inflated.
I think you have it backwards, EVERYONE is taking money out of their pockets in the form of higher prices spread around.
Think about it this way, all the stores that have items shoplifted, while they can't sell them right away for a quick profit, the costs of them get spread around into the total of the other products, so in the end they don't lose money and go out of business, but the non thieves pay for the thief.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine when we talked about cell phones. I use an older Nokia candy bar style and pay less then $100 a year for my use. He uses one given to him by someone higher up in the company (don't know if it was CEO or marketing people) and doesn't have to worry about price (either the phone company or his employer covers it), because they want x to be seen with it (celebrity endorsement and/or cross branding deals). That happens with a lot of things and x (doesn't have to spend money on them, because in the end it brings money to the companies). I saw a similar discussion on Leno once. When you don't need the help, you get it, because your actually helping the companies providing you with items.
Same thing happened with staff friends at, at least one of our local stadiums. Their kids all had the latest shoes etc, as a benefit.
TV shows due the same, they push people to pay for privilege items and in return those who show them on tv, get them for free or get paid to be seen with them. Doesn't matter if it is the latest do dad, or Jenny Craig.
That said, a late football player I knew, supported more people around him then what is the average for some "celebrity" making what he was making. (his bad checks with signature went for decent money, yet are surprisingly common from him), and was horrible about paying his bills (either on time or at all) and argued with my friend about why does x hang with common people instead of their class. It isn't just about money, but attitude as well.
ApatheticNoMore
12-2-14, 1:35pm
As an example, one by one, highways in my city are being privatized and turned into tollways. These are roads that have already been paid for through federal and state funds/taxes but now turned over to corporations to "manage". Those of us who don't want to pay have the option in most cases but not all of driving "down below" on the access roads where we have to stop at those pesky stoplights.
that is straight up messed up, those roads were build by tax dollars and they were probably built by eminent domain. People were no doubt driven out of their houses to build them with whole neighborhoods bulldozed etc.. If someone wants to argue no highways should have been built in the firstplace, fine whatever, I can see the point (and you'd have a very different and probably much more local society but not necessarily worse), just not of making those roads already seized and funded and built toll roads that by the very fact of their existence made road use more and more necessary.
While I do see fancy vacuum cleaners as luxury (sheesh jeez even if you had no vacuum cleaner for months to save up for a used one, who other than germophobes really cares?) I don't see the entrances to apartments that way. Granted NYC is an expensive city. But the landlords didn't build the low income units out of kindness to provide for low income residents and I don't know why they got a tax break. It's doubtful it's even good for low income residents in any sense. Maybe it lessens their commute or something, well that's a good. And maybe the neighborhood they would live in otherwise is extremely dangerous (but should basic safety be a luxury? I ask that without offering a comprehensive solution to crime or something but ...), so they choose that. Ok I can see the good points in either of those cases. But on the other hand they'd be better off in many ways in a poorer neighborhood where daily humiliation to get in and out of the apartment building wasn't a way of life. It might turn out to be on net much more healthy for them even with a longer subway ride - hard to say and yes their choice as it stands now, I'm saying regarding the landlords as having done low income residents a favor is questionable.
If the apartments were just somewhat nicer inside or something I could probably see it (and somewhat nicer is maybe the difference between having a half bar or not but it isn't the difference between having running water and not - running water I suppose will be called a "1st world problem"), but the entrances are very public.
ToomuchStuff
12-2-14, 1:44pm
I think kib comes closest to understanding what I am trying to convey and apparently not getting across. Another line of thought occurs to me...maybe this is mostly about corporate profits being at the heart of many of these changes. And if that's the case...those who choose to pay extra might be the fools for blindly accepting and "paying" the price. As an example, one by one, highways in my city are being privatized and turned into tollways. These are roads that have already been paid for through federal and state funds/taxes but now turned over to corporations to "manage". Those of us who don't want to pay have the option in most cases but not all of driving "down below" on the access roads where we have to stop at those pesky stoplights. Another example...back to the airlines. On many carriers, one pays extra for early boarding, extra leg room, etc. Or one can save a little by sitting in the teeny-tiny seats back by the stinky toity. I seem to recall a time when all economy seats were the same size and price and the only separation was business/first class. Trying to think of other examples...
