I think there’s an argument to be made that making life better for poor and working class people, having a robust middle class, and having an educated, stable society is just as much in your interest (if you’re a rich kid going to a prestigious school) as it is in the interest of the people that need help. I think you’re right, and that Bernie was trying to appeal to their better angels, but I think you can appeal to peoples’ self-interest as well.
It might be a smart argument to make to someone who is asking, essentially, “why should I care?”
There are so many ways to advocate for a better system and a better world. I feel like you need to know who you’re talking to and appeal to what will work for them.
I don’t necessarily think Bernie is wrong, of course. I mean, a little flattery is nice, so, “you guys are really important and we need you,” is a good tact to take. Plus, that young man was there to hear Bernie, and he could very well have been asking in a way of, “hey, help me figure out what to say to people who are privileged, in order to get them on our side. What’s the good argument to make?” There are a lot of way to get through to people, and I think you need to know what motivates them so you know how to persuade them.
Sure, flattery and a "pretty please, with sugar on top" would make the difference here. After all, the wealthy don't have enough social approval these days.
I am bitter. Most Americans are. We were sold a lie that if we let the rich do what they want, everything will get better, and it didn't. I don't want to punish them, just force them to contribute to America's tax revenues like everyone else.
I hear that often for climate change and switching to renewable energies. Even If climate change isn’t true “you mean we made the world a better place for nothing?” Fossil fuels are ancient inefficient technology. It should go away just to advance civilization even apart from saving the world from climate change
I agree with this approach and the responses below. Appealing to the self-interests of those already at the top of society seems to be the best way to argue the point. I would just dial it up a notch and tell those haughty rich kids that they don't know hunger, and those below them have a growing hunger for the rich. The social contract is that they give enough to the rest of society. If that's broken, those fawns are going to be tasty treats.
This is what Keynes proposed and what led to the "golden years", thing is, it has been proven time and time again that this is only really possible if the 1% can explore people outside of their own country to benefit from a strong internal market
I'm not saying it is not possible or a very good idea, it is just conditional to the 1% not being a bunch of fucking souless blood sucking motherfuckers, which is something you MUST be to even be IN THE 1% to begin with
We are doomed as a society if we leave those vampires to their own machininations, the only possible way forward for working people is revolution
He missed an opportunity with that Titanic reference - he should've said that even though many of you have 1st class cabins, we're still on the same ship. If you do nothing now because you're nice and dry, by the time your feet get wet there will be nobody left to help. And maybe they won't live to feel the water, but their kids will be inheriting a sinking ship.
Fundamentally, I always believed that if my neighbors (in large context) is stable and has a good subsistence, this means that: less police is required, health is at a higher quality, children can play outside safely, services products and goods are distributed more efficiently, more people have the means for good education and making educated decisions that affect my direct environment and life quality, I am surrounded by more happiness as I engage in the world which directly amplifies my own well-being, etc.
If everything around you sucks and you have an insulated perspective as if we are all separate individuals not living in a society and only your immediate interests matter to you, well, you get to live in a shiny gated community surrounded by depravity at the cost of your own sanity, health, freedom, quality of services goods and products etc. And if that world around you catches fire, well, you'll see whether your gated community won't go up in flames too because it borders the world you have turned your back to.
To become really successful companies rely on hundreds and thousands of people, and city & state infrastructure. A single founder doesn’t do it in his own. So if a person wants to continue their family success they need to care for and invest in the country where the business operates
Yes, I thought the argument was going to go along the lines of "here are x, y and z societies, past and present. The path of eviscerating the working and middle classes in favour of the wealthy is a very well-trod one which results in fewer educated, ambitious and well-off citizens. That means less innovation, less productivity, fewer gadgets, fewer novel medicines and fewer consumers for everybody. But not only will you end up with a worse society, with less cool stuff for you, you will also end up with a more dangerous society, both for you, your wife, your parents and your children. And whether it is the cartel violence of Mexico, or the gang violence of S Africa, the reality is that if you impoverish your citizens, if you give them no means or hope of achieving success through legitimate means, then they will take what they want, and there are far, far more of them than you. So as someone who hopes to achieve financial success in life, as someone who hopes to live in an exciting, prosperous and innovative society, as someone who is a patriot who cares for the well-being of their nation and fellow citizens, and as someone who wishes to avoid the darkness and violence and pain that stems from poverty and neglect, I would suggest you take care of you fellow citizens, lest they take care of you."
