The notion that the average garage worker or asphalt layer is providing as much benefit to society as any professor is something academics find hard to wrap their head around.
Very powerful statement. I agree with you and I think the problem is the supply and demand of labor and credentialing systems in play. In the academic mind, anyone can do the asphalt work whereas few can do what they do academically. It may be true on the process for credentialing but not on the overall value of work and contribution to society. Cheers!
But someone with only a high school education is objectively less equipped to make informed decisions on complex matters like economic policy or public health.
@@ericpeters0n I disagree. Political decisions are more a matter of wisdom and political experience than academic knowledge. There are plenty of people with university degrees who are clumsy in real life. And smart politicians surround themselves with people from different areas to advise them before making an important decision. For example, in Brazil we had an academic president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, from 1995 to 2002. He was greatly admired as an academic by the middle class, but as president his decisions were disastrous for our economy, social welfare, industries and the Brazilian working class. He financialized our economy following the Washington Consensus by freeing up interest rates and made productive capital, from industrialists, migrate to unproductive activities, the financial market, deindustrializing Brazil, making it only a major exporter of minerals, meat and agricultural products that have low added value and also destroying the environment such as rivers, animals and forests. Lula, president of Brazil from 2003 to 2010 and from 2023 to 2026, only has an elementary education, but as a politician he is a thousand times better than many academics and knows how to keep doors open and negotiate with all political nuances. His humble origins gave him social sensitivity and attention to the impoverished working class. He has no academic background, but he knows that the financial market does not produce a single nail or generate jobs; it is a parasite on productive activity.
I disagree that academics 'find it hard to wrap their head around' the majority of people I know and interact with are perfectly clear on how important a breadth and depth of skilled labour is. Comments like this always seem to lead to 'dumbing down' of the dialogue and ultimately lead to the confusing of the argument.
@@stephenpmcbride You are right but you have to understand the spirit of the argument he's making, which is academics often have disdain for the ordinary man's participation in a free Democracy, where their educated vote is cancelled by their uneducated, and often uninformed vote. This you have to agree with no matter what your immediate experience says. Your surrounding may be a biased sample. But the spirit of the argument comes from academic ego inflated by intelligent, human achievement. It's of course possible that that the academics are right; that the low information voters are a weakness in a Democracy; but you really can't say the statement is bogus at face value.
Michael Sandel recognizes that listeners can't make good decisions. Michael Sandel tries to give the listeners hints. However, the audience does not understand the question.
I had chosen to be a nurse due to the inspiration of my high school teachers who were Caucasian Catholic nuns from North America. I hope Donald Trump does not make people think all Americans are cold blooded and unethical rich guy. The folks discussed about courage led by Bishop Mariann Edgar Buddy of the Episcopal Dioceses are important in saving the people's faith among the human race. They reminded me of Sr. Jane Ellen, a Catholic nun, my high school teacher in Hong Kong from the US - the gem from the US sharing their spiritual richness!
Prof Sandel raised important questions, but I feel his "communitarian theory" - where uneducated people would gain recognition and respect - is too unrealistic. In a capitalist system, success is the main way to gain recognition and respect. No one can change that. Back to the theme of education, education is the only way to change society for the better, to empower individuals and raise civil knowledge levels. Education changes lives. To encourage people to better educate themselves is a good thing!
As of February 3, 2023* some 94% of the US Congress, roughly 9 out of 10 members, had a University/College [4-year] degree, with the majority of those having a secondary degree as well. The last time TWO-THIRDS of the Congress did *not* have at least a 4-year degree to their name was nearly a century ago... the 79th Congress from 1945/46 saw 56 percent of House members holding a 4-year degree with something like 75% of Senators holding one too. It is difficult to find members of Congress who are not educated at a University or College level today. "The share of members in each chamber with at least a bachelor’s degree peaked in the 116th Congress (2019-20), when 96% of representatives and all 100 senators had one. Although both shares have remained high, they have slightly declined since then." *SOURCE: Pew Research Center, U.S. House and Senate biographical data.
The audience just could not accept the fact that they were actually (in reality) supporting what John S. Mill suggested, because they want to appear politically correct. But, let's face it, educated people are better at analysing problems and strategising solutions. So, it is inevitable having more of them in governments and parliaments. And, we all would agree (I suppose), it is for the better of our societies.