This thread has been going so fast (and my browser crashed when I first started reading this), that this was one I wanted to respond to.
While the current view has companies as individuals, when it comes to rights (free speech/political, etc), remember they are run by people (don't all have to be US citizen's, nor are they all US companies, as so many are global, like small government's/countries), things swing side to side. It is generally considered a person/companies right to be greedy, and they want to make EVERY action a billable event. There have been air/oxygen bars even, getting people to pay for the "privilege" of something they do anyway.
People fight back and technologies typically become involved (think of the effect of the VCR and how all tv's were cable ready for a long time), and it swings their way. Now companies (cable in this example) have pushed for and got the right to encrypt cable, including local/free channels, and it swings their way again. (all the while going back to pay for cable verses tv, and trying to make/take control of digital rights, etc)
Ebb and flow.
ToomuchStuff
12-2-14, 2:01pm
While I do see fancy vacuum cleaners as luxury (sheesh jeez even if you had no vacuum cleaner for months to save up for a used one, who other than germophobes really cares?) I don't see the entrances to apartments that way. Granted NYC is an expensive city. But the landlords didn't build the low income units out of kindness to provide for low income residents and I don't know why they got a tax break. It's doubtful it's even good for low income residents in any sense. Maybe it lessens their commute or something, well that's a good. And maybe the neighborhood they would live in otherwise is extremely dangerous (but should basic safety be a luxury? I ask that without offering a comprehensive solution to crime or something but ...), so they choose that. Ok I can see the good points in either of those cases. But on the other hand they'd be better off in many ways in a poorer neighborhood where daily humiliation to get in and out of the apartment building wasn't a way of life. It might turn out to be on net much more healthy for them even with a longer subway ride - hard to say and yes their choice as it stands now, I'm saying regarding the landlords as having done low income residents a favor is questionable.
In a way, that is going to forced integration verses discrimination argument. (like the schools here did with KC)
Talking to older people, while the US is a melting pot, their were typical communities that were all German, or Polish, or Black, etc. People would stick to their own familiarities in neighborhoods that they could afford. If they couldn't afford it, their would be some other area they looked that typically was their group, unless work or some other reason meant they would move into someone elses group. (then you would here about the German/Jew/Black, etc in that area) Then you had the long series of discrimination lawsuits that made neighborhood schools a thing of the past, with forced bussing. (and people moved out of Kansas city school districts, or into)
Now, schools are trying the driscrimation act, in my state, via economics (we have fewer people/tax base, and can't afford x that bigger schools have).
Economic "discrimation" has other factors. Yes, they may get subsidized living in an expensive area, but what about the businesses (private enterprise) that can't be forced to subsidize? (as people are discussing) Are they going to be able to save money to "change classes", or is their local cost of living, shifting from one category, to another?
flowerseverywhere
12-2-14, 6:02pm
With all due respect, that's like saying I'm going to stop driving a car because my Dodge Dart was a piece of crap. It's that kind of either-or thinking that will keep us from finding a way out of the atrocious inequalities and environmental devastation we have today. (I'm not picking on you, flowers.. the assumption that capitalism and a growth economy is the only way has been imprinted in our collective DNA)
I'm not an economist and I would find it difficult to articulate in this forum what some alternatives might be, but they do abound. Read Korten, Eisenstein, Piketty, Speth.
At the very least, the Danish people don't seem to be complaining about the high tax rate they have which provides cradle-to-grave security. They're the happiest country, and have been for several years.
I dont think you are picking on me.
Here is how I see it. Joe#1 works for acme widgets. He shows up on time, properly groomed, does what he is asked etc. joe#2 goes the extra mile. Arrives a half hour early, helps others with their work, volunteers for special projects and attends evening school to get an advanced degree. After five years joe #2 makes 1.5 times what joe #1 does as his extra effort and enthusiasm is rewarded. Should he be able to drive a nicer car, have a nicer apartment or house, and get a more expensive seat in the theater if he chooses to? His priveliged are earned.