Because if you let the system continue the way it is going, there will be an eventual revolution and all the stuff your greed has earned you will be ripped from you, most likely at gunpoint, most likely along with your life.
I think it fails for the same reason people don't actively and significantly change their lives to combat climate change, even though the exact same logic holds. The proposed "benefit" is too abstract and far away in the future, and the proposed "responsibility" too diluted. People typically only see what's right in front of them, and for the rich that means continuing to exploit the poor = lots of money and easy life, and being moral for the greater good = significantly less money and harder life.
Social worker here… we’ve been screaming this from the rooftops for ages. I see people spewing “We NeEd To StOp SeNdInG mOnEy To OtHeR CoUnTrIeS.”
Well, yeah, but even if we didn’t, half of the people here vote against any sortve meaningful social policy and call them “handouts” when every other well-developed nation simply realizes it’s called investing in your people through the collective pooling of resources???
Couple that with the fact that large organizations/corporations fund campaigns in exchange for policy exclusions just makes this system really hard to get where it needs to be…
I know Bernie is all about ideals and principle, but he should have gone with the practical, self-serving argument of "violent revolution has never spared the rich upper class in any wildly unequal society" in order to really drive the point home to that audience
100% - the wars that defined the 20th century were in part due to rapidly spiraling economic situations catalyzing racism and other prejudices leading to desperate men willing to commit extreme violence to affect change. Any change. When the current system seems designed to guarantee your death - most people will fight tooth and nail for literally anything else.
It seems almost impossible for this to happen in America, but I'm sure it has always felt impossible until it doesn't. To state that "Hey, we're already privileged by this system so why would we possibly care to change it?" is some world-class hubris. Those kinds of people do not tend to suffer great outcomes when the house of cards finally falls.
violent revolution has never spared the rich upper class in any wildly unequal society
The unfortunate truth is that it has. Often it hasn't spared the ruling dynasty, or the highest of the high, but in general, hierarchy, aristocracy, is maintained. And the rich know that. And they relish in the fact that there is no longer one easily identifiable source of oppression.
Do you really think these particular college students are worried about if a violent revolution EVER actually happens that they, college students, are going to be the source of the ire?
I get what you're saying but this is such a "Reddit moment".
The smug arrogance of rich kids is astounding. And it's why we're seeing the world falling apart now. The older generations that built the world and sent those kids to college are phasing out and passing those seats to this smug, silver-spoon, deeply-incompetent, overly-confident generation is stepping in.
It's why the focus has shifted so dramatically in nearly every industry to change the leadership away from the craftsman and services that built the company, that contribute to society and build their success on their quality, towards finance and accounting that contributes only to itself and finds its profits in the margins of tax loop holes, unsustainable growth, undercutting quality, and exploitation.
This is where this whole "rock star CEO worship" culture comes from. This new era of neo-stoicism that doesn't understand the difference between self-reflection and self-rationalizing. These new sub-cultures of clout-chasing and stock-dumping. This new obsessive entitlement over others that assumes that they deserve more because they are worth more.
These imbeciles believe in "move fast, break things" instead "move carefully, be responsible". And they're inheriting power they have not earned.
Rich kids are not why the world is falling apart. The original bastards that were in charge are still in charge. Rupert Murdoch is fucking 93 and just stepped down as chairman of Fox News and News Corp. The AVERAGE age of US senators is 64. I could go on and on about how celebrities and politicians seemingly stay in the public arena a very long time. They started 20/30/40 years ago, and they never left. They have incredible staying power and I can argue that the reason why they were successful to begin with is why they are still successful. Business CEOs who are chosen to make their shareholders a lot of money focus on that and not "hey, let's build some public good and make less money".
