Why 1% Of the World's Population Controls 45% Of the Wealth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2022
- Watch the full episode - • The Uncomfortable Trut...
Dr. Glenn Loury and I discuss the Pareto principle, the economics of inequality, PC culture, climate change, race in America, IQ and The Bell Curve, intelligence vs. wisdom, AA meetings, Christianity, and more.
Dr. Glenn Loury is an American economist, academic, and author. In 1982, he became the first African American tenured professor of economics at Harvard. Among Dr. Loury’s published works are The Anatomy of Racial Inequality and Race, Incarceration, & American Values. He was elected president of the Eastern Economics Association in 2013 and received the Bradley Prize in 2022.
___________
Links
___________
Dr. Loury’s substack:
glennloury.substack.com
The Glenn Show:
/ @glennlouryshow
The Anatomy of Racial Inequality: amazon.com/Anatomy-Racial-Ine...
Race, Incarceration, and American Values:
amazon.com/gp/product/B08BT4W...
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Newsletter: linktr.ee/DrJordanBPeterson
Donations: jordanbpeterson.com/donate
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
24/7 Dr. Jordan B. Peterson lectures livestream - ua-cam.com/video/ycvO4oIMXyM/v-deo.html
Romans 10:9
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
King James Version (KJV)
John 3:16 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Galatians 3:26 King James Version 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Titus 3:5-7 King James Version 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Revelation 21:4 King James Version 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Matthew 28:19-20 King James Version 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
What if we could kill the competition before the competition kills as all. A good starting point would be if the power to create money is taken from the private banking system, to be lodge with the Governments the people actually voted for. So far democracy still is just a dream, politicians, judges, main stream media are all for sale. “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” - Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815....The only way to colonize space and the planets in our solar system is cooperation thus a real democracy but before democracy becomes a possibility we must get the people out from the survival, no matter what it takes, mode.
10% or 1/10th is God's
You ok man? You look, seriously out of it
You need a rejuvinating vacation. I think 🤔
"people are not educated on how to think, they are educated on what to think".
I learn so much more, when I listen.
@@lekudos Wow you really got him huh
Me too 🙌🏻
@@lekudos can't always be learning. lol. the opportunity's there, but i'd like to see the person that learns from everything all the time.
Get what you are saying but I remember plenty of " If Simon says stick your bottom on the fire would you ?" at school . There are plenty of hints. So the responsibility is still there. Maybe they could have disagree with the teacher day. But you are also there to be conditioned to systems of control, which is complexed because that's not all bad.
Isn't that called indoctrination???? not education???
In my youth I, along with every other student in school, was given a battery of standard aptitude tests. I scored average or a little above or below average in most metrics except mechanical aptitude, which was at 99th percentile. I was very interested in computers (in the 1960's and 70's) and went to community college taking programming courses. I aced every CompSci class I took. When I was done, I couldn't have written an original program to save my life. Also, I learned that there was no possibility of my getting a degree in anything at all. After years of digging ditches and doing other forms of manual labor, I got into the Sheet Metal Union, where I thrived, earning a decent living using my God-given talents (mechanical aptitude), and eventually retired with enough pension to live a reasonably comfortable life. Somehow, it never occurred to me to resent my bosses or anyone else who made a lot more than I did. I reached my potential, and I'm good with that. Not everyone is cut out for high-powered careers or earnings, and that's fine. To quote a famous sailor man, "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam."
True, but these guys believe in rightwing economics which is inherently against unions or anything that guarantees livable pay for workers. Loury supported Reagan, who was instrumental in creating the modern economy where secure union jobs are scarce and less secure than ever. It's tragic that your story might look so different had you been born a few decades later. Thankfully the left is beginning to nurture a new trade union movement in the US, trying to bring back the positive economic elements of the 60s and 70s
@@reubennb2859 One needs to keep in mind that there are basically two kinds of unions - private employee unions and public employee unions. 'Rightwing' folks are generally supportive of the former and against the latter. In a private employee union, the union negotiates with a private employer. They debate and argue from a perspective of owner/employee. In a public employee union, considering that public unions are major donors to politicians, the union employees are in some sense negotiating with their employees, i.e., the people they got elected, and who they can get kicked out of office the next election. Huge power imbalance. I'm a staunch supporter of private employee unions, and detest public employee unions. I believe that if you want to work for the state, you should be willing to accept what the state can actually afford to pay you, rather than what you can blackmail your politicians into giving you. Ir used to be that the trade-off in working for the government was generally lower pay in exchange for job security and a good pension. Nowadays it's high pay followed by high pensions along with job security. Bad mix, in my humble opinion.
@@jimmullin7029 Public sector unions such as police unions really can run rampant and generate their own hierarchies with negative effects, I agree with you there. Often they're justified though, wherever the government is actually mistreating its employees. Private sector unions are just an objective social good in general (on average), but rightwing economists definitely overwhelmingly support laws that disempower them. Anyhow, corporate donations and influence in politics vastly exceeds public sector unions, and represent far more erosive economic interests that don't align with your average worker.
Interesting, when I took some test I remeber I was 99th percentile for I think it was mechanical comprehension. Some good insight for me I guess.
success is not measure by bank accounts.
i'm successful , because i can and do learn anything. I am proficient in sewing, sew machines, crocheting, weaving, pc repair, pc buliding, 3d printing, welding, woodworking, electronics, auto repair, contractor trades (10yrs of plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, repairs), i play guitar, i am learning Unreal Engine for VR development. I know java. If i can build something instead of buying it, i will learn it and do it. i haven't failed at anything yet. I studied traditional martial arts for 12years...lots of learning there.
Yet, i make $35-40k a year. I'm not rich at all. I rent, i own 2 cars and a motorcycle...and tons of gadgets and fun stuff. All while my best friend makes about $70k a year (network admin) and sits on his ass all day long watching tv or playing video games...literally gained 80lbs in 5 years after getting his job. Rides around the plant in a golf cart and Can barely use a power drill (i'm not kidding), and owns his own house and 2 cars.
So if you measure success by money...he wins. He may have a house and nicer things, but he has less spending money than i do.
If you measure it by knowledge and bettering yourself...i win....by a lot.
Jordan, you really need to have a discussion with black economist Thomas Sowell. In his 90th year, a phenomenal data collator and mind like yourself and still as sharp as a tack.
How about just economist Thomas Sowell. Skin color, to Sowell, is of no consequence.
@Arbane's Sword why not?
Jordan Peterson is aware of Sowell. He has referenced him multiple times.
Why is his colour relevant?
Sowell is not as sharp as he used to be.
That opera singer analogy is perfect. As a musician myself it resonated with me. That's how I'm going to explain this concept from now until forever.
I think it didn’t make much sense. If I heard it correctly, this is being suggested - The most admired Opera singers performed at the best locations (got the most money) and second or third rated singers would make their living by singing at the second best or third best locations and so on. My first issue is how someone became the “best” if that’s how the market worked? I mean, if only 2 Thousand best paying customers are attending something, how would they know the “best” is performing?
Anyway, even if we imagine it happened somehow and now there were good recording devices which sort of “democratised” Opera. Wouldn’t this help all Opera singers by giving them a level playing field? If they are good enough, they have a big market. If they don’t, they have a niche market or may be no market at all.
I bet this system works better for talent to be found and accordingly compensated. And, the audience also has the opportunity to listen to what they want rather than what they can “afford”.
Replace Opera singing with Hollywood movie production and try to see what technology has done. Are smaller fish now better off or worse? We have UA-cam, TikTok, OTT platforms and what not and thousands and thousands of content creators are making insane money. In the past only major production houses got benefitted.
This Opera singers analogy really didn’t make any sense to me if it means what I stated at the start.
@@rajbaniwal3236 how does the audience know they are watching the best opera singer? It was explained earlier in the video that talent is one distribution but the most talented performers also rise to the top of another distribution..that of resource command. You don't get to sing at the best venue just because you sing the best...you need promotion. The performers that dit at the top of the promotion distribution are not necessarily the most talented singer but the most marketable personality. The audience knows that marketing a crap singer doesn't work in the promotors favour so they trust the venue/promotors choice..plus, they have ears . It's true that the internet has opened talent up to a new audience..but standing in front of a room full of people and performing live is a different skill to doing it in front of your bedroom webcam. Venues need live performers not internet personalities
Opera was basically the movies. Everyone went. And even now regionally you can find good ones. But watching Pavarotti or Placido do Vesti la Giubba is heartbreaking while a regional guy might do it justice it's not at A level. It explains almost everything at 1%. If a movie / UA-cam link doesn't do it for you within about 15 seconds you can change the channel and get something better. 1% UA-cam guys like Mr Beast will get 50M views in two days.
@@rajbaniwal3236 you don't get to sing at the best venues until you've sung at all the little ones, repeatedly, proving to the small audience that you are worth coming back to see again. It's a slow grind from the small to medium to large venues...most working musicians understand this and prefer to find a sustainable small / mid level audience ...fame is a different goal
@@rajbaniwal3236
You say about Holywood. That is a faulty thought as well. TV is better. Years ago the movies went to thousands of cinemas. Now one airing on a national TV channel will reach all those people in one go.
