Instinctive anger at the wealthy and/or wealth contrasts

stuh505 wrote:

Mame wrote:
Something led that arguing couple to that state, regardless of their initial circumstances. People who don't want to be in a certain condition don't stay there. And I'm not talking about Biafrans now, okay?

I'm not sure if you're serious, but there are many kinds of self-defeating behaviors...some of them due to emotions affecting our actions aside from just logic, others due to lack of perception of an issue, and others still due to recognizing how to get out of a cycle but not feeling willing or able to do what it takes to get out of that position. That doesn't mean they are happy being in that position.

I understand your point, but I didn't imply they were happy in that situation. I just said they can choose not to be. As for what's influencing them to stay there, I can really only accept mental illnesses as a justifiable reason. Every other person is only limited by their own thought processes, inner drive, expectations, etc.... all of which they can change. A person can be poverty-stricken, but still be an upbeat person who tries to keep their head above water and their heart in the right place.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Chai wrote:
Isn't that just coveting your neighbors goods?

No it isn't. Coveting is when you want your neighbor's goods for yourself. By contrast, nimh, sozobe, Eva and Diane (instinctively) want the goods of some neighbors in the hands of other neighbors. Although I don't feel their sentiment myself, I see it as entirely different from coveting.

Ok, I do see your point.

However, it seems that no one has a problem with another person having enough, or more than enough even, if that person worked for it. But what is enough, or even a reasonable amount of more than enough. By whose definition show we go by? Who gets to draw the line?

One can look at cases of extreme wealth, and extreme poverty and it's easy to see one has more than enough, and the other nothing at all.

Wealth today is more difficult to see in the man on the street. Someone walking by in flip flops, jeans and t-shirt, with raggy hair might have a few million. Conversely, someone dressed to the nines, and on their way to the mall might not be able to make their minium credit card payment this month.

Someone clearly hungry is one thing, but I personally know someone who, even though they rely on one income and have 3 children, routinely throw out whatever they didn't finish for dinner. This same person admits to having to limit what they buy at the store at times, depending on what cash has come in. When I asked why, she said they just don't eat leftovers.

Me? I eat leftovers every day of the week.

If we're talking about third world conditions, then yes, I have to agree it's a horrible thing that with so many resources available we cannot feed the starving people.

When it comes to one family that owns an old TV they got at Goodwill, along with their cloths, no cable, no computer, but their basic needs of food and shelter are met, and children are in school, I have a harder time.

Do I want to have resources shifted then? No.

Do I have an instinctive anger toward the rich?
Absolutely not.
No more than I have an instinctive anger toward the poor.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

However, it seems that no one has a problem with another person having enough, or more than enough even, if that person worked for it. But what is enough, or even a reasonable amount of more than enough. By whose definition show we go by? Who gets to draw the line?

I don't know. I also don't think it's the point, considering that this thread is about instincts, not ethics or politics.

But you may well be unto something: Nimh and I may well make different intuitive assumptions about who qualifies as poor and who qualifies as rich. Our intuitions may also make different assumptions about why one set of people is rich and another is poor. But after this gut reaction, rationality kicks in for both of us, making our politics and ethics more similar than our instincts.

0 Replies

If you don't have any money, a little money seems like a lot. But when you earn (or inherit) lots of money, your expenditure expands to use up your income, and it seems you never have enough. If i had a lot more money, i'd start by buying a new computer.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Another thing this brings to mind:

Sozlet has a classmate with this mom that I instantly pegged as Not My Type. She always looks like she's about to go to the opera, or something. Full makeup, spike heels, silks and satins and super-expensive-looking clothes and a spill of expensively-tended hair in an expensive shade of blonde. I just couldn't imagine that someone who sported metallic gold eyeshadow at noon would be someone I'd find simpatico.

But she's a total sweetheart. Just a nice, down-to-earth, kind, patient, wonderful person. I haven't asked about her background, can't figure out how her way of presenting herself fits in (I'd guess she's from Texas or a southern state). Her personality is nothing like what I expected from her appearance, anyway.

I had that almost identical experience with a mom to a classmate of duckie's. She even has a strange richie sounding name. Now I really like her. She's funny, friendly, and generous.

I think I know something of what nimh speaks. Spending any amount of time in Buckhead proper can put me in a funk.

0 Replies

What's Buckhead proper?