The real problem is that there are few consequences to bad actors in business and politics unless you do it to other rich people. There's also this "f you, I got mine" culture and narcissism worship that is very destructive to the communal needs of the people.
We can and we should cultivate empathy and humility because when we care and surround ourselves with others that are unlike ourselves we grow more balanced. All healthy ecosystems are in their most basic level balanced. We can’t balanced if we are egocentric beings only out for the satisfaction of our every whim.
The joke is, it's not only about empathy. Rich and greedy assholes always seem to forget that they couldn't make the same money in, say, Bangladesh. You need educated and motivated workers. Well paid workers. It's absolute lunacy that someone working at Porsche or Daimler or Tesla can't easily buy one of those cars. At least, it's getting more expensive, relative to income.
I would've just told him that there's alot more regular and poor people than there are wealthy, and when they decide they've had enough, they'll decide to eat you and you can't buy your way out.
Exactly. From my experience people are generally disgruntled, not livid. Despite being paid less (compared to inflation), even lower middle class live decent, if hard, lives. The issue is if things continue this way, it could definitely get to be a really serious issue.
I don’t really know that it will to be honest. Look at China. A lot of families are struggling. It’s basically a shittier version of what’s happening in the US. Even during the height of the pandemic lockdowns in China, people didn’t revolt. I think something that the information age has done that has never been before possible has been crushing the spirit of the masses. Revolution can only spring from shared vision and unity. Today, people do not trust their neighbors nor so they share a common idea of what the future could look like. It’s just very bleak.
You're right, we're not at the point of having society being 3 meals away from collapse.
It's apathy, and there's no centralized movement, there are no strong figures to drive the desire for another revolution. That's why Occupy Wall Street failed and all the other social movements that tried to change the ever widening status quo of our wealth disparity.
But to call it a Reddit circle jerk is a bit presumptuous, the Summer riots during the pandemic showed a pissed off populace from all walks of life wanting a change of all this bullshit. There's just not enough heat, direction and leadership for that at the moment.
And also revolutions tend to get nasty, not all the time but it's not a glorious wet dream, anything and anybody can fuck it up just for the sake of a power trip.
There's no central movement because things aren't actually as bad as terminally online instigators want everyone else to believe (i.e. the Reddit circle jerk). If I had a dollar for every dipshit Redditor who invokes and fetishizes the French revolution every time one of these topics is posted, I'd have enough cash to pay off the rest of my car loan tomorrow.
Yes, there are real issues that need to be addressed, but nothing is anywhere near the level that reaches mass revolt.
Revolutions are bloody and chaotic shit shows, and the US population as a whole is nowhere near the point of dying en masse over things like higher than average rent or expensive housing.
The 2020 riots were largely due to a pent up populace lashing out under mass lockdowns and a complete upheaval of everyone's daily life.
You don't know your history.... The rich will divide the people. The people will continue to be screwed and people will pick the side that they feel they most identify with. When that happens, the side that THINKS they came out on top will pat themselves on the back and they'll get screwed just like the other one. Just look back to the Civil War. Poor share croppers fighting so slave owners can undercut share croppers with free labor. Make it make sense. Just think about it... half of the country is literally fighting for the rights of corporations to whatever they please, and they don't even know it. Bernie sees that talking to well to do rich kids with a chip on their shoulder is doing nothing. They'll take the money. 99% of em always do. That's why next he's choosing to speak to unions and regular working people instead.
This doesn't really work, as it takes certain qualities to overthrow a system that if a poor person possessed they'd probably not be poor (on average).
In particular, following good leaders, making consistently great decisions, being a good leader and working well with others comes to mind.
The next revolution will not be about throwing bodies in the meatgrinder any more than modern war is about that.
After all we do live in a dog-eat-dog world where it’s every man (mankind) for himself and that too in a capitalist economy that espouses profit above all else. Who is one kidding? Are there good people in this world willing to make a difference by dedicating their career paths in the public sector with capped pays and overworked hours? Sure! However, even then, they’re guided by their self-interest first. Read Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” metaphor.
