Hi Steve, MRB, and John, I hope this post gets through the rigorous screening that I am sometimes subjected to.
I wanted to explore what MoQ may have to say about the gap increase which Steve presents below. This gap is a statistical evaluation of a parameter which is deemed important to the individual. Statistics is a means of rhetoric and is used to sway opinions one way or another. This is true in science, as well as sociology. The manipulation of statistics is well known, and this is especially true when percentages are used. Since I have not seen the data (nor do I wish to) which went into the gap change analysis, I will presume that it represents a real phenomenon. What does this gap represent? In a relative world, which in my opinion Quality seeks to dispel, we are encumbered by percieved differences between static conceptions (such as class). The assumption here would be that the gap presents a situation where the quality of low income earners is made worse by this gap. In this interpretation, the gap would represent a difference in "what one has as compared to what another has", and the actual having is not as important as the difference in having. If Quality did indeed present itself as simply relativistic, perhaps this would be an appropriate conclusion. That is, the riches of one make the less rich unhappy (high quality creates low quality). In the United States there is a perception of class mobility. However, one could live under the assumption that there is no such mobility and that we are born into the caste we will remain in. In such a case, this gap would be seen as a social inequity, and certainly cause riots in the street. That is, gap would represent a rigid caste system within the US. However, if one believes in the possibility that one can improve one's "relative" living conditions through hard work and responsibility (ie earn more money), then this gap serves as motivation for one to try to achieve one's life goals (which could well be seen as happiness). It is difficult to separate the numbers from the attitude since money is counted in numbers and happiness is counted in attitude. If one rigorously ties one's attitude to money, then a numberical measurement of happiness results. The relativity of such numerical measurements, gives reason to blame an increasing gap for one's personal unhappiness. So, what does Quality have to say about this? In my opinion, one manifestation of Quality in its dynamic embodiment is the expression of excelence, or Arete. In static components, each Arete may be different, but the sense of the word stays the same. Is Arete a relative concept such as we are discussing in terms of the gap? That is, are those on the "wrong" side of the gap, unable to express excellence in the same way that those on the "right" side do? I would say no. I would in fact say that applying concepts of relativism to Quality is a presentation of low quality. If Quality is present, perhaps a more appropriate measurement would be what we do with it. If Quality is manifesting itself as a gap, then there are two attitides with which to approach such gap. One would be to present it as a dominance/submission form of inequity. In this case, the manner in which to fight this would be banding together as forceful groups to dethrone those who are expressing dominance, and seek a conceptual social paradigm in which such a gap would never arise and result in people feel unhappy. Governments are often used as "parents" to institute "fairness" for this very reason. In fact the parenting role of government beyond the protection from those outside, often results in dominance/submission roles which was what they claimed to be dispelling. Fairness is a conceptual framing of the perception of inequity. Such inequity can only be seen in relative terms. If relativity is indeed one's approach to life, then the other approach would be to view this gap as an opportunity. I believe that this approach is more in line with Arete, and such Arete would not be possible if wages were fixed for everyone. If indeed the universe is seeking excelence, then to hitch our wagon to that evolution would be a higher quality approach to one's perception of one's existence. If a personal drive towards excelence were equal for everyone and everything, I do not believe the unverse would appear as it does. It is difficult to not go with the flow of Quality, and the consequences of such "clinging" are seen at every level. In static monetary terms: If the rich are indeed getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are getting richer, and such riches are important to one's self-perception, then every attempt should be made to achieve such greatness. In truth, I believe that it is the endeavor in seeking excelence that is more important than the final goal, for excelence can always be improved. Rather than blame some conceptual presentation provided by statisticians for one's unhappiness, harnessing that presentation may be more fruitful. I suppose that such a thing can be called the American Dream. Regards, Mark On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi MRB, > > I thought it was an interesting point that as Americans most of us are > in the 1% for the world. But on later reflection, I think there is an > important difference. The issue is not that rich people are richer > than poor people. That has to be true by definition. The issue is that > the gap is growing. (Few would even care if median incomes were > growing.) The difference between Americans as a nation being in the > top 1% is that the gap between the rich and poor internationally is > decreasing as countries like China and India develop while the gap > between the rich and the median earner in the US has grown by leaps > and bounds. Krugman reported that since the eighties the earnings of > the top .01% have increased by a factor of 5 while the those of the > median earner have stagnated if not fallen. What do you make of that > fact? Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it, and I'm not sure > how to explain it. I suppose it has something to do with changes in > the tax codes, but I don't think that isn't nearly enough to account > for the widening income gap. > > I'll go ahead and grant (for the sake of argument) that the top .01% > of us is the most virtuous, hard-working, creative, and intelligent > group in the US, but would you have me believe that the top .01% is > now FIVE times MORE virtuous, hard-working, creative, and intelligent > than they were 30 years ago? What is going on? And what should I make > of it? > > It seems to me that the distribution of wealth has to be a concern for > everyone at some point. Even if you aren't concerned now, where are we > heading? What happens when a few hundred people own pretty much > everything? Would even THAT be a problem for you? > > Best, > Steve > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
