Raghu writes:
...Somebody's got to tell
these people, that no, a standard of living that involves every individual
owning a big SUV, vacationing in the Caribbean every year and eating out 4
times a week, is not "rightfully theirs" and in fact is absurdly
unsustainable - unless it is reserved for a small privileged class.
The point is, true global justice will require the *average Western
citizen*
- not just the top 1% super-rich - to "reduce" their standard of living,
so
that the rest of the world can have more. (I say "reduce" in quotes
because
a scaling back in GDP or consumption may very well turn out to be a good
thing for everyone.) But in GDP terms, it really is, to some extent at
least, a zero-sum game. How many people, even on the Left, are prepared to
sacrifice a little for the sake of their ideals? That is, of course, an
awkward question but does that mean we should avoid it?
===============================
The great majority of US workers, including the fastest growing segment of
college-educated administrative, technical and professional employees, don't
enjoy the extravagant lifestyle you complain of. They're highly indebted,
their pay is stagnating, their assets and benefits are deteriorating, and
essential health, education, food, and tranportation costs are rising
rapidly.
What assurance do you have that reducing their living standards further
"will result in the rest of the world having more"? It's passing strange to
have to point out on a progressive economists' list that the beneficiaries
of such transfers are those whose income mainly derives from profits and who
account for by far the greatest share of wasteful economic expenditure.
Concretely, what kind of sacrifices are you demanding of yourself and
others? Have you voluntary renounced future pay increases and asked your
employer to direct a portion of your salary to agencies whose objective is
the alleviation of poverty abroad? Have you tested your proposal on your
workmates and neighbours? If they reject it out of hand, as they most
certainly and understandably will, would you then favour the imposition of
pay controls and pay cuts by employers and the state to further slow
consumer spending? Would a deeper slowdown in the US lead to more jobs and
higher incomes for Chinese, Indian and other workers and farmers in the
developing countries?
I'm distressed at finding myself in the position of having to pose these
very simple questions, but this is where the logic of the "labour
aristocracy", pushed to an extreme, leads. I've nothing more to add.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