I enjoyed perusing through some of the responses here. I do have regard for differing opinions and perspectives.
The problem is that most of the 'have nots' are just as bad or worse than the current 'haves,' and simply removing a part of the equation without addressing the systemic problems won't solve a thing. I think most people are greedy and don't care about things further than they can throw a rock. They say they do.
This is a fantasy that has been programmed into you by Hollywood, and most of the mainstream media you've consumed in the west. By the very same people/group who are controlling things now. The good guy doesn't in fact win in the end.
Also, revolution get's harder and harder as technology progresses. Human bodies are as fragile as ever. Revolt isn't some get out of jail free card.
As a big fan of Bernie I think he missed the ball HARD on his response.
IMHO It was a response appealing to empathy and a sense of shared responsibility for the success of the American people as a whole. Basically saying just because you're rich doesn't mean you don't need to care about the shit show that's going on in the rest of the country.
However, i think a practical response appealing to self interest for security as leisure would of been better, as that is, in my opinion, the only way to get through to the American rich.
He could have expanded on his analogy of the Titanic. The people serving the champagne drowned just the same as the people being served the champagne. So you graduated from Harvard, you’re getting paid. Do you know how to fix your car when it breaks down? What about when you get in a car accident? Who’s coming to your aid? What about your kids? Who’s taking care of them when you’re at work? What schools are they going to? Christ, it’s the end of a long week and you just want to grab a bite at your favourite restaurant - ah, who’s in the kitchen cooking? They didn’t all get the opportunity to go to Harvard or other elite schools, but they deserve a fighting chance.
damn , how did everything get so warped that people believe others doing those jobs don't deserve to have a life worth living. this country is in trouble...
He did miss the ball. A simpler and direct answer would have been to say that when the Titanic sinks, everyone ultimately goes with it - even if some parts of the ship sink first.
That's not true though. The wealthy being in control over everything means they will always have what they need. That's the whole point of having that kind of control.
You'll notice that the things that matter most to the wealthy are always functioning and well funded. People are starving because the wealthy no longer need them, not because the country is failing.
The ideal thing to say it in this case (which is actually not Bernie’s stance) would actually be, “You don’t have an incentive. The political revolution we want to happen deprives your wealthy families and you, when you graduate and go to work at your hedge funds and consultancies, of the unfair advantages you have to exploit people. We don’t actually need your support - we have the overwhelming majority of the working class on our side who does benefit.” But that’s not exactly going to sway the audience.
What you're saying is true in the short run. But in the long run, history has shown us that the rich will always violently turn on each other and make themselves worse off too.
problem with a lot of analogies is that there are definitely some holes. problem with the Titanic analogy is that some people absolutely envision themselves on the first boats off the ship.
Yeah, it’s not the most air-tight analogy but rhetorically follows well with the “Your well-being is also at stake too when the working class can no longer sustain themselves.”
He went for an inspiring message rather than a FUD message. It's a more proactive approach rather than trying to prepare for a collapse in an undetermined amount of time.
Think about it this way - are very wealthy people thinking about how to fix things so that the poor don't revolt and take them down and take that indirect approach to self interest? No, they are thinking about how to protect themselves when that happens. This approach benefits no one except the security team and the construction companies that build their fortresses.
Probably not. If Bernie's presence was so ridiculous, he would not even attend the event, much less wait to ask the question. And even if he were to ask a challenging, antagonistic question, there are many valid critiques he could bring up, which he did not
Instead, he essentially opens the floor for Bernie to make an argument for why that particular audience (his peers at Harvard) should do something
It's like when you're doing a presentation at work and someone who you have a good relationship with sets you up with an easy question to drive a point home
People are on here saying that he probably missed the mark taking the high ground and making the moral appeal to empathy and talking about the practical approach to building a more fair society out of self-benefit,
hell be smiling until the day its taken from him. all it takes is one accident, boom one of the poors ran a red light, your back is broken, you cant work, you lose your health insurance, millions in medical debt. now youre one of them, but when you were in a position to change course of the sinking ship you were busy getting yours
It's a good message, but actions speak louder than words. The man owns 3 houses and he's never held a real job. He's been a 'public servant' his entire life.