How many people are becoming millionaires with twitter, Facebook or UA-cam. Yes they reach a large audience, but are they getting rich by it?
3 key people did most of the works at my previous job (Over 50 employees in total). The company closed down when those 3 left.
If you have one engineer and 50 workers. Of course stuff cant be done without the engi. But this doesnt implicate that workers are not working.
Also bad example, since engineers are not the top 1% of wealthiest people. Companies threat them like shit.
@@halleffect5439 exactly, its more a queation of who is replacable, with the existing employees or with a new person.
It's like MLM only the first few on top get paid from bottom recruits desperately trying to recruits more people into the piramid 😆🤣😂
I had a professor of economics explain how wealth becomes greater and greater as technology changes in this way. In the early 19th century when transportation was done by barges and carts and there was only the post office for communication, there were some retailers in large cities who became very wealthy with one or two big stores, but their wealth didn't quite get to millionaire status. Later as the railroads and telegraph made both transportation and communication faster and cheaper they opened branch stores in other cites or sold through the mail. Then they became millionaires as their base of customers increased. As both transportation and communication continued to become cheaper and better they were able to have huge chains of stores. Now with the internet you can literally sell to the entire world and the result is creating billionaires even though the profit margins might be narrower than ever before.
But those billionaires are then able to shut out/buy up competition and monopolise the market
@@mogznwaz only with government help. A lot of economic issues are from government helping
You have to remember that in the 19th century the economy functioned more like a laissez faire system and money was connected to a limited amount of gold. Right now, it works completely different, value is largely based on speculation in many cases. Also central banks/governments play an essential role.
Lol, you just described 2 correct Marxist theories, check them out on Wikipedia;
- The concentration and centralisation of capital
- The tendency of the rate of profit to fall
Hmmm, Benjamin Franklin was said to have had more money than the rest of the country combined. This is the way it was. The founders funded the entire war with their own fortunes. They were that wealthy. Look at the Cornelius Vanderbilt, when he passed away in 1877 he had a fortune of 100 million dollars. He built the railways and he was a millionaire long before.
It just always amazes me how quickly Jordan is able to process and articulate things. I think it sometimes amazes even his fellow intellectuals.
But he must be stupid if he thinks wealth or privilege is distributed based on merit or ability. After all, there are plenty of people who can't do anything about their situation. This is true of a huge majority of the population of the world. In Peterson's head everyone has the same chances. WTF?
@@muzzyizzit350 ok how do people like musk, bezo, gates, Buffett, sports celebrities, entertainers accumulated their wealth?
@@muzzyizzit350 "Everyone has the same chances" doesn't follow from "wealth is distributed (mostly) based on merit or ability"
@@muzzyizzit350He didn’t say that, don’t put the words in his mouths. They both agree it depends on 2 factors at least, the talent and the resources. Assume both factors have a normal distribution, then the overlap will be very small which explains the Pareto effect.
That is actually an argument against globalization and for keeping markets seperate, as integrating them will lead to an even higher concentration of wealth. The question is, if the overall benefit is higher overall or if there is a sweet spot after which the overall benefit declines.
Good question, only future can tell.
What if the process which concentrates wealth is the same process which increases production, lowers prices, and improves the quality of life for everyone?
Then attempts to redistribute or penalise wealth accumulation are only a hindrance in those areas.
@@RevoltingPeasant123 Absolutely. The problem is that we are not having this discussion, because the only metric we use is GDP, so and abstract measure of goods produced. Clearly, production is not everything that matters, just as wealth doesn't buy happiness.
I would also question if that quality of life is indeed increasing for everyone. Moving a car plant from Detroit to Guangzhou might increase production and overall wealth, but certainly not for the workers left behind in Michigan and their kids.
But with globalisation, there will be more technological advancements. That would create more “games” for people with all sorts of aptitudes. That would mean everyone can compete in one game or the other. Relative inequality will reduce. This could also work.
@@hacorn96 It hasn't actually worked like that. There are core areas that matter and those have become increasingly consolidated over time.
Dr. Glenn Loury is a great genius. His analogy on technology and pareto principle of opera house is a great example.
It wasn't his own. It was Sherwin Rosen's. He told so. Why weren't you listening?
Genius ??
It shows how unintuitive of the proportionality change of the Pareto principle to people. In a population of 100, the square would be the 10 top performers producing more than the remaining performers. In 10 separate populations of 100, there are 10 top performers for each one, for a total of 100 top performers, which most people would understand the proportion of. However, if those 10 populations were able to trade and compete with each other by technological advancement, the square of 1000 is 31.62 or, lower rounded, only 31 performers out of 1000 produce more value than all the remaining performers.
I think an important function in designing a game with a pure meritocratic game-state is having it so the highest preforming actors can be observed exercising approaching optimal play by the rest of the player base. Having perpetually updating models of high level play can increase the “education” of the player base exponentially.
Like nationally ranked adolescent basketball players today, with a level of skill that the previous generation didn’t show till college. These kids grew up watching Lebron over the internet. He shows them what it takes to be great.
That certainly seems to be a common problem with those who say they hate capitalism. They can't comprehend what many of those who make ridiculous salaries do or why they get paid that. Top athletes perform live on TV, actors and musicians perform for an audience by nature of the job, but the internal workings at the top levels of a Fortune 500 company are not broadcast in that way. If it could be easily seen what people at those income levels actually do, what they actually struggle with, what they accomplish that the average person couldn't, we might have far fewer people that resent them. To say nothing of those who learn from their example and make their own successful businesses.
The advantage in having a pure meritocratic game-state that perpetually observes it’s highest performing actors is it’s ability to inherently facilitate useful modeling for the player-base; allowing for a kind of self-play paradigm if you look at the player-base and HPAs (highest performing actors) as 2 parts of the same neural network. Meaning if it’s pure meritocratic, and the highest performing actors are being observed then the education; and therefor performance of the player base should increase by some positive value. I think the theory of capitalism rests on several immature axiomatic principles that make assumptions about human behavior. I think the HPAs of capitalism currently maximize efficiency by undermining/reorganizing the “pillars of capitalism”. I’m not sure what’s being played by whatever percentile of the player base Capitalism HPAs exist in, but it’s perpetuated by the education/performance values of the rest of the player-base being fixed or diminishing. Capitalism is currently not a pure-meritocratic game-state.
@@darthhodges re: executives in fortune 500: Great point. My dad did not ever get to be a manager by his choice. I wondered why when I was a kid since moving up the ladder seemed like something one would go after, a challenge if you will. After growing up a lot, I realized that I did not want that for myself either. It takes a lot of time and effort to do such things. One has to be disposed to give up a portion of their life to perform those duties. It may be for others and they can get the pay. It's not for me and that's just fine.
The problem in my shop is that the top 30% do eat up about 50% of the wages, but they do not produce 50% of the work. No matter where I go in my shop I end up doing multiple jobs even if the person before me only ran one machine. I go in there and I end up running 3 or even 4 machines yet I'm making about $9 less than the top wage earners. The shop does not want to pay us younger people (38-48 age bracket) more, and they will actively do everything they can to keep us from learning more so they don't have to pay us. While the top 1 or 2 guys in each department are making nearly $30 an hour.
Stop focusing on just money, become a craftsman in your field, take opportunities and chances when they arise and your talent, hard work, and experience will pay off. If you remain positive and focused on reaching your full potential you'll eventually have an excess of opportunities like you can not imagine. But it takes time, patience and not comparing yourself to others. DO NOT fall into the trap of envy - it's poison, even when it's warranted. Be grateful for every small thing and give as much encouragement and help to others as you can, within reason, of course.
@@adamking6005 I'm not some young 24-year-old that's just starting in my shop. I'm 43 been working there for 18 years and they are eliminating the product line at the end of September, so I'll be losing my job. You know nothing about my life or where I work.
It always amazes me when people think they can tell someone how to succeed when they have no idea what they are dealing with. No matter what, if my raise this year was the same as I've seen for the last 18 years I was going to be looking for another job. 3% is the most anyone gets. 1% if you're terrible and 3% if you're fantastic and they can't possibly find anything to make up or accuse you of.
I'm 43 and it would take me 10 years at 3% to make what my dad made when he quit this same shop 3 years ago. He was making the same wage I do today about 2006-07. The thing is we're looking at 2.5% inflation every year. So every year we make less. Last year inflation was over 6% and almost every guy that is not getting laid off is got only 3%. Basically every machine I run deals with the product line they are eliminating. So I am one of 3 in this situation.
So don't give me your BS lecture about envy. The fact, there are only 2 guys in my shop that can do the manual work I can do, and both of those guys are in their mid 60's and leaders (basically forman) and making $7-10 more than us younger guys putting them up around $27-30. Both of those leaders agree I should be making $3-4 more than I am. But 3% is all they will give unless forced. So really, keep your talk for guys who are 20-something, not guys with almost 20 years in the same shop.