@NikolaosEnmetanoia What if the educated use their additional purchasing power in voting to deprive others of their interests wrongfully. Then I suppose only part of society would be better off. Do we have reason to think this will not be the case? While the educated elite don’t get extra votes they use power and influence instead to ensure their interests at the expense of the rest of society, and the world.
I find Sandel's intellectual conceit here of setting up his audience quite infuriating. The irony is he really playing to an intuitive sense of their fairness and justice only to recast his regime change (let's call it), as only we the educated (paternally) can do this. Strictly speaking, philosophically, it is naive to object to the form of an elite but still trust yourself (an elite) - your noble intentions - to be enough. As a study in the psychology of how the Left dupes itself (again) about the nature of reform it is a good lesson.
Welfare-to-work and other assorted requirements and conditionalities on receiving social assistance and public services, are all different ways of saying: "you are less worthy of support and less of a citizen than others".
"Democracy's Discontent" reflects a growing sense of dissatisfaction with democratic systems, particularly as they grapple with deepening social, economic, and political divides. At its core, this discontent arises from the gap between democratic ideals and the realities of modern governance, where inequalities persist, political polarization intensifies, and citizens often feel alienated from the political process. While democracy promises equality, participation, and freedom, the growing influence of special interest groups, corporate power, and media manipulation can undermine these principles, leaving many to question whether democracy truly serves the public good. This discontent is also fueled by a perceived erosion of trust in democratic institutions and leaders, compounded by widespread cynicism about the effectiveness of democratic processes in addressing pressing global challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, and systemic racism. Many feel that while democracy promises empowerment, it often results in gridlock, inefficiency, and a lack of meaningful change. As a result, the dissatisfaction with democracy isn't just about political outcomes, but about the very mechanisms through which political power is exercised, leading to calls for reform or even questioning of democratic legitimacy itself. However, despite these frustrations, democracy remains a powerful framework for addressing injustice and advancing collective well-being. The discontent with democracy can also serve as a catalyst for renewal and transformation, prompting a reimagining of democratic values and institutions that are more inclusive, responsive, and capable of meeting the complex challenges of our time. Ultimately, "Democracy's Discontent" calls for a critical reassessment of how democracy functions in practice and how it can be strengthened to better reflect the needs and aspirations of all citizens.
Well, the question of democracy isn’t actually about making the correct decision obviously it will never be , it’s rather about making a decision with more people involved, regardless their education level , they just need to be living in a certain place
Not sure about more on the solutions but he discussed more about the problem of merit in his interview with Alex O'Connor. Also do recommend his course called Justice, where there are a lot of other ethical problems discussed, he's really amazing
Bearded lawmakers make bearded laws. What if all the choices you are given are authoritarian? What if all, or the majority of your representatives have fallen under the threat of blackmail? What we should try is a direct democracy ❤️
Aren’t they at Google? In the company rooms? That would be explain die accents of the speaker… ….and their unpreparedness. But I found it ok. Better than being in a university bubble and talking to each other inside in a self absorbed manner.
It is insulting to assume work that pays less is less necessary or respectable. However, it is inescapable that the pay is determined by supply and demand. When more is needed or less is available, the pay increases unless arbitrary restraints such as government mandates or prohibitions exist.
There's two 'pay'. The pay from the customer to the business and the pay from the business to the worker. Will the latter also follow this supply and demand ideal? Certainly not always. Hence government mandates or prohibitions.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Same rules for both. If the company needs a construction worker to push a wheelbarrow they can find a large supply and pay a low wage to a guy just strong enough; but if they need a construction guy to install and make the electrical system work every time and everywhere they will have to choose from a much smaller supply and pay much more.
You cannot argue that all jobs are equally valuable, though an honest effort to complete any job is honorable and respectable. The difference in pay can be understood by supply and demand. When the job requires special skills or experience it will command higher pay simply because there are fewer candidates qualified. A janitor's work is honorable and necessary, but many more people can do it than can do engineering.
So the guy from Egypt was right, it was a trick question from the prof. He wanted the answer the second guy from Uganda gave so he could throw in Stuart Mills answer. Very week performance for a Google meet.
