5 May 2009

There is definately a perception of rich versus poor in the world, and in the U.S. as well; it seems to those who consider themselves poor, everyone who is better off is rich.  But then to those who are less well off, those who are more well off are rich, and they aren't.  This is pushed - hard - through the polics of envy and the resulting desire to "spread the wealth."

Wealth, as with all things in nature, is spread through a normal distribution with the mean bulk somewhere in the middle.  Of course, as we know with normal distributions (bell curves) shape of the curve may vary, and there is plenty of evidence that ours is flatter than it once was, with a greater difference between the very rich and the very poor.  But the bulk is still bulged in the middle, and to see everything as rich versus poor is counter productive in a country that has become what it is through the power of a very strong middle class.  Republicanism thrives on the middle class and ours is the envy of the world.

But speaking of envy there have been several studies lately that suggest that people are more concerned with relative wealth than with actual wealth on a day to day basis.  That is, they would prefer to be the big frog in a small pond, making more than their colleagues, than a little frog in a big pond, even if the bottom line in the little pond were less than it would be in the big pond.

The politics of envy exploits this tendency and facts are less important than rhetoric.  Poor is relative.  So is rich.  Poor in this country is rich in many others, though that's relative too since it takes more to live (housing, food and medical care).  But then there many reasons for that, including such things as good roads, good communications, good security, incredible convenience, employment and education opportunities and all that good stuff - which we take for granted.  Oh, and don't forget entertainment!

We would be better served to appreciate what we have than envy what others have.  Wouldn't we?  But that's the power of suggestion - visual and political, so it's not likely to go away.  Perhaps it will take hardship to make us appreciate; but ironically it is likely that hardship will come through efforts to spread the wealth.  Wouldn't that be ironic?