Then you need to move on. My message to you was sincere, and not meant to be condescending in any way. I stand behind what I said, stay positive and look for an opportunity to better yourself (and others), which probably means moving on. If you find yourself bitter and unappreciated (been there), it's time for a change. Good luck!
@@Valkaneer
Sorry about your job getting eliminated. Spending 20 years at a shop that you knew wasn't paying you what you were worth seems like a poor choice. Either you value the comfort zone or you should have left years ago.
Twitch is a good example of how the positive feedback loop of "viewers" influences a streamers success. Put simply, the top streamers who command the lions share of viewers at any given time will attract even more viewers.
It's based on human nature, where a large crowd attracts people - regardless of the content. This is demonstrated perfectly with Twitch, as very often the top streamers are literally doing nothing - sleeping even, with the camera rolling - and commanding tens of thousands of viewers. Meanwhile other streamers with little viewership can be providing much more complex content to little avail.
It would be interesting if Twitch did away with the "current viewers" count for streamers. My guess is people would choose who to watch more based on their content, rather then being manipulated by the crowd effect.
I'm actually repelled by large crowds, since I understand that anything the masses are swarming to is probably bad, or at least, exaggerated.
Our brains allow us to rise above our baser instincts and achieve something greater. We're not programmed robots.
What's Twitch?
@@williampearson6299 Its a livestream website
Twitch is not a good example. Twitch viewers are not inheritable - wealth is.
Good idea to remove viewcount, but that would also be true for youtube videos, I think the same is true you are more likely to watch a video with many views, more people "validated" it or something
Excellent discussion between you guys. So many great thoughts discussed here
Thanks Jordan in so many ways, you have continued to enlighten us, enrich our insights, questions our on morals and ethics and continue learning and growing
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟐5𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟏𝟔✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ◦◦ . .
Create today what yesterday you could not... Thank you Jordan for helping me understand that I am just a creative entrepreneur. Time to create more and see what sticks.
We all change the world. Some change it for themselves, some change the world for others.
Thank you Jordan for letting many incredibly digestible meaningful ideas pass through you!
This is true but this is why I choose to employ a level of the principal of subsidiarity because what we’re missing is the PERSONAL and communal by not engaging at the local level and personally it feels extremely different. I’m convinced part of our current mental health crisis is directly due to the lack of local connections.
I think they were referencing Price’s Law: (paraphrasing) Half of all work that a group does is completed by the square root of the total number of people in the group.
Pareto Principle: 80% of the Outcomes (or Output) results from 20% of all Causes (or Inputs).
Muskietime Principle: Most insignificant things in life are 50:50 so try not to sweat it!
Life is Good
"Positive feedback loop" reminds me of momentum. Having more wealth makes you accumulate more and more. The problem with having nothing is that nothing even starts.
The Pareto principle describes a constant ratio. But wealth inequality in America (and globally) isn't constant, it's increasing. The problem isn't inequality alone, it's that it's growing.
It's fractionating, and re-emerging within each split sub-market. The share asymmetry is multiplying by the additional leverage in each domain made to escape the slope in the status quo.
Thanks to the Federal Reserve system and the US government. They screw everything up.
the bottom 25% in North America are living lifestyles that would be the envy of the top 25 % 100 years ago.
@@marcus8710 What?!? It's simpler than that. The trend of increasing wealth inequality, especially in America, is clear. And it's not stopping. As the top 1% gain wealth and power, they gain increased abilities to gain more wealth and power, and so on.
@@sheldonbirkeland8220 No. The top 25% in 1922 were living good, sometimes luxurious lives. They would not envy the lives of the homeless in America today.
I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate you having conversations with BOTH John McWhorter AND Glenn Loury.
The Positive Feedback loop is a great explanation and in a way it is a bit depressing for some. Many people consider this, right place right time or who you know or who your introduced to. Example I have worked hard my entire life, but I see friends that were in the right place a the right time and were introduced to the right person and then financially speaking has pulled away. When I try to do something it seems like I can't ever be in that right place at the right time, so it's difficult to get that positive feedback loop. It's hard to break that cycle for someone like me, or for others worse off then me.
You are right. I do not like how Jordan Peterson underplays this in his attitude. Privilege is a reality and if you are born in the right areas and circumstances, you have a million times better chance. Warren Buffet would be not even close to his wealth if he had not had his father and his connections allowing him $1m worth of money to play the stock market with for example. In fact every hyper billionaire has this type of story pretty much. I say this as a complete right winger who would never vote left. I do take issue with hyper wealthy people avoiding taxes, I see little benefit to society for these cases and a lot of damage. The left have now got rid of any interest in helping the little man get ahead because they never really cared about them to begin with. This is why we are starting to see societies in the west start to look very unbalanced.
Fascinating. The discussion made me think of the Chinese "lying flat" movement. If your efforts and abilities are only sufficient to gain a well below average portion of the economic pie then one response is to just quit going after the pie. There is potentially a fair degree of contentment in idly strumming a guitar or having a nap under a flowering lilac. It seems to me that the possibility of social unrest is exacerbated when society encourages everyone to be "the best they can be" but then doesn't offer any emotional satisfaction for those for whom the best is not good enough.
The "best" for one person, based on the individual potential and aptitude, is not the same for another.
Using income as the only measurement is a fallacy in this context. Pushing for it onto everything and everyone is the point of failure.
A machinist and a CEO are not equivalent. That doesn't mean that the machinist by default failed to be successful.
Shawn, what interests me are the relationships between effort, reward and self esteem. A CEO and a machinist are not equivalent and society puts a value on their contribution that does not necessarily reflect skill, effort or contribution to the well being of society. The CEO of a computers game company is likely valued considerably more in monetary terms than a machinist who spent decades refining a skill that allows him to make highly productive robots essential for creating cheap goods. The machinist is not highly valued by society and so must find internal worth. If you can find internal value in just being a human being on this planet then why go through the effort of being the best machinist you can be?
@@user-ju7dx8mu6d if the machinist has to ask himself that question, he has his own personal problems that are likely outside the real of his occupation. A successful machinist will be able to provide for himself, his family (if present), and have the ability to have a degree of freedom in planning for his own future. An unsuccessful machinist will not. Possibly have debt due to other poor choices, addiction, or other issues superseding the question of capabilities within his trade. Individuals within a trade such as that do not remain in the trade if they aren't capable or successful in performing the acts enabling the trade itself and thus cease to be machinists.
This doesn't translate to non-productive trades or positions of authority or power. Thus, they will never be equivalent. It is also how the pareto principle is able to exist and be observed in the first place.
Furthermore strictly focusing on those with authority or influence as the sole issue will collapse the environment under them where the capable produce as the upper limits of what value is considered becomes flat. As such, all cease trying under such environments and simply lie down with the lowest enforced common denomination. There are of course always those who enforce who in turn have self interest and create disparity as well, since none of that is a naturally occurring state of being.
@@shawnm1902 a machinist is way more valuable than a CEO.
@@walkitoff. useful vs value.
Useful being utilized to perform required or desired things.
Value being arbitrarily assigned via perception, of which is being dictated by the person in the "valuable" position as a byproduct of self interest.
Dr. Peterson, thank you for another great podcast. By the way, I told my psy college class about you, so you might have more fans (on their way). 💜
Jesus, this is why I distrust psychologists.
When I was young I worked hard labor. Ranch and farm work 7 days a week. I wore out many a shovel handle. I had the notion that the harder I worked, the more wealth I would have. What really baffled me was people that didn't actually work, but sat in an office 40 hours a week, made five times as much as I did, and they had really nice stuff. At some point I realized that its brains that make money, not braun. The smarter you are, the more you make. If all you have is a strong back, you'll live in poverty. That's just how it is. Or I should say, how it was. Today if you have an IQ on the lower end, you get a check from the government and complain about being oppressed. You can't fix stupid. All you can do is throw money at it.
Its not about how hard you work its about the value of what you produce.A hard working shoe makers product is less valuable than a lazy ferrari designer or a lazy ferrari engineer.
That isn't strictly true. There are a lot of examples of people that make a lot of money and are not that smart, but they make it on braun. Sports for example. I'm not saying athletes aren't intelligence, but within that grouping there are some that are above average intelligence, some that are average and some that are below average, but even the below average ones might make a fortune. However, I take your point that strict manual labor is generally not the way you're going to make a lot of money, but again, there are areas of endeavor where a large part of the job is manual labor and people make very good money.
@@devo196047 For sure. Dad in law was at mom in law's room before she passed, and the house keeping staff ( not the CNA this was a pure house keeper ) was whining that she wasn't getting paid what the head nurse did. Well, yeah there's a 4 year degree and usually around 8 years worth of medical school worth of difference. Do they always retain what they learn, no, but they have way more responsibility than just wiping down some floors and making beds. That's why it's really not good to just throw standards out the window, cause in some professions, if you mess up, someone dies.
