Over the past few weeks, I have featured a number of articles and quotations that have referenced various facets of the well-to-do. You can expect to see more such citations of this ilk in the future. As an admitted socialist, some of you may be under the wrong impression that I view wealth as inherently evil. If that is what you think, you're wrong!
I understand that different levels of experience and expertise will mean different levels of financial remuneration. I have no problem with the notion that a janitor, accountant, doctor or teacher with 20 years experience should, on average, earn more than someone starting out. I also realize that it makes sense for a brain surgeon to earn more per hour or per year than someone who flips burgers.
While I grant the idea that economic differences or inequalities are part and parcel of any form of society, my beef has less to do with some people earning more than others and more to do with people from all walks of life giving back to society in proportion to what they take out or benefit from.
I subscribe to the phrase coined by Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This phrase recognizes that we each have different skills and abilities to offer our communities. As indicated above, I acknowledge that different skill sets will result in different pay levels.
For me, however, the key aspect to Marx's quote is the second clause concerning each person's needs. This is where I have a problem with the well-to-do. Their needs are not altogether different than yours or mine. Put another way, we each basically have the same needs.
But the wealthy in the US, in particular, have confused desire with need and so the second clause for this nation would read: to each according to his desires. People with more money than any one person needs will use that money to satisfy all sorts of wild and crazy desires.
How many vehicles, homes, wristwatches, pairs of shoes or yachts does a person need? Is a gold-plated toilet more functional than one made from porcelain? Does every person need their own private jet or helicopter?
When a person substitutes fulfilling their desires at the expense of the needs of others, I have problem with that. When a person hoards resources that others need just to get by, I have a problem with that. When the poor and middle class are forced to cough up the money to pay for services we each benefit from and the rich wriggle out of paying their fair share, I really have a problem with that!
Most of all, I have serious problem with mandating that the least able must hand over money time and again to the most able. To me, that is egregiously unethical and immoral.
In other words, my complaint isn't with wealth itself; it is with irresponsible wealth -- wealth that honors no obligation to the society that assisted in its creation.
I understand that different levels of experience and expertise will mean different levels of financial remuneration. I have no problem with the notion that a janitor, accountant, doctor or teacher with 20 years experience should, on average, earn more than someone starting out. I also realize that it makes sense for a brain surgeon to earn more per hour or per year than someone who flips burgers.
While I grant the idea that economic differences or inequalities are part and parcel of any form of society, my beef has less to do with some people earning more than others and more to do with people from all walks of life giving back to society in proportion to what they take out or benefit from.
I subscribe to the phrase coined by Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This phrase recognizes that we each have different skills and abilities to offer our communities. As indicated above, I acknowledge that different skill sets will result in different pay levels.
For me, however, the key aspect to Marx's quote is the second clause concerning each person's needs. This is where I have a problem with the well-to-do. Their needs are not altogether different than yours or mine. Put another way, we each basically have the same needs.
But the wealthy in the US, in particular, have confused desire with need and so the second clause for this nation would read: to each according to his desires. People with more money than any one person needs will use that money to satisfy all sorts of wild and crazy desires.
How many vehicles, homes, wristwatches, pairs of shoes or yachts does a person need? Is a gold-plated toilet more functional than one made from porcelain? Does every person need their own private jet or helicopter?
When a person substitutes fulfilling their desires at the expense of the needs of others, I have problem with that. When a person hoards resources that others need just to get by, I have a problem with that. When the poor and middle class are forced to cough up the money to pay for services we each benefit from and the rich wriggle out of paying their fair share, I really have a problem with that!
Most of all, I have serious problem with mandating that the least able must hand over money time and again to the most able. To me, that is egregiously unethical and immoral.
In other words, my complaint isn't with wealth itself; it is with irresponsible wealth -- wealth that honors no obligation to the society that assisted in its creation.
I don't know that the problem is needs/desires and abilities, but rather who makes the determination. This is a nice enough sentiment, but applied to world affairs...
ReplyDeleteWho decides? CEOs? School prinicpals? Mao Zedong? Stalin? Democrats? Republicans? Unions? Regulatory agencies?
There's the rub. Show me where this works in practice. Maybe Bhutan?
This goes to the heart of Taoist philosophy: Each person should decide. That said, such decisions should be based on ACTUAL need, not on wants and desires.
ReplyDelete