There was a lawyer whose voice was above the law. Many respected him for some good reasons & his son, not a lawyer, inherited his infamous characteristics that led Perils to Democracy for 20 decades. I disagree that the well-educated/professionals make better decisions.
Well-educated people, not necessarily with a formal education, definitely make better decisions. But the problem is that too many stupid and evil people have degrees and people think they are educated.
. (18:10) In addition to the meritocracy that made workers resentful of the economic and professional elites in the 1990s, the globalization imposed an unproductive economy, the financial market, which made industrialists sell or appoint financial CEOs and took their money to the financial market, becoming rentiers, deindustrializing countries. Today we have financial economies that do not produce a single nail or generate jobs, while the productive economy, industries, and their workers have lost importance to the economic elites who now get rich in the financial market by buying and selling stocks/bonds. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw Americans and Europeans fighting to buy simple masks, gloves, and syringes from the Chinese. That is why crises like the ones of the last generations arise, who do not want to work because they see that big capital is not in the productive area that has taken a back seat in the economies of countries with stagnant wages and no social status. And we have companies complaining that they no longer have a workforce to hire.
I do believe “Elites” should rule, but the problem here is the poor definition of elites. And we should also admit there should be a good definition of different categories of elites.
Telling a bunch of elite Googlers that their disrespect of the people they proudly exclude from power (hiring only the "best and brightest" and "rewarding high-performers") led directly to the election of Donald Trump is is not going to get him invited back for another talk ;)
The notion that the average garage worker or asphalt layer is providing as much benefit to society as any professor is something academics find hard to wrap their head around.
Very powerful statement. I agree with you and I think the problem is the supply and demand of labor and credentialing systems in play. In the academic mind, anyone can do the asphalt work whereas few can do what they do academically. It may be true on the process for credentialing but not on the overall value of work and contribution to society. Cheers!
But someone with only a high school education is objectively less equipped to make informed decisions on complex matters like economic policy or public health.
@@ericpeters0n I disagree. Political decisions are more a matter of wisdom and political experience than academic knowledge. There are plenty of people with university degrees who are clumsy in real life. And smart politicians surround themselves with people from different areas to advise them before making an important decision.
For example, in Brazil we had an academic president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, from 1995 to 2002. He was greatly admired as an academic by the middle class, but as president his decisions were disastrous for our economy, social welfare, industries and the Brazilian working class. He financialized our economy following the Washington Consensus by freeing up interest rates and made productive capital, from industrialists, migrate to unproductive activities, the financial market, deindustrializing Brazil, making it only a major exporter of minerals, meat and agricultural products that have low added value and also destroying the environment such as rivers, animals and forests.
Lula, president of Brazil from 2003 to 2010 and from 2023 to 2026, only has an elementary education, but as a politician he is a thousand times better than many academics and knows how to keep doors open and negotiate with all political nuances. His humble origins gave him social sensitivity and attention to the impoverished working class. He has no academic background, but he knows that the financial market does not produce a single nail or generate jobs; it is a parasite on productive activity.
I disagree that academics 'find it hard to wrap their head around' the majority of people I know and interact with are perfectly clear on how important a breadth and depth of skilled labour is. Comments like this always seem to lead to 'dumbing down' of the dialogue and ultimately lead to the confusing of the argument.
@@stephenpmcbride You are right but you have to understand the spirit of the argument he's making, which is academics often have disdain for the ordinary man's participation in a free Democracy, where their educated vote is cancelled by their uneducated, and often uninformed vote. This you have to agree with no matter what your immediate experience says. Your surrounding may be a biased sample. But the spirit of the argument comes from academic ego inflated by intelligent, human achievement. It's of course possible that that the academics are right; that the low information voters are a weakness in a Democracy; but you really can't say the statement is bogus at face value.
Prof.Sandel is pure legend.
...and so necessary in today's day and age.
@@jps0117 100%
Great talk! I enjoyed it. Thanks again for sharing it on this channel. Very nutritional content.
It’s just as much about feeling like you have a word in the system.
Michael Sandel recognizes that listeners can't make good decisions. Michael Sandel tries to give the listeners hints. However, the audience does not understand the question.
Forgot to mention that politicians self select for university degrees by simply having vastly more income than the average person.
Such a good talk.