@@robertholland7558 Its not about usefulness its about how much something is desired and how how scarce it is. Are gold chains and diamond rings useful? No but they sure are rare and sought after .Also have you ever noticed if you are seeing a women you suddenly attract more women? Humans can be very flawed with this thinking.
You can fix stupid. You put children in schools with well-trained teachers and you make sure the children think and concentrate. You feed them fresh fruit and vegetables and make sure they exercise and socialise as well. And, by socialise, I mean actually in real life, not on some internet network (not necessarily more social than anti-social). And Burger King doesn't count for your five a day.
So, you can fix stupid, but not enough is being done these days. For most of the 20th century, IQ was rising. Then people invented cable television and computerphones (a more neutral word for 'smartphone') and things went downhill.
Jordan Peterson thank you so very much for being the person u are I've had a very rough life in and out of jail for drugs and what have u after 15 years of severe dependency to opiates and alcohol I came across ur book 12 steps which helped me tremendously and I have been watching u ever since you have helped me in so many ways thank u for being u
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟐5𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟏𝟔✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ..
Why do I rarely hear AGE discussed when it comes to wealth. I grew up in a family just below the poverty level - using Jordan's words "dignified poor". I went to college, got in debt, made next to nothing for a few years and was probably bottom 5%, now at 50, I'm close to the 1% in individual income (top 3% household income) - no clue if I'm in the 1% of wealth though. But I've seen statistics somewhere that say something like 75% of the people end up in the top 10% at some point in their life. I'm just wondering if some of this stuff is age/experience-related income inequality.
Well yeah that's the natural progression if you go into a feild like engineering at least and put in some effort, but there is obviously a problem with extreme inequality. The share of the countries gdp is very skewed compared to the past, and you cannot tell people who are suffering, which is a majority of the people, that one day 75% of them will do better. I think as humans we have the ability to engineer correct change and we shouldn't just lay at the feet and give up to this pareto distribution. There is definitely the possibility of a much better system why would we not keep trying?
@@Hoppensagen I have a friend that I grew up with. He was a year older than me and quit school in 8th grade. I was so angry with him. He went to work making 10 bucks an hour at a steel mfg company. He manages the whole thing today and makes over $250k per year. We both grew up in the poorest of poor areas in our country. We already have the best example of a system in world history in terms of social mobility. Every other system we've tried i.e. communism or fascism/socialism has resulted in even greater disparity and the lowest group suffered even more. There is a serious risk in "keep trying".
“Behind the statistics on inequality is the simple fact that people just starting out in their careers usually do not make as much money as they will later, after they have had years of experience.
Who should be surprised that 60-year-olds have higher incomes and more wealth than 30-year-olds? Moreover, that was also true 30 years ago, when today's 60-year-olds were just 30. But these are not different classes of people. They are the same people at different stages of their lives.”
- Thomas Sowell
@@RevoltingPeasant123 i call that the wisdom of the smart elders. no matter the work you chose to do your going to slow down as you age. it going to happen you're not going to be able to keep up with the latest code in IT or fight on the level of a twenty-year-old in boxing. if you have any since at all you're going to pull yourself out of the game and stand over it in a manager position and use your knowledge to guide the young and stupid. and that will be your life people will pay big not to make mistakes so yeah, a 50-year-old pro will make more money that a green horn it makes cents
@gatorstew1 i think we do have the age discussion it's made by the generations of poor/rich people. kids learn from their parents watching them and copying their lives. people like you look around and say you want better so you reject your family and ensure that you children have better. people like you are the odd one out most don't reject their home lives thinking that starving is just a fact of life. ignorant of how easy? it could be to change that
Cannot wait to see you in Seattle! 👍🏼☺️
Holy crap, this all makes so much sense. To summarize minutes 2 through 5:
- Pareto principle says (roughly) that the square root of the population produces 50% of the useful/desirable output. i.e. the higher the population, the more the inequality
-- Taken another way, excelling at some productive role requires not just excellence in the skill itself, but adjacent and resources (e.g. to be a great tennis player you need to be top X% in raw athleticism, AND top X% in dexterity/aim, AND top X% in strategic thinking and access to training resources, equipment, etc.). So if X is 10, being a great tennis player becomes only 10%*10%*10%... of the tennis-playing population. And X is probably less than 10.
- Historically, even if the global population was high, or the country's population was high, only a subset of the population could actually leverage their overlapping skills, so Glenn gives the example of the opera house. You didn't have to be in the top 0.01% of opera singers before music recording and in-home playback was a thing. You only had to be, say, in the top 1% or 10% because there were so few opera singers that could sing in the local opera house.
-- So, globalization and technology increased the effective population (or removed the artificial cap on effective population in a given context), causing inequality to apparently spike.
Thus, 1% of the world's population controlling 45% of wealth is no particular surprise, and is likely *not* due to corrupt systems, but fair, meritocratic ones (at least in large part).
Whether the wealth inequality is really a problem, or what to do about it if it is... those are very different questions.
So your father is rich snd dies. You get his property, diversified in different asset classes. All you are doing is sitting around and over long period of time getting an annualized return of something between 6-9%. In the end of the process you are still richer, than the most sophisticated Katana-Sword Craftsmen.
All I'm seeing here is an ideological justification for inequality presented as a natural law.
@@empirelee7676 Sure, I guess if you want to look at that scenario purely from the perspective of the individual who gets income for doing nothing. But those inherited assets are invested into other people's endeavors, giving them the ability to leverage their skills, talents, and intelligence with less of an artificial cap, thus driving quality of life up for everyone. At worst I'd say those offset: one person gets rich for nothing while thousands get slightly richer for having more capital to work with.
Regardless, that's not the kind of "rich" that this video was talking about nor that I was talking about. The video is about inequality when comparing people within a specific field or competitive enterprise.
@@seanleith5312
When is it a problem? So 45% ist apparently not a problem (I would disagree but anyway). Whats about 60%? 70%? Is 90% still unproblematic?
The problem with wealth it, that it isnt just money but not democratically legitimised power.
This is nonsense. You can assert this pareto principle if you like, it's not a real scientific law, but it's irrelevant. The question is not why a small minority produces all the wealth, but how it's shared. In a decent society (and there are many outside the US) people have no problem sharing the wealth they create, particularly into the public space.
This video and the discussion is simply a good example of standard propganda techniques. Frame the debate in a controlled and misleading way and the answers you want always come out.
Sounds like you agree with what's being said in the video and in my comment (that is, small portions of the population produce most of the productive output because of a natural phenomenon) but you believe the output should be redistributed. Jordan and Glenn acknowledge in the video that income inequality has some negative consequences, but the video isn't about what to do about it, or how to redistribute after the fact. It's about why it happens naturally in the first place.
Speaking as someone who works in a financial institution of roughly 10,000 employees, to say that 50% of the work is done by 100 employees is laughable. The thing is, it's all about how you quantify the work being done. Sure if we are talking about executive decisions, then possibly 100 people can make them. However, the information that goes into these decisions is a crystallization of all the work done by rank and file officers. This takes Alot of refining including collecting and management of sales information from stakeholders, calculating and then finally a crystallized metric for executives to make decisions from. That does not mean executives do 50% of the work, that means they leverage most of the work done to make decisions. Which is not the same thing as doing 50% of the work at all.
My opinion here is that The Pareto Principle when applied to work is biased towards influential employees rather than ordinary employees. Take an executive decision maker. Put them in a sales position for the day. They will only be able to do as much sales as what comes through the door. Essentially you can only do what is put in front of you. Therefore they are limited by the position itself to produce output. And also the position is obviously essential to get business, so even when periods are not productive, that's still work because a lull in business is part if the job too.
I could see possibly how it would be a factor in academic work but it simply does not apply to large working environments as there is just way too much work to do.
great conversations.
Thank you for everything you are doing, saying, and offering. Thank you
Dr. Peterson. Truly Valuable to my life 🙏🏼 Please never stop.
Ok. Chill. Sedoxil does wonders for you. You should try it.
@@missionhumanity9353 destructive shortcut
@@missionhumanity9353 The only thing I understand clearly from your ever-telling comment is you are every shade of green🍏 with envy. I find it childish and repulsive that you are jealous of two people who are complete strangers and have zero effect on your existence. Yet admiration from one human to another is enough for that ever-growing green monster to snatch you up, control, and compel you to make its presence known. Neither a wolf nor a man, more like a pathetic little child.
Probably the same reason we have a much larger separation of rich today than the past. In the past you had to work to get the wealth. If you owned 20 farms you had to visit all 20 farms. Now, by computer, you can own and manage things across the world.
That's literally the basic critique of capitalism, the ownership structures it sets up that allow this inequality
No "ism" system works with a deflationary population birthrate death rate ratio
@@reubennb2859 But as explained in this interview THAT is not an issue. The issue is if the distribution is funneled through aggressive means such as gov cronyism and protectionism.
It doesn't matter if someone else is filthy rich, it matters if your path is block by that filthy rich person.
In capitalism the pie always gets bigger. Its no different than body building. Me getting more muscle has no real effect on you. The ONLY issue is if I block your access to the gym.