As as far as higher taxes, I havenever complained because I support many social programs and especially think schools should be well financed. We are people who hve paid a nice chunk into property and school taxes, social security As well as federal taxes. We are far from the 49% which makes me feel very lucky indeed. But I also don't begrudge people who have ore than me.
But I do have that kind of money for veterinary treatments and I damned well do not want someone telling me that I can't, for instance, pay for the service that drives my dog 2 hours each way to get radiation treatment at the U of MO vet school each month because this tax supported institution should not be offering such an elitist service.
I think it's complicated. I agree, no one should tell you you can't. But how long before someone with dollar signs in their eyes decides that this has to be the new standard for radiation therapy, and refuses to treat my cat unless it arrives in the special $500 carrier with a paid professional escort and a limousine owned by the Director's brother in law because it's "a safety issue" or "proven less stressful"? It's a silly example, but it seems like every day something that was a possibility flies out of reach because of granny talking my ear off about specialty walking shoes while I try to gather my thoughts about a small toe box and pressure on her toenails because she wears an 8.5 and her left foot is her biggest foot ...
Ahem. sorry. it seems like every day someone finds a new "value added" way to make money that pushes formerly affordable, or at least in-the-running services out of reach by adding unnecessary nonsense to a potentially useful thing.
kimberlyf0
12-2-14, 7:43pm
Is there some new kind of toll road? We have tolls on the interstates around here, but everyone has to pay them. People who get the transponder can occasionally go through a fast lane that doesn't require them to stop or slow down, but that's the only benefit I can see.
We have toll roads like you describe as well as toll lanes on regular freeways. Sometimes they are free or reduced rate for 3+ carpools, and they take the place of carpool lanes. But they do allow people who are willing to pay to bypass some of the traffic (because not everyone will pay to be on them, so they generally don't have traffic). Even our regular toll roads speak to privilege, however, because they are built to bypass crowded freeways. If I can afford $8 I can use a toll road to get to father-in-law's house about 15 minutes faster if there is no traffic, and perhaps an hour or more faster if there is traffic. Time is money, money is time. I choose not to use it if there isn't traffic, but if I am choosing between a 75 minute trip and a trip that will take twice that, I will pay.
I dont think you are picking on me.
Here is how I see it. Joe#1 works for acme widgets. He shows up on time, properly groomed, does what he is asked etc. joe#2 goes the extra mile. Arrives a half hour early, helps others with their work, volunteers for special projects and attends evening school to get an advanced degree. After five years joe #2 makes 1.5 times what joe #1 does as his extra effort and enthusiasm is rewarded. Should he be able to drive a nicer car, have a nicer apartment or house, and get a more expensive seat in the theater if he chooses to? His priveliged are earned. ...
That's funny. My observation after years of (mostly) corporate work was that the amount of honest effort put forth was inversely related to the amount of money raked in. At the top, you can do nothing but **** up and still get piles of money on the way out.
As greed becomes the overriding value in our society, where everything is "branded" and "monetized," and the commons--from health care to prisons, to roads and schools, is privatized, we seem to be moving toward a kind of hellish Dickension dystopia in which only the robber barons prosper and everything has a price. I'm usually an optimist, so I hope the younger generation can turn this around.
That's funny. My observation after years of (mostly) corporate work was that the amount of honest effort put forth was inversely related to the amount of money raked in. At the top, you can do nothing but **** up and still get piles of money on the way out.+1
I should have explained more about the tollways in the Chicago area. We have a large number of them - I-90, I-88, I-294, I-355. If you have the I-Pass (transponder, $50, which includes $40 worth of tolls, the other $10 is a refundable deposit), you get a 50% discount on tolls. So, at least in IL, the quicker way is the cheaper way. If you pay cash, you have to wait in sometimes very long lines at the few tollbooths left. The transponders are easy to get, at the customer service desk of a very large grocery chain here.