0 Replies

Wow, this is interesting -- so many different, even polar opposite interpretations and reactions. Seems like my reaction was a sort of Rohrschach picture ;-)

My shortest possible response is that Sozobe seems to have more or less exactly the thing I have <nods>. And that katya8's post and 2Packs' first post most threw me or a loop, as in, "what? eh.. no." But its interesting to see how different the interpretations can be.

Let me try to answer one by one.. probably not going to get round to everyone's posts, but let's just start at the top:

sozobe wrote:

It happened to me a LOT when I was in L.A. I worked in an extremely poor area, lots of crime and various serious problems, and lived in a completely different area. I'd go food shopping (for example) close to home after work and get disgusted at the people I saw. (The jewelry, the Botox, the nannies, the whole thing.) I never quite figured out whether it was justified or not.

Yes, you caught the visceral aspect of it well. The way it is an immediate, emotional response.

I had it in Holland a lot already, especially in the late 90s, when everyone was talking stocks and housing markets. It filled me with revulsion. Not even so much the materialism itself. But something underlying it - some kind of ... unawareness. Lack of empathy, or.. I dunno exactly. Not just that suddenly everyone - the middle class, I mean - seemed to be flush with money, and talked about it - but the way they talked about it as if it was their birthright, as if it were self-evident. The way they seemed unaware of how much it was just luck - of how even just their grandparents, our grandparents, worked just as hard or harder than us, and still had to make do with as little as those scoffed-upon Moroccan immigrants do now. Yeah, something about the lack of awareness of how the luck of the draw, where and when you were born and who your parents were, has given them much of what they seem to embrace as self-evidently theirs.

No, wait, I dont think thats quite the same thing, though its related. Thats already all much more conscious, head- rather than heart-based.

And of course, I am hardly some kind of holy voice from above judging it all. I mean, who am I? In those same late 90s, me and my sister also talked stocks. I remember some moment where she, I and our father were in ... some public place, a cafe or the train, and we were loudly talking about, I dunno - such matters, what stocks we had, or my sister buying a house, or something. And I remember a sense of vanity, feeling "interesting" - the feeling that makes people who get a call about some important-sounding work thing on their cellphone talk just loudly enough for other people in the train to hear it. And I also remember feeling ashamed or dirty when catching myself doing that.

But that, too, is something different, because that was totally self-contained, me feeling something about how I felt about myself. This here was all external, with me just as outside observer looking in and feeling things about what I saw.

sozobe wrote:

A certain kind of excess seems problematic in and of itself. But a huge diamond ring, an expensive haircut, is that the end of the world? Maybe the person I'm judging so harshly has given much of her money, or time, or both, to worthy causes.

Yeah this is the reality check I find myself doing too - like, what do I know? That young couple might work for the Red Cross for all I know.

But then that instinctive reaction I described here doesnt really have anything to do with who the rich couple is, or what they do, or whether they contribute enough to society etc. Who they are is sort of irrelevant to the feeling.

The feeling is not about whether its the "wrong" people who get rich - its the fact of the contrast itself. That the contrast is there, and is as big as it is. Big enough that it could not possibly be fair. Bigger than any difference in effort or merit or virtue or whatever between the two couples could ever justify.

The rich couple may be the most generous people in the world (though the chances arent big - the poor, proportionally, give much more to charity than the rich, and that says something f*cked up about the system too, but thats another question again altogether that I dont wanna go into here). But even if they were, it wouldnt give any less cause for the initial emotional response, because that is about the difference being there in the first place, that stark a difference anyway.

0 Replies

Buckhead is a northern neighborhood in Atlanta. It's where the real richie rich's live. There are nearby neighborhoods that can be considered part of Buckhead but which aren't at the same level -- which is why I used the word "proper". I'm not explaining well. There is a certain stereotypical Buckhead type, usually involving blonde women with lots of cosmetic surgery and big honking rings who drive enormous suvs to take their kids to exhorbitant private schools and live in giant mcmansions. Very snobby and oblivious to how life is for anyone besides themselves.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

But when you earn (or inherit) lots of money, your expenditure expands to use up your income, and it seems you never have enough.

That's not always true, it sometimes is, but no where near always.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I don't know. I also don't think it's the point, considering that this thread is about instincts, not ethics or politics.

But you may well be unto something: Nimh and I may well make different intuitive assumptions about who qualifies as poor and who qualifies as rich. Our intuitions may also make different assumptions about why one set of people is rich and another is poor. But after this gut reaction, rationality kicks in for both of us, making our politics and ethics more similar than our instincts.