@@cb-gz1vl If capitalism allows power to those who have the most connections and accumulate rights over the most property, then of course they're gonna control their governments and block smaller competitors. That's just rational action for a pre-existing successful agent in capitalism, hence an inevitable tendency towards monopolies and cronyism. I'm fine with fairly wealthy people if the process generating them doesn't put/keep others in a bad condition. And even when an economy grows and consumers gain access to slightly more products or whatever, often working conditions are crippling and alienating and communities die at the whims of corporate decisions. Social democracy and eventually market (worker co-operative based) socialism seem to be the only tools against this. Hence why real wages, poverty, life expectancy etc. have stagnated in the developed world and are beginning a slow downward spiral. It's naive to blame the government as this malevolent external actor to the economic system, it simply channels a mixture of corporate, legal and democratic interests, filtered into broadly the set of things the economic elite supports
@@reubennb2859 Socialism results in worse outcomes. There is no example in the 20th century of socialism that has beaten capitalism on not only wealth redistribution but floating all boats. In fact the cronyism you see in capitalism is state socialism.
Even Slavoj Zezek points out that nothing has beaten capitalism in this manner. ANY attempt at forced wealth redistribution just results in all the trees being cut down. Because, after all, if everyone is poor... everyone is equal.
This is why Adam Smith's book The Theory of Moral Sentiments should be taught in every school as a required subject. IMO both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations should be taught as a must-read in every high school.
JP. your a blessing to me, and the world. I wish you health and happiness all your life. You are a remarkable human .
Opportunities will never be equal no matter what the various governments do because some people will do the extra work to create more opportunities for themselves.
Aiming to raise the baseline of opportunity for all, seems to be a better policy than aiming to equalize opportunity itself, which usually results in equalizing the best downward.
Agreed but it’s politically easier to blame the wealthy and try to redistribute that wealth (via taxes etc) than it is to imply or suggest the less wealthy may need to seek to improve themselves or create their own opportunities.
@@pplphil9979 This is a tired right wing talking point. Ironically, the majority of right wing voters are underwhelming people who lack the talents and usefulness that they tout others should have to be successful. Truth is, I find more use in my local butcher or car mechanic in my life than I do Elon Musk. He does nothing for my life and I could be fine if he left the planet. If every butcher or car mechanic left, I would be in trouble.
As an Indian I really wish to see a debate or discussion between Jordan and people like sadhguru and j sai Deepak. Particularly with j sai deepak on coloniality, It would be like when western wisdom meets indian wisdom
🤣🤣🤣Bro... They are pseudo intellectuals ... They are only good for our local Medicore audience of India ....
@@SHIVAMYadav-pw5uz what! J sai Deepak and sadhguru are psuedo intellectuals 😂😂.This just shows you are suffering from heavy inferiority complex 🤦♂️
There will always be someone above you financially and someone below you. The thing to strive for is insuring the people above you aren't employed by the government or elected to office.
One thing missing from the Pareto Principle analysis provided is that those high-output individuals may be relying heavily on the lower-output individuals for a significant amount of less visibility / less grandiose background work. That isn't to say that the contributions of the high-output individuals isn't important, rather that they may not be able to be nearly so high-output if they didn't have teams of lower-output individuals supporting their effort.
Peterson I have heard of your work 5 years ago and no one had more influence in my life.
“Role players”. Superstars can’t win alone although they produce 80% of the win.
On the subject of the Haida people, a fascinating rabbit hole to go down is the mechanism by which their chiefs accrued the wealth that was then distributed through the Potlatch ceremonies...
The other principle at work in the modern times is that more persons are spending more of their time exposing themselves to excellence in a myriad of domains compared to prior times. Then mix that with open source publishing/broadcasting exposes more talent and abilities than ever. That works against the stagnation of resources and the consolidation of resources.
Excellent comment.
Gotta kiss a few frogs to find find a good one….
The real income gap in the US b/w middle and lower economic classes have widened drastically over the past 40 years. The pew research center found that since the early 80s, lower and middle class income adjusted for inflation has been stagnant while the upper class saw 3-4 times growth in their real incomes. What changed?
@Cool Dude
This 100%. The value of low-skill American labor has completely tanked over the last 40 years, while making insane amounts of money employing very few people has become orders of magnitude more common and lucrative.
Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the economy, and others followed. Thatcher claimed "There is no such thing as society" and look how society ended up...
Sadly some of the hardest workers and best of the best will never get to the one percent. Western culture like America have put some of the worse people to raise to the top. In addition, we also added rules and laws making it almost impossible for others to compete.
Yup, that’s why i chose to quit doing that and become part of the one percent. It’s simple. Do what the 99 are not doing. Any one can be Wealthy. In today’s day it is so easy it’s almost comical. If you have a phone you can be rich.
That's complete BS, at least for profit concerned companies. No one wants to lose money.
No freedoms, based on the point you are trying to make, it seems that everyone should just throw up their hands and quit. Let’s just tax the rich and all become wards of the state. Brilliant strategy!
The 1% changes monthly so to say people cannot achieve it is false. Also, it is obvious that the best gardener does not have the same economic value as the best Hedge Fund Manager, however the gardener may be just as content. If you only goal is to be a part of the wealthiest 1%, then good luck.
The 1% is a transient income category, not an enduring class - like people with blue eyes.
Something like 40% of American households are in the 1% for at least one year. Anyone who lives in California can immediately enter the 1% by simply selling their house. Unfortunately, most of them have to buy a new one after doing this.
I see a lot of people succeeding through incompetence and people taking more than their share. People with resources compounding their resources and networking with other highly resourceful people, an opportunity that isnt afforded to a lot of people.
03:00 they talk about the idea that was picked up by Michel Chion (I believe) regarding the quality of production/project/outcomes - 3 main constraints of it: time, skill/expertise, resources - saying that quality requires all 3 to be fairly quanitative, and top at best. If there are 2 of these factors at top level, there is still a chance for good outcomes, but if only one is secured well and the other 2 are poor, the quality cannot be done.
This principle applies most especially to the creative and information domains. In a crew of 100 men laying concrete, you aren’t going to see 10 of them doing half the work. Still, as more of our world and jobs are subsumed into the worlds of software, finance and media, these uneven distributions of success will become a greater and greater problem.
you obviously havent worked at a concstruction site most people do nothing until the overseer comes around or manager
@@dante6039 classic view of any construction/road work is one man digging and 5 more staring and giving advice coz they only have one damn shovel
Also, in a 100 man crew 50% of work or more is done by drivers delivering concrete, operators and one buddy that holds the damn hose. 90 other just strap the shit up.
In the video they talked about technological advancement and how it affects the distribution. So I don't see the point of your example
I think it's strange how nepotism is so rarely addressed in these discussions. Surely it is worth pointing out at least.
nepotism and inheriting,most ppl arent rich because they worked for it,they were born rich,its a new form of royalty and they completely ignore it...wich is very dissapointing
@@ojberrettaberretta5314 Yes. It has formed the backbone of entire cultures and ethnicities for thousands of years as a way of ensuring survival and prosperity. I'm sure most people experience it to a greater or lesser extent - who hasn't had a family member help them into a job at some time in their lives for example? You can't just sweep this under the rug.
@@duckboyjiden9491 exactly now if we look at who is studying at elite universities and how these ppl are connected to economical and political powerhouses how they keep to themselves and exclude the majority of the ppl to enter this nucleus its astonishing that they havent adressed it even tho they are surrounded by it,maybe because they themselves have become part of it to some extent
But
You are right,nepotism, favoritism,how about skepticism.All this talk about the same subject from super think tanks. It's really a waste of time in ones life. This is a ongoing nonsensical subject. Because wealth distribution and fairness is emphasize too much in the realm of the bug picture in life. Nobody can put there finger on it or stop it. All they are doing is making money off being do called see smarter.I could have said what they ate saying decades ago. The system is s system that is not necessarily controlled by one entity. Some people are going to make it and some are not. Just don't fie being part of the Not.
addressing the opera singer part... it's interesting to note that whilst a person would rather listen to a recording of a top Opera singer than go out because recordings have also expanded the platform of music artists drawing more in, it's meant that even your top artists (which they will tell you) have to go traveling, on tour to towns and nations because without doing that they would never stay afloat with just the sale from recordings.
ᴍᴇssᴀɢᴇ/ᴡᴀ
±𝟏𝟖𝟒𝟕𝟗𝟒𝟑𝟗𝟒𝟕𝟔
Tell him I referred you.......
👆👆Thank you for your comment. 🔝🔝🔝
Write to Henrik regarding about investment ideas
I would agree with technological advantage, but it doesn't benefit most talented. It's most likely benefiting most famous and and already influential rather than most talented. Having on the top of it moguls controling media and resources, talent becomes secondary.
Certainly a concern but at the same time a very big chunk of that 1% are major employers
Dont you mean parasites?
