A Social Class Lecture
Paul McCartney---one of the world's wealthiest entertainers.
I remember, in 1964, when it was revealed each member of The Beatles were worth at least $7-million each. And how folks would often comment "No person on earth is worth THAT much!"
However, though, back then the attitudes toward the common disparities surrounding the financial worth of different individuals were more passive, only occasionally wishing they "had that kind of money" and "what they'd do if" they had that amount of wealth.
For the most part, how much money another person earned or had to their name was pretty much really "the business of" that particular individual and not of any concern for most average persons (outside of a bit of vicarious envy).
Of course it should be mentioned that in the 1960s there was considerable prosperity, so even those making low to average wages---as well as upstart business ventures---were usually managing to make enough to get by adequately, and prices were low enough things were somewhat affordable.
Not to mention there were more choices when it came to the basics, such as homes and residential units, food, furniture, and other essentials. There were always different price ranges for just about everything one could buy and for just about every place one could live, whether house or apartment---or even rooming houses or weekly motel rooms. A variety of choices and price ranges for entertainment items such as televisions, radios, stereos, records, books, small appliances, and the like.
And it's a fact that, so long as one is getting by well enough they can afford to be content with just focusing on their own life and needs and desires, they're not going to be as prone to giving much thought to how others are living or getting by.
It's only when the social and economic climate is so discordant and dysfunctional to the point when the disparities between their finances and assets and the cost of living are so great they're in jeopardy of financial ruin anytime, coupled with the possibility of losing their source of a steady income, that people start becoming despondent enough to start thinking about "their place in society", which in turn causes them to start comparing themselves with how a lot of others in the world live, which then leads to resentment and a need to lash out at anyone who appears to be better off than they are. Even if those "better offs" are more upper-middle-class than wealthy.
It's in such a totally disastrous economic climate one starts hearing disparaging comments and statements about "the 1 percent" or "corporate elite" and others of comparable socio-economic status.
When one's life is a total disaster anyone who is or appears to be doing well is to be disdained and condemned for being "greedy" and "heartless".
It's that need for those who are suffering to find a viable "causation".
In short---how much the average person is or is not concerned with the financial state of (particularly) those in the upper echelon social class range is a good barometer of the overall prosperity of the given culture.
The less the average person really gives a damn about how the wealthy live or how much any one of them is worth, the better off and more prosperous the society.
The more the average person frets and goes on moral outrages about the "greedy rich" and such, the more indicative it is that said society is either experiencing a lot of intracultural conflicts or might even be degenerating and deteriorating.
Paul McCartney---one of the world's wealthiest entertainers.
I remember, in 1964, when it was revealed each member of The Beatles were worth at least $7-million each. And how folks would often comment "No person on earth is worth THAT much!"
However, though, back then the attitudes toward the common disparities surrounding the financial worth of different individuals were more passive, only occasionally wishing they "had that kind of money" and "what they'd do if" they had that amount of wealth.
For the most part, how much money another person earned or had to their name was pretty much really "the business of" that particular individual and not of any concern for most average persons (outside of a bit of vicarious envy).
Of course it should be mentioned that in the 1960s there was considerable prosperity, so even those making low to average wages---as well as upstart business ventures---were usually managing to make enough to get by adequately, and prices were low enough things were somewhat affordable.
Not to mention there were more choices when it came to the basics, such as homes and residential units, food, furniture, and other essentials. There were always different price ranges for just about everything one could buy and for just about every place one could live, whether house or apartment---or even rooming houses or weekly motel rooms. A variety of choices and price ranges for entertainment items such as televisions, radios, stereos, records, books, small appliances, and the like.
And it's a fact that, so long as one is getting by well enough they can afford to be content with just focusing on their own life and needs and desires, they're not going to be as prone to giving much thought to how others are living or getting by.
It's only when the social and economic climate is so discordant and dysfunctional to the point when the disparities between their finances and assets and the cost of living are so great they're in jeopardy of financial ruin anytime, coupled with the possibility of losing their source of a steady income, that people start becoming despondent enough to start thinking about "their place in society", which in turn causes them to start comparing themselves with how a lot of others in the world live, which then leads to resentment and a need to lash out at anyone who appears to be better off than they are. Even if those "better offs" are more upper-middle-class than wealthy.
It's in such a totally disastrous economic climate one starts hearing disparaging comments and statements about "the 1 percent" or "corporate elite" and others of comparable socio-economic status.
When one's life is a total disaster anyone who is or appears to be doing well is to be disdained and condemned for being "greedy" and "heartless".
It's that need for those who are suffering to find a viable "causation".
In short---how much the average person is or is not concerned with the financial state of (particularly) those in the upper echelon social class range is a good barometer of the overall prosperity of the given culture.
The less the average person really gives a damn about how the wealthy live or how much any one of them is worth, the better off and more prosperous the society.
The more the average person frets and goes on moral outrages about the "greedy rich" and such, the more indicative it is that said society is either experiencing a lot of intracultural conflicts or might even be degenerating and deteriorating.
No comments:
Post a Comment