Are the Rich Different
Morning Joe was discussing the issue of whether the rich are different. Do they act differently, are they less charitable? I'm sure they have issues. If you won the lottery I can only imagine the problems presented by people who asked for money. Do you become a funding agency for other people, things or issues by the fact that you have a lot of money.
Wealth probably has some obligations that I will never understand. Probably is an important modifier. Even the poor or less wealthy have obligations. If you are a parent, teacher or an employer I'm sure you feel those obligations even if you have never written them down.
If by means of wealth are more obligations imposed on people that are wealthy? I think the answer is yes. I think an honest question that needs to be asked is how well people meet obligations and if we even agree on common obligations.
I read somewhere that the distribution of wealth is more like an L curve than a bell curve or another variation on the 1% / 99% discussion.
I worry that a distribution of wealth that is concentrated in a very small group of people will encourage a form of entitlement or immunity from issues that most people have to contend with and the result will become self fulfilling.
Being rich may also be related to access to education and postions of influence and to a lesser degree health care. If there is little equality in access, the differentiation is again self reenforcing. This may become a gene pool issue and Darwin issue. Many forms of exploitation can be accepted if we believe that a group may be better than another group.
Ask yourself is this healthy. The real answer is that more equality is probably a better thing in the long run.
Wealth probably has some obligations that I will never understand. Probably is an important modifier. Even the poor or less wealthy have obligations. If you are a parent, teacher or an employer I'm sure you feel those obligations even if you have never written them down.
If by means of wealth are more obligations imposed on people that are wealthy? I think the answer is yes. I think an honest question that needs to be asked is how well people meet obligations and if we even agree on common obligations.
I read somewhere that the distribution of wealth is more like an L curve than a bell curve or another variation on the 1% / 99% discussion.
I worry that a distribution of wealth that is concentrated in a very small group of people will encourage a form of entitlement or immunity from issues that most people have to contend with and the result will become self fulfilling.
Being rich may also be related to access to education and postions of influence and to a lesser degree health care. If there is little equality in access, the differentiation is again self reenforcing. This may become a gene pool issue and Darwin issue. Many forms of exploitation can be accepted if we believe that a group may be better than another group.
Ask yourself is this healthy. The real answer is that more equality is probably a better thing in the long run.
Comments
Post a Comment