Now I will be the first to admit that I am not the hardest worker in the world. I did not study hard in high school, continued that tradition into college, and only marginally changed my habits in seminary. I certainly admit to lacking self-assurance, and I have no idea how much drive or nerve I have, relative to the average person or 1 percenter. I would question however how much of my lack of drive is a product of my current financial status. I think it actually has more to do with my motivations. I could have worked much harder in college and seminary and the only difference might be how much debt I came out of school with. The churches I serve would not have been able to pay me any more money, and even if they could pay more it would not move me any closer to being a 1 percenter. Even a bishop in The United Methodist Church does not make enough to be in the top 1% of income, so not matter how great my drive and ambition, I cannot be a 1 percenter if I continue in my current line of work. So really my failing is not just not working hard enough it is not working hard enough in the right profession.
The real reason most of the 1% make more than me is not about hard work, it is about what work we value. In our society labor is not valued, capital is. This is clearly expressed in the article
Considering the myriad business owners that dot the American landscape, as owners they’re often demonized for their possession of the means of production. What’s left out is the grand deal they’re offering the 99 percenters who work for them.The real risk is not to the laborers but to the owners who might lose all their money. Now, obviously no one wants to lose their money but I think we forget that this is a lot easier to replace than say the health of the workers. There is a reason that many professions have 30 and out clauses allowing for early retirement, because the physical stress of the job causes lasting damage to the body. I even suspect most NFL players, proud members of the 1 percenters would rather lose the money they make while in the NFL than suffer the debilitating and often fatal effects of concussions and other work related injuries. Instead our society tends to reward those who risk the capital and lead the company much higher than we reward the workers who are doing the "less important" jobs of making the products to be sold.
Basically the owners provide the capital, conceive the business plan, and then if the plan fails, as owners they stand to lose all that they ventured. As for the allegedly exploited laborers, they get paid no matter what. Not a bad deal.
Do I want us to enter into some sort of socialist/communist state? Probably not, but I do want us to have a better appreciation for the role that everyone plays in our society. I think there is a real danger, and this articles seems to back that up, that we forget about the contributions of the many because of the work of the few. Aaron Rodgers is celebrated for how hard he worked, and paid accordingly, but no mention is made of how hard his high school coach might have also worked with Rodgers to improve him. In fact the HS coach probably worked just as hard with the next QB after Rodgers graduated who never became a star.
I think my frustration with the entire OWS conversation is it feels like in the end it gets reduced to those who have and those do not have. I think this is a false dichotomy. Its not really about who makes money and my problem is that society seems to have forgotten that. Its really about what each of us is doing to make ourselves, our communities, and our world better; whether that is through invention and running a company or it is through working for that company; whether that is preaching or playing football. In the end we all need to do our best ... and then we can all be a part of the 1% and the 100%.
2 comments:
I think you're being generous to Forbes. Most of the wealthiest people in the country inherited their money. More recent wealth has come about through government-granted copyright and patent monopolies, like Microsoft and Apple. Even Facebook created some social capital in exchange for redirecting advertising revenue.
I agree with M-core. Forbes is a hardcore apologist for the 1%, or more accurately the .01%.
The other thing to point out to counter Forbes is that what OWS is generally mad about is that the financial industry managed to make obscene personal profits for their executives while socializing the risk: when their bad decisions caused a major collapse, the average taxpayers, the 99%, were the ones left holding the bad risk, not the firms that created it.
Post a Comment