Wealth is often held on a pedestal of importance, regardless of whom it comes from. For instance, some socialists often demean the wealthy for their supposed abuses of the working class, especially here in America. Likewise, many others hold that wealth is a symbol of competence and intelligence, and the people who are wealthy should admired for their achievements. Both of these perspectives what being wealthy may really mean: something totally different for every situation.
Consider the plight of the socialists’ world. Bernie Sander’s interpretation of the Wall Street crisis is summed up almost entirely in this statement that he made, that government policy was “set by the wealthiest people in this country and large campaign contributors, not working families” (Common Dreams, 2018). This statement is a swipe at the wealthy in general, even if it doesn’t mean to. This sentiment of the rich controlling government policy and enacting essentially whatever “they” want into law by using corporations and lobbyist is the story that many socialists want to tell about the rich. While all of these things have an element of truth to them, this analysis of the American economy in relation to the “rich” is extremely deficient. There are at least three reasons why.
- The wealthy (the rich, super-rich, upper class, whatever) are not well defined. Furthermore, it is difficult to define wealthy in any meaningful way, since whatever point is chosen as wealthy, one penny less than that would not lessen consumption, but nevertheless make that other individual not wealthy. This is of course, absurd, but definitions are extremely important when discussing large groups of people.
- However the wealthy are being defined, there comes another problem; are these people, wealth levels, or income groups? All of these things are different, but the nuance that comes with the difference between these groups are often not analyzed by those who have sufficient political incentive to ignore them. People may be wealthy at one point, but not at another. For instance, a young person may get an entry level job at the age of 22, work their way up the corporate ladder, and have an executive position by the time they are 40. They can hold this position for 25 years, retire, and live happily ever after with the money they have invested . This story includes a young person with no money, a senior manager who makes a lot in income but may not have a lot of wealth because he/she has an expensive lifestyle, and a person who makes nothing but has a lot of money because of investments and/or company retirement. Combine the potential life story of a single person with the stories of millions, many of whom will experience both the kinds of conditions that would make them and the conditions that would make them rich under all possible definitions. This constant fluid motion of human beings clearly has an impact on who or what we are talking about.
- The wealthy, again however well defined and frozen in this second of time, are of totally different backgrounds, beliefs, and practices. Immigrants who flee persecution, socialites, tech entrepreneurs, and financially prudent senior managers may all be wealthy, but their life stories are completely different, thus affecting the way that they see the world. Geographic regions, religious preferences, the larger culture, subcultures, IQ, sexual orientation, marital status, etc. may all have more effect on someone’s beliefs, as opposed to their “socioeconomic” status.
Now, all of these are epistemic arguments. Nothing in this claims that the “wealthy” are inherently better than “others”, just that splitting groups that cannot be split is an unhealthy exercise.
Sources:
Staff, C. D. (2018, December 01). US Housing Crisis Inexcusable, Says Bernie Sanders, When Wall Street Bailed Out After Financial Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/01/us-housing-crisis-inexcusable-says-bernie-sanders-when-wall-street-bailed-out-after
WiseGoverning 