I had chosen to be a nurse due to the inspiration of my high school teachers who were Caucasian Catholic nuns from North America. I hope Donald Trump does not make people think all Americans are cold blooded and unethical rich guy. The folks discussed about courage led by Bishop Mariann Edgar Buddy of the Episcopal Dioceses are important in saving the people's faith among the human race. They reminded me of Sr. Jane Ellen, a Catholic nun, my high school teacher in Hong Kong from the US - the gem from the US sharing their spiritual richness!
Prof Sandel raised important questions, but I feel his "communitarian theory" - where uneducated people would gain recognition and respect - is too unrealistic. In a capitalist system, success is the main way to gain recognition and respect. No one can change that. Back to the theme of education, education is the only way to change society for the better, to empower individuals and raise civil knowledge levels. Education changes lives. To encourage people to better educate themselves is a good thing!
As of February 3, 2023* some 94% of the US Congress, roughly 9 out of 10 members, had a University/College [4-year] degree, with the majority of those having a secondary degree as well. The last time TWO-THIRDS of the Congress did *not* have at least a 4-year degree to their name was nearly a century ago... the 79th Congress from 1945/46 saw 56 percent of House members holding a 4-year degree with something like 75% of Senators holding one too. It is difficult to find members of Congress who are not educated at a University or College level today. "The share of members in each chamber with at least a bachelor’s degree peaked in the 116th Congress (2019-20), when 96% of representatives and all 100 senators had one. Although both shares have remained high, they have slightly declined since then."
*SOURCE: Pew Research Center, U.S. House and Senate biographical data.
The audience just could not accept the fact that they were actually (in reality) supporting what John S. Mill suggested, because they want to appear politically correct.
But, let's face it, educated people are better at analysing problems and strategising solutions. So, it is inevitable having more of them in governments and parliaments. And, we all would agree (I suppose), it is for the better of our societies.
@NikolaosEnmetanoia What if the educated use their additional purchasing power in voting to deprive others of their interests wrongfully. Then I suppose only part of society would be better off. Do we have reason to think this will not be the case? While the educated elite don’t get extra votes they use power and influence instead to ensure their interests at the expense of the rest of society, and the world.
You'd have to define what "educated" means.
Also, what if more became educated because of AI personalization tools in education?
I find Sandel's intellectual conceit here of setting up his audience quite infuriating. The irony is he really playing to an intuitive sense of their fairness and justice only to recast his regime change (let's call it), as only we the educated (paternally) can do this. Strictly speaking, philosophically, it is naive to object to the form of an elite but still trust yourself (an elite) - your noble intentions - to be enough. As a study in the psychology of how the Left dupes itself (again) about the nature of reform it is a good lesson.
Welfare-to-work and other assorted requirements and conditionalities on receiving social assistance and public services, are all different ways of saying: "you are less worthy of support and less of a citizen than others".
Just do it without saying, eliminate the hubris 😂
This theory of Mill takes me to Think Rawls theroy of Initial Position 😮...
"Democracy's Discontent" reflects a growing sense of dissatisfaction with democratic systems, particularly as they grapple with deepening social, economic, and political divides. At its core, this discontent arises from the gap between democratic ideals and the realities of modern governance, where inequalities persist, political polarization intensifies, and citizens often feel alienated from the political process. While democracy promises equality, participation, and freedom, the growing influence of special interest groups, corporate power, and media manipulation can undermine these principles, leaving many to question whether democracy truly serves the public good.
This discontent is also fueled by a perceived erosion of trust in democratic institutions and leaders, compounded by widespread cynicism about the effectiveness of democratic processes in addressing pressing global challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, and systemic racism. Many feel that while democracy promises empowerment, it often results in gridlock, inefficiency, and a lack of meaningful change. As a result, the dissatisfaction with democracy isn't just about political outcomes, but about the very mechanisms through which political power is exercised, leading to calls for reform or even questioning of democratic legitimacy itself.
However, despite these frustrations, democracy remains a powerful framework for addressing injustice and advancing collective well-being. The discontent with democracy can also serve as a catalyst for renewal and transformation, prompting a reimagining of democratic values and institutions that are more inclusive, responsive, and capable of meeting the complex challenges of our time. Ultimately, "Democracy's Discontent" calls for a critical reassessment of how democracy functions in practice and how it can be strengthened to better reflect the needs and aspirations of all citizens.