There’s a severe lack of people trying to dominate the hierarchy of making the world a better place for everyone without exclusions. Imagine every human going on a website, putting any differences aside, being educated on a problem and everyone collectively helping each other find a solution on one issue at a time. Where’s the people trying that?
On stack overflow
@@MrKushinator420 lol in a way different than I imagine but yea true
@Historya Hoje we can’t have nice things 😔
This is the true reason the 1% control everything and will continue to do so… Apathy and willful ignorance of the masses. Our inability/refusal to embrace diversity and work together toward eradicating corruption, while devising truly equitable solutions to the world’s many problems, will ensure we remain enslaved by the elite.
and interest differ. Just finding people interested in the same thing as you, knowledgeble in that field and having spare time is rare. Even programms that give processpower on your homepc for research like proteinfolding and stuff isnt done by many, most people dont even know these things exist
Excellent clip
One point that I’ve always made with these kinds of discussions, and it doesn’t catch on for some reason, is that outcome, as in equality of outcome, relies heavily on how resources (money primarily) is spent or allocated. Most people that have financial trouble tend to spend their money on wants frivolous wants and not necessarily on things that might increase their chances of success.
Thats simply not true though, thats just something said in order to justify inequality.
The Bible instructs all the Kings & Queens of Israel to partake in the year of the Jubilee, every 50 years, in which all debts would be forgiven and wealth would be equally distributed back out to the population to create a new Pareto Equilibrium. The Queen of England is crowned at a ceremony claiming to observe all these practices, including using some priceless artifacts dating from ancient eras practicing these traditions. Yet, on her Jubilee year (correctly named by her) she forgot the part about giving up her wealth.
The queen would rather die than give up on her wealth
Well she is so old I don't think she forgot on purpose. Also even if she wanted to give it up, I don't think it's for her to decide. She is just a puppet along with all the presidents.
Elizabeth Regina deeded nearly all of her personal and Crown wealth (she was once a billionaire when that title was coined to Howard Hughes) to the UK back in the 1960's or early 70's
I have no idea how you have perverted Leviticus to get it to teach equal distribution of wealth. Anyway we do not live in Old testament Israel so it is irrelevant.
Interesting that you talk of the potlatch ceremony. A bit like the year of the Jubilee in the Jewish tradition resetting everything to zero after 50 years.
Good observation.
Looking back at my work career in NYC (graphic design companies), I have seen that just about all of them went bankrupt, out of business. Anyway, I often (with good reason) considered myself to have been one of the most productive employees, and never was given a particularly high status by "management", often remaining virtually totally unknown to the owners. In my view, many such owners had no idea how their bread was buttered. One owner owned a huge estate out on Long Island, quite near to neighbor Billy Joel who also owned a massive estate. And yet he was steadily going downhill until he went bankrupt and presumably lost it all. Once, on leaving work for the day, I happened to share an elevator with this "boss" who worked on another floor and really did not know us workers. So the only conversation I ever had with this boss was that time, he looked down at my gray colored shoes and uttered "I don't trust anyone who wears shoes like that". I was later fired, for no good reason, and certainly nothing about my work or productivity, because the top boss listened to one of his overrated "middle men" who had a personal dislike for me because he knew I saw right through his uselessness and the company's double standards. Anyway, to make a long story short, I (perhaps their most valuable employee) was the first to go. Soon after that, many more firings, and a few months later, the entire company closed shop. Bankrupt. I always knew very well that I was to be grist in the mill. Yet I never desired to start my own company and "do it right". I guess most employees have their list of complaints. However, as an artist at heart, I always knew that the cruel and mostly idiotic business world would not serve me well. --- [It is not all complaints. Despite so many bad experiences in the harsh world of NYC graphics business employment, by totally separate means I ended up a millionaire anyway --- no thanks to prior employment in NYC!]
there's something wrong with the way how you want to quantify quality. Putting art in framework of sport, like a competition, it just doesn't work. It works as long as you insist on evaluating by mass appeal which brings the money, but we know things don't work like that in real life. There are many exceptional individuals who were never recognized during their life, those who far exceeded their contemporaries in excellence, and despite all odds went against the mainstream mindset of the masses. These are the true heroes who bring the most meaningful change, and are very often unknown to the masses even today. It all boils down to how we value things in society, and values defined by the status quo are always fleeting. All that glitters is not gold, and that becomes apparent especially today when you can see with your own eyes what the youtube algorithm spits out on surface, or what is considered the apex od pop culture in western society with prevalence on narcissistic attention seeking egoic traits. Today and yesterday shit floats to surface, and gold stays buried deep underneath, yet to be discovered.
The old saying " the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is becoming more and more true to today's world. It is becoming much harder to live (financially) for those who are not in the top % of wealth.
This is just simply not true. People who live ‘in poverty’ today in the USA (defined by statisticians as 60% of the median income) enjoy a material living standard higher than the upper middle class of a Brazilian today, higher than an upper middle class American in the 1980s, higher than a British Aristocrat in the 1930s, higher than a king in the 1850s, and higher than the standard most people imagined theirs gods lived in the year 1500.
Very true
It's true but unfortunately there's not a productive fix presented yet.
Technological advancements are offsetting the drop in quality of life though. Like yes, gas is more expensive, but then you can watch Netflix for $10/mo at home on a big fancy flat screen tv that only cost $500, and keep in touch with all of your friends easily on free social media apps and even video chat with friends abroad for hours for free. International phone calls used to be like $1/min.
This right here.
Follow the money 💰
you could limit the effect of the pareto distribution by having more domains within the domain - don't you think ?
I guess that could be one of the reasons to have a manager within a team within a company within an organisation etc.
That’s what I was thinking. Smaller, semi-independent, internally (deliverables) and externally (performance) accountable teams.
“Throw a mess at the wall and see what sticks.” This is the advice for a manifestor in Human Design. I ran JP’s chart… yup he’s a manifestor. 🙌🔥🙌
To those that have everything, more will be given. From those that have nothing, everything will be taken
The title of this video is grossly misleading. ‘The 1%’ is not a population category, it is an income category. This is specifically defined in all income statistics, as they are not measured in numbers of people. That 1% of income earners could contain any number of people. The category also changes from year to year, both in the number of people and those who occupy it (with a few conspicuous exceptions like Bezos and Gates who are always in it).
To conflate it with a population category is the same as that age old joke; every 30 seconds a man is hit by a taxi in New York. He must get awfully tired of it.
Secondly, the wealth is not ‘controlled’ by that category. Bezos, for example, has an estimated net worth of something like 175bn usd. But that does not mean he has 175bn in his bank account or personally holds assets worth that. So to say he ‘controls’ that is misleading.
If Amazon and it’s subsidiaries were mismanaged, or failed in multiple new ventures, and started losing money, or were outcompeted by another company (a fate which has afflicted just about every corporate giant in human history) his ‘wealth’ would drastically decline. This is not how you would characterise ‘controlling’ something.
I would like to add that colloquial irregularities occur frequently within any language, and since you and the rest of the viewers perfectly understand the intended meaning, being particular about the distinctions between “population category” and “income category” is purely pedantic and arguably pretentious.
@@replexity Actually, I made the point specifically because of how often I encounter people who sincerely believe there are a cabal of billionaires who decide, from their own volition, what half the worlds resources are used to produce. Are you suggesting this phenomena isn’t frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies, for example?
@@replexity Rule #10: Be precise in your speech -- Dr. Jordan Peterson
Bezos might not have 170B in liquid assets, but that also applies to your average millionaire: most of their wealth is likely land or property, which are even less liquid than Jeff's stocks.
Moreover, it is a known trick that billionaires borrow money using the stocks they hold in their companies as security for those loans. There is an entire banking industry around accommodating those people, so while they are wealthy "on paper" they can use that to obtain very real cash and live extremely lavishly.
Now are you able to do that as a millionaire? The answer is no, some doors are closed and you play by very different rules.
Part of this too that is almost never mentioned is that, in many circumstances, a family that acquires great wealth usually loses it all within a couple of generations. I call it the silver spoon effect. Your parents worked hard and left you a ton of money. You know what they went through, so you also work hard and add to it. Your kids though, they don’t know as much. They live off the idea that they will always have money and their lives will always be comfortable. By the time their kids come around, they lose most of their wealth and have to start over. I’ve seen this in the family of a friend, his dad was legit a rocket scientist and his mom a doctor, so they made tons of money and have money to spare. My friend refuses to lean on them because he understands that they earned that, but his brother borrows money from them all the time and refuses to get a real job. That’s how most “rich” families seem to function. They lose it all within a few generations and then they’re just like the rest of us. There is someone else whose family was poor and is now rich, only to lose it again in a few generations.
this is fascinating
Achieving what the Nordic Countries have done is easier because they are homogenous. It's not really due to racism though some deep rooted evolutionary racism does exist. It more because of cultural norms regarding what proper behavior is. Standards about hard work, good use of resources, alcohol and drug use etc. are consistent across the population. These standards are not so consistent across the US and those of harder working more thrift cultures are less likely to want to share with those that are more carefree and wasteful. It's the old fable of the ant and the grasshopper.