This gives you an idea of the toll costs.
http://www.illinoistollway.com/tolls-and-i-pass/toll-information/rates-by-toll-plaza
Since we're talking about privilege here, I thought I'd post this. I'd say it's a good example when thinking about privilege went into the deep end and drowned itself.
http://www.thehoya.com/i-was-mugged-and-i-understand-why/
flowerseverywhere
12-2-14, 11:33pm
That's funny. My observation after years of (mostly) corporate work was that the amount of honest effort put forth was inversely related to the amount of money raked in. At the top, you can do nothing but **** up and still get piles of money on the way out.
Very sad. Not my experience I. The world of brilliant physicians and medical support staff.
iris lilies
12-3-14, 1:18am
Except for the apartment with the gym example. In that situation the owner of the building will not even let the stabilized tenants pay extra to use the gym. His goal is clearly not to recoup the cost of the gym, it's to make the stabilized tenans feel like second class citizens and hopefully slink off in shame to live somewhere else thus freeing up their apartment to become market rate.
oh I don't think so, but if you view everything through a prism of feelings then I guess this would be a shaming situation. It's what you make of it.
That's not my viewpoint, I'm not easily shamed. It's a simple monetary transaction where the high rent tenants get the perks, period.
Money buys options, that's why I like money and I tend not to spend it on things that others consider high end. I like to save it for options that really matter to me.
I don't feel shamed or embarrassed that my house is half the price of the one across the street. I am happy that there are now a lot more expensive houses on my street than when I bought 25 years ago. That will ultimately work in my favor. Living in a nice rent controlled apartment in a nice neighborhood would work in my favor as well and I would think I'm getting the better deal and the people paying high rent are chumps.
ApatheticNoMore
12-3-14, 3:38am
Here is how I see it. Joe#1 works for acme widgets. He shows up on time, properly groomed, does what he is asked etc. joe#2 goes the extra mile. Arrives a half hour early, helps others with their work, volunteers for special projects and attends evening school to get an advanced degree. After five years joe #2 makes 1.5 times what joe #1 does as his extra effort and enthusiasm is rewarded. Should he be able to drive a nicer car, have a nicer apartment or house, and get a more expensive seat in the theater if he chooses to? His priveliged are earned
The thing is I don't think Joe #2 is necessarily any better in any real sense than Joe #1. Maybe Joe #1 is actually kind of heroic in resisting the social pressure to earn more, earn more, and more etc.. Or maybe he's just lazier or any number of things. Maybe the worse explanation is more likely but it's an impossible generalization.
It's like suppose there are two women: one is extremely focused on their appearance spends two hours in the gym every day, invests a lot of attention in their hair, maybe even has done a little extra "done" but noone knows, the other plain old jane (not the jane that posts here :laff:) just goes about their life. Maybe it would be unfair if plain jane got more dates than the first woman. But what if the criteria for everything depended on being the good looking one? Like living in a neighborhood where you don't hear gunshots every night, or living in a neighborhood that isn't poisoned with toxic waste, or ability to drive on the freeway to one's job, or sending your kids to a school where they might have a future, or not seeing your kids sent to prison where wealthier kids walk etc.. Then it would be messed up. I think it's about as messed up to base everything on the values expressed in money, even IF it expresses some real human values it certainly doesn't represent them all (and you'll get legitimate pushback on whether it even represents some human values - because noone differentiates between the "deserving rich" and "undeserving rich", but maybe they should - that money is not all moral (the money of the CEO of BP), in some cases it's not even legal (HSBC was laundering drug money for instance)).
It's unhealthy to envy anyone who has more stuff or "covet"? - a world where human value is communicated as being based so heavily on money (and not innate and not earned by other means) might seem an inhospitable world as far as discouraging envy and coveting.
flowerseverywhere
12-3-14, 5:42am
Apathetic, I see your points. I guess my view is that we all decide what we are willing to do for money. Some people figure out how to make a lot of money without being exploitive. Some people never figure it out. Starting poor, of color, surrounded by violence etc. are factors that make it much more difficult to climb the class ladder.
