Re: Wealth is Relative
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The explanation is that as the average income increased, the amount of stuff people need to be average increased as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Capt Obvious. Again... what's the point?
[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that the distribution of wealth in society matters, and the fact that a janitor today is better off than a king in 1492, does not matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
A janitor compares his station in life to the lives of people who are alive today, not to people who've been dead 500 years or more.
His sense of satisfaction with his station depends not on whether he has stuff, but on how much stuff he has in relation to others.
Wealth is a relative, not an absolute measure.
Of course, you can argue that it's stupid to base your sense of self-worth or happiness on how much stuff you have... but that's another argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
So the fact that a janitor today lives longer and healthier than a 15th century king, and doesn't have to contend with flea and lice on his person, and has a minor problem rather than a major problem if he gets a toothache - all these things are irrelevant?
Which would you rather be:
1. a rich 15th century nobleman with poor health, and fleas and lice, and a wife that hardly bathes, and both of you have permanently bad breath; and often your food is spoiled or spoiling -
or
2. a janitor today with plenty of healthy food and a clean reasonably healthy lifestyle and enough money to pay the bills and have a modest decent apartment or small house?
Do you suppose toothaches aren't a source of dissatisfaction as long as everybody walks around with a toothache most of the time?
I agree that people do compare their positions to those of others, but they [/i]also[/i] compare their positions with where they would like to be solely for themselves. If I want a toothache treated, that has nothing to do with how many opther people are walking around with toothaches. If I want a comfortable retirement income, I don't much care if someone else can retire with 10 times as much, as long as I have enough to satisfy my reasonable wants and needs. If I don't have enough for that, that is a problem; but if I do, and if The Donald has 1,000 times that, I don't really care.
It sounds like you are pretty fixated on the notion of inequality and that you may someone who evaluates your happiness almost entirely by comparing your situation with others. May I suggest that that is a skewed outlook if it is all that you weigh when deciding what you want or need or will be happy with. Sure it is part of your outlook, but if it is by far the principal part of your outlook, then that suggests to me some sort of psychological fixation that prevents you from being happy with your own good fortune or things if some others happen to have more.
If I have a delicious, absolutely delicious roast beef Sunday dinner once a week, I'm not upset or dissatisfied if my neighbor has Chateaubriand every night. It isn't really that important. If you have enough, someone else having more may be slightly irritating at times, but if you are basically well-off, it doesn't matter much. If on the other hand you are actually needy it is a different story. Yet even then the main focus should be how to become not needy, not how to become as rich as the richest in the world else you can't be happy. Something is wrong with the psychological outlook you seem to be affirming.
|