Good post.

I was going to say something like, "note that nimh didn't say he SHOULD feel this way or that it was justified, and included a bunch of qualifiers; he was just interested in examining that instinctual reaction further." Thomas hits that point and other ones better, though.

Speaking for myself again, I don't think I've ever let that instinctual "GRR" go anywhere in particular. I keep an open mind, and my mind is often changed (see gold-eyeshadow-lady anecdote).

I guess I let it inform my politics, though. Having been in a position where I knew plenty of motivated, intelligent, good people who were living well below the poverty line, and seeing all that comes with that at close range, I am for measures that create more equality in society. Better childcare options so people can work without being scared about what's happening to their children, better health care, more funding for programs like my old one (effective, but I had an eensy little budget). No good reason for the super-rich to have all of those tax cuts and loopholes. Etc. (That last one is based on the new scientific field of studying happiness, too. Studies have found that once people reach a certain threshold -- enough food, enough clothing, adequate shelter, enough health care -- happiness doesn't rise much. The average millionaire isn't significantly happier than the average person who makes $50,000 a year, but the average person who makes $50,000 a year is WAY happier than the average person who makes $5,000 a year.)

0 Replies

Jeesh, 1-2-3-4-5 posts got in while I was typing...

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

Setanta wrote:
But when you earn (or inherit) lots of money, your expenditure expands to use up your income, and it seems you never have enough.

That's not always true, it sometimes is, but no where near always.

So sue me . . . what are you, the Philosophy Police?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Very snobby and oblivious to how life is for anyone besides themselves.

There, it's the oblivious thing again.

I really bet that's part of it.

Whether people are actually conscious or no, there is a certain way of acting oblivious that can be extremely irritating. Marie Antoinette or something.

0 Replies

related to my last post.

How is one to know what a wealthy person is doing with all their money?

Is it all right that Bill Gates is a gazillionaire because it is well know he gives so much back to the community?

Do we really know that someone who is wealthy, and has a lot of baubles, is not also giving a tremendous amount back to the people?

I'm thinking of the prior thread about if you would date a celebrity. If nimh or anyone else, saw the "poor" couple arguing, then went around the block and spotted their favorite singer, actor, writer etc. would you have this same what is being called instinctive anger? Proably not, because you like this person, even though you know little about them personally.

It's the word instinctive that's getting me.

I just don't think it's instinctive, since we would be willing to make so many exceptions, depending on our perseptions, while are likely false.

We might know if our favorite musician gives a lot to charity, so that's ok. We don't know if this stranger who appears to have well does anything for the world at all.

We might assume our favorite musician gives a lot to charity, but they may not.

How can it be instinctive if we can so easily curb our anger because of possibly true, possibly false feelings and ideas?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Very snobby and oblivious to how life is for anyone besides themselves.

There, it's the oblivious thing again.

I really bet that's part of it.

Whether people are actually conscious or no, there is a certain way of acting oblivious that can be extremely irritating. Marie Antoinette or something.

Definitely it is for me. Marie Antoinette -- perfect.

0 Replies

Willful ignorance. I think we're getting closer.

Chai, I don't think nimh is saying that it's instinctual in the sense that all people share that instinct -- that was pretty explicitly the context of his first post, in fact, asking whether anyone else has experienced it (rather than assuming everyone does).

I think his later use of the word "visceral" may be more precise. Just, you have this quick, gut reaction, what's up with that?

0 Replies

What's wrong with having money (whether you earned it or inherited it) and keeping it? Who says you should give it away to what seem like poorer people?

Wow. I can't believe this.

There are always going to be richer and poorer people and money doesn't solve all the problems. Who gets to be the judge as to who's the most deserving of my money and how much and how often they get it?

That's what charities are for, isn't it?

Maybe I should sell my home and car, too, and donate that.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

But, I'm not clear on why you got angry?

Because the man was drunk?
Or they were arguing in the street?

No, no..

Perhaps I should explain that, like with Soz, this is a response I have often enough, even if this time the fierceness of it happened to trigger introspection.

So, if anything, it is surprising that I felt like this even though the Romani man was obviously drunk and argumentative. If the poor couple would have been going about their way quietly, the feeling would probably have been even stronger. Or it should have been, rationally speaking. Hm.