Jordan Peterson is one of the 1% of intellect and engaging discussion
mike from tampa florida here....guys understand that alot of what mr peterson says are things that we have thought of many are just scared to say somethng or like myself that my vocabulary isnt as good as his or others dont care or thing s like that.. one of the greatest and effective thinkers of our time enjoy this man! and more importantly learn something! icant believe people actually call this man sexist and this and that. so naive to say those things many people just dont understand but many do listen to him and tell themselves oh wow i actually have thought of that or i feel like that too..what would i give to have a conversation with this man!
JBP once lectured about different dominance hierarchies, and that they are basically everywhere. That’s also a part of “the game” right? You can always try to climb a ladder. If you switch dominance hierarchies, you can ‘start over’ again. People can have a different place in the dominace hierarchy of their hobby than on their work or within their family.
The Pareto Principle is such an interesting phenomenon. Thank you for bringing this useful statistic my my attention
There'll always be inequality in one way or another since people are inherently different from each other; different interests, skills, intelligence etc. Which'll impact one's choices and unless we start forcing things with quotas etc. Or through modifying genes that won't change all that much.
Inequality is inevitable. But a demertised society, is a society stripped of all it's social mobility, is a society designed to benefit those who used the inequality to benefot without merit as they tyrannise. And the whole society pays the MASSIVE price for terminated inventions, the immobilised talent, death to innovation.
Inequalith may be inevitable but talent being crushed is not. Meritocracy is easy to spot: which societies have people making a name for themselves in their 20s? Just China now.
@@con_boy yes absolutely 100%, getting rid of all inequality that's a result of outside factors in the "system" of society is crucial in order for everyone to be able to match up to their own potential, which is different for everyone.
Getting to this point is the more difficult part since there are so many things like ideological/political and socioeconomical factors and parties that are standing in the way of this becoming if not a complete reality then at least partially.
Everytime someone comes along to wake people up... starting with jesus... from egyptians and Romans, people don't wanna know. They are comfortably dumb being sheep. What pisses me off is that I know this, but still can't get my big chance. F*ck em... sheep. No pun intended to the Welsh.
yeah lets not start forcing anything, I like when people make their own decisions. Let the people decide what works for them and if they can make a lot of money and become the wealthiest 1% then so be it. if not then that's fine too
My orthodontist has one son who is in medical school and the other is an artist. I said wow even under the same roof with the same opportunities, same family, outcomes are still never the same.
Is there any link between members of this group? 🤔
Outside of professional life, those with wealth are not dependent of their reputation and the cooperation of others to the same degree. If you own a building, you can have a high degree of success without being involved in the same highly competitive structure. Those with a cooperative family can likewise reap the rewards of a smaller but deeper trust and reputation. The winners of our system are those who already win or win by chance once and continue to receive larger and larger amounts of support, those with wealth and those with a small and cooperative team. The majority of individuals fail, but not badly. We keep reducing the consequences of failing, while we are increasing the rewards of success.
Jordan likes to talk about Pareto with regards to production but almost never talks about what Pareto is most known for, which is elite theory. Peterson talks about the benefits of a functional democracy, however Pareto's theories show the idea of a functional democracy to be an absolute joke.
It's then not hard to factor in tribalism among these elites. But he doesn't seem to like anyone mentioning that - I don't think he really contends seriously with this Question. Rather he picks and chooses the philosophy that he likes and anything else is scary. Dr Peterson I've watched you for years and you're a good bloke, but there is valid criticism from the right which you never completely address.
Some years ago someone put a compilation of videos where peterson was adressing hwites and pushing for individualism/capitalism/meritocracy...and later clips from other conventions defending tribalism and collectivism when it was for certain group who have been kïcked out of +100 places countries throughout history...
Can you really trust someone like this?
When it comes to the topic of wealth I think people are focused far too much on the big numbers as opposed to the functionality of it. What do I mean by this? It's a simple concept really: Would you rather be a poor man today or a wealthy man 10 years in the past, 100 years in the past? How about 1000 years in the past? There's a certain point in where every sane person should choose to be a poor man today than be a wealthy one in the past.
All the wealth in the world 100 years ago won't get you the internet, or smart phones, or flat screen TVs, or most of the food that you have access to and can eat today. Virtually all of your creature comforts would be impossible to obtain. You still can buy a boat though, you can still buy huge mansions, you can hire bands for entertainment; but all the little things that you enjoy about life today? Forget about it.
One of the main things of why people are considered 'poor' in the first place is because everything they own is relatively worthless by today's standards. Virtually all of us have access to a super computer that would be worth millions of dollars 50 years ago, but today? They're worth a few hundred maybe thousand dollars. Most monitors and TVs we use today that cost hundreds? They costed thousands a mere 10-20 years ago. This same trend can be repeated with virtually everything you own, from your clothes, bed, furniture, dinnerware, cooking devices, entertainment, you name it.
It doesn't actually take a lot of effort to make your daily life an extremely comfortable one, that is provided that you didn't sell your future self down a river without a paddle by taking on a lot of debt that you had no plan to pay out. Though I think this ultimately seems to be the actual source of the anger: People who took on debt and now have to deal with it for the rest of their lives, thinking of how unfair it is that they're so poor and can't deal with the interest payments while other people are swimming in money. No one forced you to take on debt, I think in most cases people happily signed on the dotted line.
At the end of the day the world was more like 1% of the population controlled 100% of the wealth in the past. If the number now is 1% of the population controls 45% of the wealth then I'd say that's a stark improvement.
A great and nuanced point. When I was young and I learned how long it took to build 1 mile of road (a long time where I come from), and how much it cost, doing a rough simulation of how much time and effort it must have taken to build all the roads in just once country blew me away, and as a 35 year old man it still does. The reason I mention this is that I am able to use most of the roads freely, a benefit that I do not deserve, the simple fact that I was born into a world where I have free reign over what took many lifetimes, blood sweat and tears to create is astounding. I can buy a can of coke today that a king from 1000 years ago would wage war for, he would sacrifice the lives of many people for something that I drink half of and put my cigarette out in. And what's crazy is that this isnt some weird thought exercise, it is literally true. So whenever I feel that I am down on my luck I just look at the road, and never forget that I inherited a world that I do not deserve, and that cost millions of lives to build. I think the way people look at reality is outdated and weak, it's almost like our technology is modern but the way they perceive reality is no different to how they did in ancient times, it's ineffective on a fundamental level.
That’s kind of right. It seems pretty logical to assume inequality doesn’t matter at the end of the day if everyone is getting better off. Yet I don’t think it’s as simple as ‘would you rather be poor today or a wealthy man … 100 years in the past’, I think any major inequality like we see today is immensely damaging (obviously some inequality is inevitable and desirable). Firstly, we can’t escape the fact that, even in developed nations like the USA, poorer families have a far higher marginal utility than richer; a bit more money would make a far greater difference to their lives. Redistributing income/wealth a bit more equally on those grounds just seems fair. But putting normative issues aside, any economy benefits from avoiding monster inequality. Society’s productive respurces are best used when everyone’s potential and talent is exploited, so we want social mobility, but high inequality is an obstacle to that (in general those at the bottom inevitably have poorer health, educational opportunities, little financial independence etc) - you‘ re not going to get the journey from the log cabin to the White House with it. There’s also the inevitable social cost; social disorders like crime and mental illness, even if irrational and based on poor understanding (as you fear), are inevitable, and a drag on the welfare of both the rich and poor. Obviously, from a macroeconomic perspective, you also have the traditional argument that richer people don’t spend money as freely, holding back aggregate demand and leading to secular stagnation. Basically, inequality if as large as it is in the UK and USA is a problem - claiming we’re all better off, just some more than others, is a simplification.
Yes but in every country theres is a large percentage of population that doesnt have the finances to literally purchase anything extranius. Only food rent the bare essentials. And like cmon if ur talking about America everyone is in debt. In the case for Universities and debt associated with it especially. Id argue that the culture and job market in the States also contributed to a larger need for a degree as well as subsequently making getting something like bachelors degree the bare minimum for some jobs.
There are also other factors such as the recent reduction of live expectancy and other living conditions that have declined. But that's also cus of covid so idk.
Knowledge should be for public
my favorite Psychology Professor 🙏❤️🔥
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟐5𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟏𝟔✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ◦◦ . .
It's not always the talented and intelligent that make the bulk of the money. It's those holding the leashes on them. And many of those people, only need the connections and networking to gain that position. So it's not uncommon to see some of the most successful people involved, with virtually no talent in their field, other than their ability to form and govern a team of people that are.
The ability to "form and govern a team" is a talent in itself. Executive ability is nothing to be sneezed at.
@@gtw4546 true, every time I find myself beginning to feel resentful toward the leadership at my company who don't have close to the skill some of the workers do, I realize their ability to communicate and negotiate connections goes a long way and beats out anything we could do at our current level.
@@gtw4546 Indeed.
