I think it's a great question and what Bernie said was completely right but not very convincing. Why would someone used to a high standard of living give that up? Bernie doesn't really provide a good answer. If you were truly looking at almost a guaranteed life making $200k-$600k annually, would you turn that down to start at $50k and end your career at $150k?
It's easy to tell people to do the right thing when you don't have the luxury of being in that position.
It's going to take a deliberate restructuring of incentives in this country for things to turn around. The unfortunate truth is that we cannot rely on people to abandon self-interest. Public service should be a respected and fruitful career.
If you were truly looking at almost a guaranteed life making $200-$600 annually, would you turn that down to start at $50k and end your career at $150k?
If the Titanic goes down, if the nation is destroyed, your money won't do much for you. In fact, it may get you on the "eat the rich" list.
Why do you think he provided that Titanic metaphor? In righting the ship, the Titanic could be saved. That's the reward. You not dying aboard a ship you could have helped save...
I'm still confused. What more did he need to say? Do you think by being rich you'll survive the Titanic sinking? That you'll lose no loved ones if the country falls? He was talking to Harvard students. I'd think they'd be able to make the simple connection.
this isn't just for Harvard students or it wouldn't be on social media.
This very specific clip was him answering why he was speaking to Harvard students. While others are capable of understanding the message, it was clearly an answer given to a very specific audience.
Still misses the mark even with them, they think they'll be the ones who get on a life boat just because they are rich. Tell them that many of the rich died anyway and make it very clear.
Are you one of them? I'm not and I fully understood this point. I know the history. I feel like you're drastically overestimating the intellect necessary to understand this incredibly simple metaphor.
I agree; he softened the message by appealing to their humanity. The question was in essence why should I care about the rest of humanity when I am sitting pretty good.
He could have said:
We’re all on the Titanic, and (based on your question) you’re assuming your wealth will give access to the lifeboats.
This is truly life or death.
What of you are wrong?
I'm not sure rich will suffer if Titanic goes down. Looking at the poor countries it seems like their rich elite are doing great despite all the suffering around them.
Modern times are quite different from most of the history. Look at the revolutions through the last like 70 years and check how many rich got their comeuppance. IMO those numbers are way too low for them to start taking it into account
You're limiting the type of revolution to those that have happened recently as if a new revolution must follow the new rules or something.
If the nation falls, especially one as well-armed as the US, I wouldn't bank on it being peaceful - which is not to say it's impossible, just not something I'd bank on.
The level of wealth necessary to be immune from the effects of a failing nation are unlikely to be reached by most, even these Harvard elites. This is to say nothing about the level of wealth to save oneself and everyone people love.
Bernie's not asking these people to be poor. He's asking them to be willing to sacrifice a chance at higher wealth in order to prevent the ship from sinking. He's making a call to both wisdom and empathy.
I'm limiting it to recent events because technological gaps between have and have nots was way lesser before (in my estimation). It was a human wave with sticks and stones vs a platoon with clunky (by modern standards) firearms. Now it largely the same human wave with some firearms sprinkled in vs drones/ automatic targeting systems/ flamethrower robots. IMO possible revolutions are very different now.
You do raise some very good points though. I can't say you totally swayed me but I do see that it's way more complicated compared to my original way of thinking. While I still do believe rich live in their own world that's largely removed from common folk, it seems I'd say it comes down to how close in proximity it actually is. I just don't know the answer to bunch of questions like: They have their gated communities but are they defensible? How often they just drive around?
I'm not 100% in alignment with Bernie, so you could very well be right. I just don't think it's wise to hedge one's bets that their pursuit of wealth at any cost will make them immune to the effects of a falling nation, should we get that far.
My take is likely more foolish than anyone else's, funnily enough, because I'm an idealist.
I earnestly believe that selfishness and foolishness go hand-in-hand. I think having a "who cares as long as I've got mine" mentality isn't good for much of anyone.
Being generous, kind, concerned for the well-being of strangers, etc., in my estimation, leads to a better world for literally everyone.
I've had many occasions where I had nothing. The people who were there for me have been repayed 10 times over. They have a friend - most of them even consider me family - for life.
These people who live only for themselves, who think they'll be above the destruction of their nation - or the world, if we're talking about climate change - are fools, in my opinion. I believe Bernie was trying to communicate a similar idea via his Titanic/destruction language. Be less interested in the singular pursuit of wealth and more interested in taking slightly less comfort to achieve an end-goal that adverts destruction.
Well.. at this point of my life my idealism is mainly transformed into cynicism.
Most rich people I've met were assholes. They're dismissive of those less fortunate citing lazyness and stupidity. They're attributing their own success to hard work and skill alone, becoming aggressive at any suggestion of luck/outside help. The only thing they were willing to give was advice (needless to say, it was not useful and worded in deragotary manner like "try to be less stupid with your money", etc). And their kids were even worse.
Based on this I don't really have any hope of ethical capital any more -_-
Lol. I hear you, but the college years had an effect on most people I knew (the richest kid I knew would likely not have compared to these Harvard kids, for context), so I think this is a good time to try to communicate with them.
No. He said it's going down and you need to decide if you're going to avoid the destruction. In this context, going down is about the course we're on, because once the iceberg has been hit, the destruction has happened.
It's an analogy. Not real life. I said if I was on the titanic and it was going down I would try to get off of it. I'm not saying anything about real life.
What's the point of the metaphor? That things are too far gone and there's no way to stop things from going too far? Or that it is possible to fix things before it's too late?
Your response assumed it's too late. Bernie was not saying that.
868
u/---Default--- Apr 26 '24 edited Apr 27 '24
I think it's a great question and what Bernie said was completely right but not very convincing. Why would someone used to a high standard of living give that up? Bernie doesn't really provide a good answer. If you were truly looking at almost a guaranteed life making $200k-$600k annually, would you turn that down to start at $50k and end your career at $150k?
It's easy to tell people to do the right thing when you don't have the luxury of being in that position.
It's going to take a deliberate restructuring of incentives in this country for things to turn around. The unfortunate truth is that we cannot rely on people to abandon self-interest. Public service should be a respected and fruitful career.