Or perhaps the visible hopelessness of their situation, the drink problem, their argument over it, just served to hit the point home all the more about their vulnerability, the whole mess their life is in, a mess far too complex to easily pull apart and say, oh, if only they had X or did Y, they could find their way up - it was clearly beyond that.

I'd like to think that it was pure sympathy I felt for them. But I think it was just as much that.. I identified with them. <nods>. And so I felt so angry at the wealthy couple.. in their place, kind of. Although they probably dont even see those rich people. Just like the happy young couple probably didn't even notice their presence. They are beyond each other's horizon. And I'm standing aside and seeing it all, and it makes me furious. Because it is so blatantly unfair.

I'm not talking "fair" in terms of merit - if anything, that is why this instance was stiking, perhaps thats why it had me thinking in particular. It would have been simple if they had been part of the street sweeper crew that gathers in the vacant lot halfway down the sidestreet every day, then starts trekking out into the neighbourhood, clearly working very hard doing thankless work thats necessary yet respected by noone, and surely pays ****. That would have been an easy contrast with the yuppie couple - see, they work just as hard, and yet look at the random brutal difference that fate (or capitalism) throws them in.

The contrast here was not as clear-cut in rational terms - he was a drunk, little merit there. And yet my response was the same. So its not about whether the yuppie couple deserves to be rich, or whether the arguing couple would deserve to be just as rich - its the sheer contrast itself that, even taking any argument about merit and effort into account, is just wrong. Feels just viscerally and immediately wrong.

<nods>

Chai wrote:

If the situation was reversed, and the poor couple where contently talking with each other, and the wealthy couple was having a drunken argument on the street, would you still have been mad at the younger couple?

If you say yes, why? Is it because the wealthy people aren't appreciating what they have, while the poor couple realize they have each other?

No, not that.. it's an interesting point - the young ones' love, perhaps, untested by trial, the older one's messed up, perhaps, but weathered by a life of conflict and mishap - something like that - but to be honest I hadnt even thought of that angle until you mentioned it. Also, it involves a lot of assumptions - who knows, the young couple's girl might have just survived cancer, and they are out resplendent in joy that they pulled through and are so well now. Who knows.

But your question is interesting, though. Would I have still been mad at the younger couple if it had been them arguing? Probably not. Why not? Hmm.

Perhaps because they would have shown themselves to be more... fallible? Or because it would have been impossible to just see them, in that passing moment, as walking embodiment of their prosperity, as just the wearers of their designer shades? Or because that whiff of a feeling of self-evidence on their part about their situation, that I talked about above responding to Soz, would not have been there?

Either way though, if I had not been able to project my anger about the situation, about the contrast itself and the unfairness of it, on them, because they'd been visibly weathered some way or other too, there would have been another couple, or another occasion for the feeling to come up. I think that yeah, who the couple was is irrelevant to the why of the feeling? Like, they were just.. stand-ins. Seen, in that moment, as representatives of something more than anything else.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Buckhead is a northern neighborhood in Atlanta. It's where the real richie rich's live. There are nearby neighborhoods that can be considered part of Buckhead but which aren't at the same level -- which is why I used the word "proper". I'm not explaining well. There is a certain stereotypical Buckhead type, usually involving blonde women with lots of cosmetic surgery and big honking rings who drive enormous suvs to take their kids to exhorbitant private schools and live in giant mcmansions. Very snobby and oblivious to how life is for anyone besides themselves.

That's funny! Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, this is almost exactly how Sozobe once described what Naperville, her old city, is turning into. Perhaps not as rich as Buckhead, but I distinctly remember her mentioning dyed hair, SUVs, and face-jobs. Personally, I find that these neighborhoods offend not my sense of justice, but my sense of aesthetics. Neighborhoods get my creative juices flowing if they surround me with people who're different than me, and than each other. If I moved to Buckhead, I imagine I would die of homesickness for all the people who can't afford to live there, but do live and work in Schwabing: all those Turks, Vietnamese, Indians, low-income academics, and blue-collar traditional residents we still have here.

0 Replies

You're right, Thomas, I thought the same thing when I read FreeDuck's description.

I have nothing against people having money per se. I just don't think that a multi-millionaire needs THREE yachts when the money he would spend on that third yacht would be enough to keep an effective work-training program for people who want to get off of welfare going for a year.

0 Replies

Instinctive anger at the wealthy and/or wealth contrasts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know