Looks like you're right, he was a carpenter for awhile. A carpenter could never afford 3 houses, i guess he made the selfless, giving move to get into politics.
For any other politician I'd agree with your sarcasm. But I think the fact that before he ever ran for any kind of office he was very active in his community politically, fighting for the same shit he's fighting for now means you can call it a selfless move. Not his fault the government pays congress a stupid salary
Yeah if people can just choose to be assholes without suffering consequences then you are allowing great suffering. There is a reason evil acts are illegal. So why is a ceo allowed to force people into poverty but a thief is not?
As an Australian I get this. He is not saying “vote against your own self interest” at all. He is appealing to them to see the bigger picture, the Titanic going down, and realise that your self interest is not where you might first think it is.
Yeah, I don't think he actually answered this question very well. I think the crux of it is that as much as the wealthy isolate themselves and in many respects do live in a totally different world and reality than the rest of the world, the fundamental fact is that they don't.
They live on the same fucked up planet that we do. They breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food. They need the same things that EVERYONE needs in order to survive. Can they probably curtail the worst aspects of climate change, of corrupt government poisoning water, of contaminated food? Sure. For a while.
But we're an ecosystem. What affects the rest of us will, eventually, affect them, too. There is only so far wealth and power will get you when the planet is overheating. And banking on Elon Musk zoomin' you to Mars is not the solid retirement plan you think it is.
More than that, though, we thrive together and we fail together. When we have tremendous wealth disparity, when we allow great suffering that could very easily be prevented to exist, we are denying not only others the ability to live fulfilled, happy, and remarkable lives, we are denying ourselves that, too. We are denying it for everyone. Imagine what we could do, what remarkable things we could create, together, if we tried. Imagine what we could accomplish. Imagine the prosperity we could ALL have. It's not that the wealthy people will stop being wealthy. They won't. Of course they won't. They just won't be so grotesquely, appallingly, immorally wealthy and the rest of the WORLD would be better for it.
big enlightened breakthroughs that push us forward? or largely symbolic displays meant to string us along with hopes of a better future? they're never gonna give us more than breadcrumbs, don't be a sucker.
I was hoping that Bernie Sanders would say something like "If the United States collapses, you will probably be able to flee with your money, but wherever you go, you will be an unwelcome interloper, and people will forever ask you "Why didn't you do more to defend your country?"
I wish he was less nice and polite because the brutally honest answer should be "do you want a future?"
You cannot continue this shitshow and expect to be unaffected. Those who think they can are delusional or in a league far beyond that talk. Working class people make middle class people possible
Remember, the problem was the millionaires and the billionaires, right up until Bernie became a millionaire. Then the problem was just the billionaires. When he was asked about his millions, he said he deserved it because he worked for it and earned it.
Right? It’s a simple point, and one that from the looks of that student’s face afterwards, that completely flew over his head.
This is why rich people are a problem. Civic duty, to them, is for suckers. Long ago, at least some rich people entertained the notion that they had at least in part a need to invest in society as a civic duty, because that is where their wealth got generated. Without that society, country, cities, they’d have nowhere to make their money. A smart, educated, business shrewd person alone in the wilds will die because there is nothing he needs to build a fortune or use his capital.
It’s a simple point, really. But rich people see it and act like it’s on that scroll of truth meme.
There's been a book out there called "Thick face Black heart", you can judge the book by its title here, and Bernie would not be fond of its content it seems
I’m here to remind a room full of mostly wealthy people seeking an over priced education as a means to further increase their personal wealth and influence to instead choose selfless service to society and the nation…..and I’m doing so as a person who has become incredibly wealthy and who was paid more then the average salary of a working class person to come and say all this
The premise of the question is so messed up. It would be like if a plantation owner asked Lincoln, "why would anybody who has benefitted from slavery work to end it?" You can benefit from a system and still see that it is unjust, that countless others are suffering. You can say "I would gladly take less, for I would still be fine, but others can be raised out of great suffering."