But it the OP was about privilige. Some people covet it. Some don't care. Some flaunt their wealth. And some people who are big spenders are one tiny disaster away from losing it all. The key is to figure out where you want to be on the spectrum and work for that level of materialism, privileges and lifestyle, and to at one point say aha, I have enough for me and my family. That spectrum will be at very different points for different people.
I dont think you are picking on me.
Here is how I see it. Joe#1 works for acme widgets. He shows up on time, properly groomed, does what he is asked etc. joe#2 goes the extra mile. Arrives a half hour early, helps others with their work, volunteers for special projects and attends evening school to get an advanced degree. After five years joe #2 makes 1.5 times what joe #1 does as his extra effort and enthusiasm is rewarded. Should he be able to drive a nicer car, have a nicer apartment or house, and get a more expensive seat in the theater if he chooses to? His privileged are earned.
I agree in theory. Unfortunately my 45 years of real world experience in working for a living tends to tell a very different story. It doesn't matter if Joe 2 goes the extra mile. My experience has consistently been that hard work and merit have very little to do with salary and earnings. Joe 1 will make more if...he is more attractive than Joe 2, OR is taller than Joe 2 OR has better social skills than Joe 2 OR has grey hair while Joe 2 does not OR is a far more skilled ass kisser than Joe 2, OR has better connections than Joe 2.
I would love it if success (and the benefits that result) was related to hard work, selflessness, extra education, effort and drive. Unfortunately I have consistently found that it is related far more to looks, charm and connections.
I agree in theory. Unfortunately my 45 years of real world experience in working for a living tends to tell a very different story. It doesn't matter if Joe 2 goes the extra mile. My experience has consistently been that hard work and merit have very little to do with salary and earnings. Joe 1 will make more if...he is more attractive than Joe 2, OR is taller than Joe 2 OR has better social skills than Joe 2 OR has grey hair while Joe 2 does not OR is a far more skilled ass kisser than Joe 2, OR has better connections than Joe 2.
I would love it if success (and the benefits that result) was related to hard work, selflessness, extra education, effort and drive. Unfortunately I have consistently found that it is related far more to looks, charm and connections.
My experience exactly.
ApatheticNoMore
12-3-14, 6:28pm
I'm not sure I've worked consistently for quite the level of incompetence in the higher ups described here :). You can say that say mid-management is at that level because they are better/smarter/work harder than the worker bees. But then I've worked at companies where mid-management was tossed out entirely every few years (rather like a new years resolution), and sometimes regarded as completely absurd afterwards ("why did anyone think agile would work in such a regulated industry, what was anyone even thinking? etc."). Maybe mid-management was paid more on account of extreme job INsecurity ... :)
It doesn't matter if Joe 2 goes the extra mile. My experience has consistently been that hard work and merit have very little to do with salary and earnings.
It's certainly not the ONLY factor. Quality of work (as opposed to hours on the clock or something) is often very hard for management to actually evaluate accurately, the people with the good reputations might be those who actually produce junk when you look under the hood etc..
And yes social skills will be part of it, hard to deny that they are to some degree in EVERY field (of course some more than others - sometimes you can sneak through with some social retardation but those don't tend to advance as fast and as far).
I would love it if success (and the benefits that result) was related to hard work, selflessness, extra education, effort and drive.
I don't know, a true meritocracy would be as cruel a dictatorship as any conceivable. Who doesn't know they've gotten jobs at times when surely there are people with more impressive education and job experience that were probably passed over? And who isn't grateful for the luck? And it is luck because what is more arbitrary than interviews? And I've been on the other side with the people making the decision, I'm too soft for that type of role, but I see the bias depending on just who people would like as a friend etc. which isn't even kinda fair. There may be skills test etc. which are more objective, but it's usually mostly based on subjective opinion.
The way ahead to advance even for Joe #2 who wants to advance isn't always clear, in all economic conditions, in all jobs, in all stages of life etc.. It's often as murky as could be.
Since we're talking about privilege here, I thought I'd post this. I'd say it's a good example when thinking about privilege went into the deep end and drowned itself.
http://www.thehoya.com/i-was-mugged-and-i-understand-why/
Good article, Tradd. Thanks for posting.