Legendary Philosopher good teacher also handsome men with beautiful talk.
Well, the question of democracy isn’t actually about making the correct decision obviously it will never be , it’s rather about making a decision with more people involved, regardless their education level , they just need to be living in a certain place
The professor said more presentations would address solutions. How can I find them?
Not sure about more on the solutions but he discussed more about the problem of merit in his interview with Alex O'Connor. Also do recommend his course called Justice, where there are a lot of other ethical problems discussed, he's really amazing
Bearded lawmakers make bearded laws.
What if all the choices you are given are authoritarian?
What if all, or the majority of your representatives have fallen under the threat of blackmail? What we should try is a direct democracy ❤️
Audience is terrible. They can't straight-forwardly answer Prof. Sandel's questions. Some others are just starring at their phones.
technocrats?😂
I don't see such thing. If you do, what if they are taking note..
Aren’t they at Google? In the company rooms? That would be explain die accents of the speaker… ….and their unpreparedness. But I found it ok. Better than being in a university bubble and talking to each other inside in a self absorbed manner.
Oligarchy's Discontent
got em
@@hezuiknalong with the other oligarchy 😂😂
REPRESENTATION as response to POLARIZATION
It is insulting to assume work that pays less is less necessary or respectable. However, it is inescapable that the pay is determined by supply and demand. When more is needed or less is available, the pay increases unless arbitrary restraints such as government mandates or prohibitions exist.
There's two 'pay'. The pay from the customer to the business and the pay from the business to the worker.
Will the latter also follow this supply and demand ideal? Certainly not always. Hence government mandates or prohibitions.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Same rules for both. If the company needs a construction worker to push a wheelbarrow they can find a large supply and pay a low wage to a guy just strong enough; but if they need a construction guy to install and make the electrical system work every time and everywhere they will have to choose from a much smaller supply and pay much more.
You cannot argue that all jobs are equally valuable, though an honest effort to complete any job is honorable and respectable. The difference in pay can be understood by supply and demand. When the job requires special skills or experience it will command higher pay simply because there are fewer candidates qualified. A janitor's work is honorable and necessary, but many more people can do it than can do engineering.
So the guy from Egypt was right, it was a trick question from the prof. He wanted the answer the second guy from Uganda gave so he could throw in Stuart Mills answer. Very week performance for a Google meet.
There was a lawyer whose voice was above the law. Many respected him for some good reasons & his son, not a lawyer, inherited his infamous characteristics that led Perils to Democracy for 20 decades.
I disagree that the well-educated/professionals make better decisions.
Well-educated people, not necessarily with a formal education, definitely make better decisions. But the problem is that too many stupid and evil people have degrees and people think they are educated.
. (18:10) In addition to the meritocracy that made workers resentful of the economic and professional elites in the 1990s, the globalization imposed an unproductive economy, the financial market, which made industrialists sell or appoint financial CEOs and took their money to the financial market, becoming rentiers, deindustrializing countries.
Today we have financial economies that do not produce a single nail or generate jobs, while the productive economy, industries, and their workers have lost importance to the economic elites who now get rich in the financial market by buying and selling stocks/bonds. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw Americans and Europeans fighting to buy simple masks, gloves, and syringes from the Chinese.
That is why crises like the ones of the last generations arise, who do not want to work because they see that big capital is not in the productive area that has taken a back seat in the economies of countries with stagnant wages and no social status. And we have companies complaining that they no longer have a workforce to hire.
I do believe “Elites” should rule, but the problem here is the poor definition of elites. And we should also admit there should be a good definition of different categories of elites.
I don't think you can have a finalized answer, instead it needs to be a constant dialectic.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506dialectic materialist😂😂😂
Telling a bunch of elite Googlers that their disrespect of the people they proudly exclude from power (hiring only the "best and brightest" and "rewarding high-performers") led directly to the election of Donald Trump is is not going to get him invited back for another talk ;)
It is because it is unsympthtic thats all make it. More fair if it will ever do so is the problem😅😅😅
What if I don’t English?
Jones Joseph Martinez Ronald Rodriguez Betty
😂
6:24 - God this was cringeworthy...
The party is over so now is the time critise it not while it was enjoyable got it 😅😅
Explain is democracy ideology.unsymaphetic
Along with the theory 😂😂