The corollary is that, because a wide variety of status games are available, individuals should choose status games at which they can win rather than those that are popular and therefore harder. Not everyone can be in the top 1% of income, but almost everyone can be a good parent.
Since certain kind of woke luxury beliefs and the actions they prompt are socially destructive, society has an interest in suppressing them (open borders, anti-meritocracy, abolishing police and prisons).
it would be so interesting if you could suggest some ways to create status and admiration in our current culture that can generate this sort of positive change ? More Dolly Parton and less Donald Trump ?
Looking at status games economically, the difference among them appears to be the externalities--are they positive ones beneficial for society, neutral, or negative and harmful to society?
Of course, the caveat here is that while virtue signaling might get justified as enforcement of social norms and therefore beneficial, the question that is begged is whether or not that social norm is net-net beneficial in the first place.
The growth of the human body of knowledge is generally good. Social norms are a mixed bag; some social norms benefit one group while imposing outsized costs on another, and can be economically net negative. Taking this to a reductio ad Hitlerum to drive it home, the Nazis thought that the removal of Jews was a positive social norm.
While living abroad I came to the conclusion that our ambitions, or status seeking, in the U.S. are too narrow. One of our issues is that too many people can't find a unique place to land in life so they fall into one form of radicalism or another. In other countries there's a whole host of other traditions and practices that confer status on a wide range of work that produces benefits for society, one of which is that those who don't care as much about material wealth can find a meaningful place and be productive and reasonably happy. For example, children who grow up on farms participate in 4H, an old tradition that rewards a host of agricultural practices. We need a lot more of this type of reward.
I'm also convinced that the health care issue is less about access and cost than it is about the fact that we've rolled the best health care into corporate employment, making it difficult if not impossible to pursue other paths that an individual may be more inclined to. For many, "medicare for all" really means, let me pursue the life I want without the tether of health care benefits.
A friend of mine, used to say: "Honesty may be the best policy, but few people can afford the premiums.".
Apropos, I think, courtesy of the inimical Yarvin, Curtis:
“The first filter is that most people who matter or want to matter are liberals, because liberalism is the ideology of mattering. “
I've been broke, and I've been rich. Rich is better.
The corollary is that, because a wide variety of status games are available, individuals should choose status games at which they can win rather than those that are popular and therefore harder. Not everyone can be in the top 1% of income, but almost everyone can be a good parent.
Since certain kind of woke luxury beliefs and the actions they prompt are socially destructive, society has an interest in suppressing them (open borders, anti-meritocracy, abolishing police and prisons).
it would be so interesting if you could suggest some ways to create status and admiration in our current culture that can generate this sort of positive change ? More Dolly Parton and less Donald Trump ?
I think you've just described capitalism.
Status seeking goes back to our pre-human hominid ancestors. It is that deeply inbred.
Absolutely fabulous perspective and parsing of status games. 👏👏👏
Looking at status games economically, the difference among them appears to be the externalities--are they positive ones beneficial for society, neutral, or negative and harmful to society?
Of course, the caveat here is that while virtue signaling might get justified as enforcement of social norms and therefore beneficial, the question that is begged is whether or not that social norm is net-net beneficial in the first place.
The growth of the human body of knowledge is generally good. Social norms are a mixed bag; some social norms benefit one group while imposing outsized costs on another, and can be economically net negative. Taking this to a reductio ad Hitlerum to drive it home, the Nazis thought that the removal of Jews was a positive social norm.
While living abroad I came to the conclusion that our ambitions, or status seeking, in the U.S. are too narrow. One of our issues is that too many people can't find a unique place to land in life so they fall into one form of radicalism or another. In other countries there's a whole host of other traditions and practices that confer status on a wide range of work that produces benefits for society, one of which is that those who don't care as much about material wealth can find a meaningful place and be productive and reasonably happy. For example, children who grow up on farms participate in 4H, an old tradition that rewards a host of agricultural practices. We need a lot more of this type of reward.
I'm also convinced that the health care issue is less about access and cost than it is about the fact that we've rolled the best health care into corporate employment, making it difficult if not impossible to pursue other paths that an individual may be more inclined to. For many, "medicare for all" really means, let me pursue the life I want without the tether of health care benefits.