Good article, Tradd. Thanks for posting.
+1
although I think Tradd posted it as an extreme example of too much empathy and not enough punishment/consequences ...
That's funny. My observation after years of (mostly) corporate work was that the amount of honest effort put forth was inversely related to the amount of money raked in. At the top, you can do nothing but **** up and still get piles of money on the way out.
+1
Golden parachutes - it happened so often they had to come up with a term for it. Good example: google Angelo Mozilo, formerly of Countrywide which blew up so spectacularly in the Great Recession.
I was thinking of Carly Fiorino and Eddie Lambert, the Ayn Rand afficionado who recently drove Sears into the ground, but I know there have been many more.
+1
although I think Tradd posted it as an extreme example of too much empathy and not enough punishment/consequences ...
Yes, Lainey has it correct.
iris lilies
12-3-14, 11:08pm
Yes, Lainey has it correct.
ah, I think catherine knows that. People will have different take aways from information, so be it.
Me, I love this line for its ridiculousness: Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me.."
So many things wrong with this, but hey, I'm happy that the victim has a glass half full view. What exactly constitutes "bad people?" if they give you a bonk on the head? A hammer to a knee? Are only full on rapists bad people? Them and murderers of course. What about the f*cktards who broke into my house carrying a weapon to hit my tiny, sweet dog? What if she had actually barked at them and they plonked her, would they be "bad" then?
Really, I don't give one actual f8ck what the author considers "bad" because that label isn't relevant. I do consider the author and anyone who think like him/her to be a toady. I am annoyed that they live in my world.
And yes social skills will be part of it,
The older I get, the more I'm convinced that social skills are not just merely part of career success, but are in actuality the most crucial skill/gifts one could have in the workplace.
I know it is just anecdotal and may be subject to recency bias, but I was just at a family gathering of several dozen members of my family. Of all the people there, three of them stood out as having had spectacular career success. Two of those individuals barely made it through college by the skin of their teeth. Two of them have admitted that they do very little work ( direct quote from one of them..."I don't do any actual work. I just make decisions".)
The one thing that all three of them have in common is not brains, nor work ethic, nor quality of education. The one thing all three of them have is that they are all very charming people. All three of them also are relatively attractive.
Emotional I.Q. - very important.
I actually feel sorry for the socially awkward - seems like there should be a "charm school" for lack of a better word for someone to give them pointers on how they can navigate the world better.
And I agree, also anecdotally, that the most successful business people I've seen were good looking (not necessarily movie star level but easy on the eyes) and engaging. I would add to that a high energy level - this seems almost mandatory these days with the 24/7 communication, the expected travel, etc. Old movies that show an old attorney or CEO with a big belly and suspenders and smoking cigars are that much more laughable now.
+1
although I think Tradd posted it as an extreme example of too much empathy and not enough punishment/consequences ...
While I would not likely be capable of writing a similar article after being mugged, and I think the guy may have gone a little over the top, I appreciate that he's at least acknowledging that extreme inequality is part of the problem. People with halfway decent jobs and prospects aren't likely to commit street crime. They become banksters where the take is much better and the likelihood of jail much less. People with shit prospects don't have much to lose so why wouldn't they be much more likely to go mug someone. It would seem that there are two ways to deal with the problems inequality causes. 1) figure out how to reduce the equality. 2) the people with 'more' better add a lot more guns/police/etc to the 'more' that they have. After all, stop and frisk is only a problem if you're part of the group getting stopped and frisked.
I'll pay extra if it's important to me. I will upgrade to first class if the price is reasonable. It's a question of comfort. I don't pay extra for early boarding; I never carry on a bag, so I don't have to worry about staching anything. As far as concert tickets, depends on who it is. I will pay if it's someone I'm crazy about.
rodeosweetheart
12-6-14, 2:27pm
Pinky, I just flew to Orlando to give a presentation at Disneyworld, and noticed exactly what you were talking about, both with flying and with Disneyworld itself. Very off putting, and really don't wish to fly or go back to Disneyworld itself.
Pretty soon, my beautiful America is going to feel like one big gated community. Ugh.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.