[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
While jealousy and the desire to attain a dominant position and to remain on top are perfectly natural human emotions (and probably necessary for survival, especially in more primitive times), the extent of this empathy/lack of empathy for others is likely at the root of our political/sociological differences.
And I believe that it takes a certain intellectual perspective to be able to truly appreciate another person’s lot in life — especially if it’s very different from one’s own — and to have empathy for them…leading to a true desire to see them attain a higher socio-economic/power status that might feel more “threatening” to those already at the top.[/quote]
I don’t know that it’s a lack of empathy. It’s the fact that many people don’t behave as rational economic actors. If you give someone living paycheck to paycheck a $10/hr an hour raise are they going to use that addition money to save and behave rationally or are they going to blow it on junk from China.
No matter what people make there’s always going to be someone on the bottom and if your at the bottom you’re likely to be subject to some scarcity of some resource. The poorest of poor in this country live better than billions of other people on this planet.
I’ve come to realize I can’t put myself in some dumb persons shoes. I just can’t understand the decisions that they make or the things that they deem are important. I also can’t dictate how they should do things either. That’s where the Ivory tower types get it wrong. They can’t force people to behave in a logical economic manner.
I know the flaws with supply side economics but if you want everybody to have a higher standard of living you need to produce more quality goods and services.[/quote]
Agree with your second paragraph, there will always been a top and a bottom, but the extent of the disparity is the issue here, IMO. While “rational” people might think it’s perfectly fine and truly believe with all their hearts and minds that those at the extremes of this wealth/income spectrum “deserve” to be there, more empathetic people will likely look into the “why” of these disparities.
Our circumstances are greatly affected by things over which we have little to no control: where we were born, when we were born, to whom we were born, what race/ethnicity we were born into, the mental and physical “gifts” and disabilities we were born with, our genetic makeup (affecting pretty much everything about us), our natural looks (including metabolism), our size, being in the right place at the right time, social networks, etc…in a nutshell: LUCK. All of this affects outcomes more than anything else…it even affects whether or not we are “go-getters” or “lazy slackers.”
You are coming from the perspective of someone who probably has an above-average intellect and who probably had a relatively easy time getting through school and life, in general. It might be easy for you to see the “rational” choices available to people, but not everyone is able to think in the same “rational” way.
A more empathetic person would understand that we cannot judge everyone else by the same standards that we can/should judge ourselves (assuming we’ve won the genetic/luck lottery). A more empathetic person would likely look to the circumstances from which these poor decision-makers come and try to ameliorate the circumstances that cause them to make these bad decisions.
A higher standard of living does not necessarily require us to produce more goods and services — destroying the earth in the process. There are other models that we can look to that would provide the same (or better) quality of life for the greatest possible number of people.
A Resource-Based Economy is just an example of a different way of looking at things (and I don’t necessarily agree with everything they advocate for). IMHO, we need to think outside of the box if we want to create a better world for ourselves and for future generations.