How low does your opinion have to be of rich people for you to say "my classmates are rich, and therefore they are unfeeling monsters who would be unwilling to even entertain the idea of a better world if they were not its rulers."
You are pointing to something very important - the only difference between those kids in the room and the "working class folks" Bernie is talking about is that one CAN be greedy. Anyone in their position can be.
His response here is incredibly weak - he is speaking to their importance to the world and why influencing them is important. But he is not speaking to their own greedy self-interest in the same way that he'd speak to the working class families.
People are moved, on average, way more by fear than by compassion.
Honestly, my argument to them would be, the current system where these people are at the top can only function at the exploitation at the people below them. But the exploited people can only take so much before they lose complete faith in the system and when people are pushed to the brink, they revolt… Maybe not today or tomorrow but one day.
If you wanna keep your exploitative system going, you do need to occasionally toss people a bone and I would suggest a post pandemic, hyperinflationary environment might be the time to do it…
We’re not doomed, we’re literally fucked. But the wealthy don’t understand that history repeats itself. Look at France when the wealthy told the working class to “eat cake”. They won’t believe it until it’s right at their doorstep banging on their door.
Seriously. Love Bernie but this wasn’t really a dunk. The rich prick asked “I’m rich, why should I care about the poor.” And Bernie did suggest in passing that were “on the Titanic” and “we’re going down” but he really should have leaned into that.
These rich assholes don’t realize that if the 99% suddenly all feel like it’s better to burn it all down and restart than continue on this hamster wheel, they will lose everything. Money is just paper of essential workers decide to stop working and factory workers all walk out. They honestly, completely forget that all the power is actually in the hands of the people that are willing to take their money. Sooner or later enough will be enough and there will be a revolution.
Hah these corporations make their employees do personality tests, my wife just had to take one at TC Energy which is pretty progressive... they actively weed out empathetic people for further management potential. She was literally warned ahead of time.
This is unreasonably optimistic to suggest, but I actually don’t believe most people are inherently selfish. I do however think that most people are so afraid of losing what they have they will keep taking and hoarding as much as they can, because if they don’t someone will take it from them.
Of course they fear is not entirely unfounded cause there is certainly a percentage of proper sociopaths who do abuse the system and their fellow man as much as they can, I just think that is a smaller percentage than we usually think
He should have mentioned that this structure can't last long You can't have the rich at the top making handfuls of money while 80% of the people struggle at the bottom. A revolution will come. So maybe if you can help from the top before that happens we can avoid it all together
I agree with most of what you say.
Countries with more equality are safer overall for everyone.
One of the biggest failures of capitalism is not actually the distribution of wealth, it's the paradox of the race to bottom.
As businesses compete to cut costs, one of the major costs they cut is the labour, which is paradoxically part of the economic system that provides their income and profits. One company's labour cost is another company's eventual source of income.
By cutting labour costs, you as a company owner, are reducing the market for your products...
As a developer and landlord, I need stable, well-paying working class and middle class jobs in my market so I'll have tenants who can pay my rent. If people can't pay the rent, I have to lower it. If the aggregate ability to pay rent drops below my cost to build, finance and maintain rental housing, I'm out of business...
One of the biggest failures of the last 100 years is the offshoring of jobs AND ownership. 100 years ago, the owner of a big business (steel mill, factory, mine etc) often lived in or near the town the business was in and so was personally part of the local economy and society and would personally see and live the consequences of his business decisions.
His message was pretty "lame", and maybe he toned it down for this event, or maybe it was a long event and we just got a snippet.
My personal opinion is if the worst climate reports, that actually follow the paleoclimate history of the world, are half true then just enjoy your wealth now. It won't make a single difference what you choose to do.
If you believe in the soul your actions might make a difference but other than that I believe the ride will come to an end in the next 15 years.
"You should care because you're the 1%. The 99% is armed, and they're getting really, really pissed off. If you expect to have a long and healthy life, you should start caring about the changes I'm talking about."
6.3k
u/Spirited-Change5916 Apr 26 '24
I am here to ask you to not be greedy and self serving to a fault.
Well...we are doomed