George Bush
You make a good point, and in individual cases we do sometimes see that, as well as a few of the families like Rockefeller who retain large amounts of wealth and power, seemingly just because an ancestor of theirs earned it (fairly or not, some balance of the two). But generally, people who "fall upward" tend to either fail eventually as a result of their ineptitude or in most cases of general wealth, it's usually gone by the end of the third generation out if effort and conservatism isn't made to retain or grow said wealth. Also changes in the market and technology assist in shaking up the money hierarchy.
This should have more views!!! I’m on my own climb to reach your level of respect JP… keep doing great things
Dude this was published not 10 minutes ago
2.2K views and 48 comments in 21 minutes ain’t bad!
It came out under an hour ago... lmao "This should have more views!" - hasn't even been a quarter of a day
@@WCWWorldChamp yeah it’s gone up quite fast, as it should. Love JP, and I always want the best for him he’s someone we need in our society.
This has been my work experience over 6 decades, I had it mentally pegged at about a third, but point taken, Not sure about the sports analogy eg Rugby Union is so complex that without a group of support players commanding their roles the Talented 'Scorers ' are unable to function, possibly exception to the rule..lol good article..UK
Ask someone who favors equality of outcome if they were ould be in favor of enduring that every sporting event being required to end in a tie. At the end of the season every NFL team just as an example has the same record. Every time gets a Lombardi Trophy and all players get a ring. I know it's an extreme dumb idea. But in essence that is what equality of outcome boils down to.
Ridiculous comparison. Sport is entertainment. Life is potential suffering, hopelessness and despair.
There are certain aspects of life where equality of outcome is paramount, e.g. access to food, fresh drinking water, healthcare, housing. Of course, if you can afford it, you may have access to better varieties of the above.
Ironically, in US sports you get rewarded for losing through the draft. Basically a social welfare measure for bad teams. In 'socialist' europe you just get relegated and the winning teams get increased budgets and can buy all the best players.
Because of the ones you can't talk about, the J...
...uice
Economic equality is a dream.
network effects at play, rewards are distributed via a social network. "productivity" is the wrong premise, since the (unjustified) idea that productivity (by what metric?) is proportionately rewarded is assumed. what is seen is a *distribution of rewards only* , the precise mechanisms need to be more closely analysed. i see correlation between reward distribution and the network effect since both are power laws.
I have been listening to Thomas Sowell recently as well as continuing to listen to Jordan Peterson. I think the pareto principle is among a handful of principles/rules that are present in multiple layers of reality, are something like truely fundamental rules of reality. I think the scientific principle of "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or something very similar exists as another fundamental rule. Something similar can be observed in economics, if you change 1 variable in economics, at least 1 or 2 other variables will be affected.
It's a natural law the 80/20 rule, and it's fractal. So of the 20% that do 80% of the work, there's 20% of those high performers that do 80% of the work within the group.
Absolutely incredible thought, it applies to so many things such as roads w/ traffic distribution, customer base w/ lifetime values (what they spend overall), even things like crime statistics and many many others in the natural world - hence a natural law. I think I also heard it described as the fibbonaci sequence - it might be the same thing...
It's natural law. These "equity" people are essentially screaming at the sky while blaming their neighbors.
It's utterly fascinating. They found that it applies to trees, animals, etc etc.
@@badlaamaurukehu explain how nurture doesn't throw a supposed natural order into something not actually natural? Wouldn't you have to claim every instance of a person living in disarray boils down to nature and not numerous externalities that may be beyond their control? Or am I not understanding this principle correctly.
@@blackbeltjones2903 That would be more of a deformity,
@@blackbeltjones2903 "Nurture" is a product of nature is it not? This is more about complex systems and expression of error functions in the natural world than it is about who deserves a black belt.
Edit: s
The obsession with finding "the best," combined with out laziness and inability to determine who's work actually is the best gives an enormous advantage to whomever has been determined to be the best previously. In other words... we reward previous winners over and over... it isn't about class exactly or talent exactly... it's mostly about our extreme bias in favor of those who have already passed some mark of unusual accomplishment. We give the famous doctor or the notable employee or the already successful artist enormous support and trust... while being largely judgemental and difficult with everyone else.
Very few areas of accomplishment don't heavily involve reputation. Reputation determines the cooperation of other people. If people are enormously biased towards those with an outlandish reputation, anyone with an outlandishly good reputation with reap extreme rewards. As the scale of comparison increases, so does the bias towards those with an established reputation because comparison becomes more difficult and we become more lazy.
Likewise- we punished those with a negative or non-existent reputation without much care or consideration. Modern life makes it almost impossible to measure risk for most people. Our brains are not wired to consider the number of strangers involved or deal rationally with outliers. Instead, we make quick and emotional choices about the relative capacities of other people that heavily favor "winners," and punish "loosers." We have an enormous bias towards authority, fame and the confidence it engenders.
The four letter words that start with such and such letter game is easier when you run the letters through your head manually, so it's not a good test of creativity, only of vocabulary.
It's not easy to be a human nowadays 😕
Maybe we should go back in evolution.
Something went wrong.
So .... trees again 🤔
Treehouses for the win
This effects of this distribution seems to be made worse by globalization. No matter your endeavor or practice, you will always be towards the bottom. This isn't just happening with wealth, but with dating and interpersonal relationships in general. The larger you make the pool, the smaller the proportion of people who accumulate everything. I don't think there is a solution besides simply waiting for our civilization to collapse and fragment into smaller pieces.
Waiting for civilization to collapse is a terrible strategy. It may be better to work towards finding solutions. There’s a severe lack of people trying to dominate the hierarchy of making the world a better place for everyone without exclusions. Imagine everyone going on a website, putting their differences aside for a moment, being educated on a problem and everyone collective helping each other find a solution on one issue at a time. Where’s the people trying that?
@@stan3136 It's not a strategy, it's an acceptance that there probably isn't any other path that history can take. Our technology is quickly making human life obsolete and our culture is ready and willing to commit suicide. There's no government policy or economic system that can solve our problems. Their roots are too deep. They're in our nature. History shows that things are generally better for people after a major culling of humanity. The black death is a perfect example. Survivors flourish in the ashes of civilization. Humanity is like a forest. I'm under no delusion that I'll be one of those survivors, but so be it. At least in hell I can abandon the hope that torments me.
_"Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages._
_We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange._
_Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie._
_The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part._
_The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation._
_The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers._
_The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation._
_The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades._
_The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind._
_The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere._
_The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature._
_The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."_ - some guy
Also see: Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism. By conflating descriptive understanding with normative assertion of values, Peterson/Loury are essentially just implicitly appealing to the authority of nature (ie this outcome is natural, _and therefore good_ - second part is the implicit/unsaid part, aka "naturalistic fallacy") to justify the tidal material forces that necessarily lead to these systemically reinforcing outcomes. Importantly, the question of whether or not this is _just_ or the way things _ought_ to be ("is" v. "ought" as Hume would put it) is abstracted away as a force of nature that can't be contended with (despite it being an inevitable result of zero-sum _class_ dynamics aka _material_ politics over time, as the guy I was quoting was elaborating), might as well assert the "divine right of the entrepreneur". But a progression of class struggle is uncoincidentally visible throughout history since class is inherently defined by systemic orientation of material interests (ie the capitalist class and working class necessarily benefit/profit at the other's expense in aggregate waves of social forces perceived in the superstructure of law, art, "culture", etc.; importantly though these are zero-sum antagonistic _material_ interests so unlike idpol or some nebulous normative ethereal nonsense aka the "culture war", it is _grounded_ to one's _material_ relationships in terms of ownership/control of property, specifically of note any "means of production" which facilitates the worker to sell their labor to a capitalist with such means in exchange for a wage to - with any luck - sustain their life, existence _precedes_ essence) To expand on the historical origin of the bourgeoisie's now firmly ossified class domination over the working class (to maybe illuminate the dynamic "process metaphysics" here more clearly), the modern age was only carried forth through the fervent working class radicalism of the sans-culottes during the French revolution, but their idealism slowly begins to fall out of favor with the bourgeoisie in the National Convention as soon as their egalitarian project encroached on this middle-class material power, despite riding this momentum to overthrow the Ancien régime. "Fun" fact: this is the concept of historical materialism. Point being, capitalism necessitates these outcomes through its foundational organization of material reality (see: base/superstructure, dialectical materialism) out of which class emerges and directs individual material interests through an underlying class politics, and from understanding this macro systemic functionality, we can then realize that _"the ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make and could just as easily make differently."_ - the late great David Graeber
_“If justice perishes, human life on earth has lost its meaning.”_ - Kaaaant
Socialism or [continued] barbarism.
And the same pattern will occur.
We have different abilities and drives.
Equal opportunity NOT equal outcome.
If we are free we are not equal / if we are equal we are not free.
Good video
A retired policemen that I know told me that 80% of his job was related to drugs. Drug dealers, impaired drivers, domestic violence and on and on. How many people are part of the drug culture which costs us all so much money. ?
why do people start using drugs would be the better question, preventing is always better then fixing issues resulting from the cause.
@@testjeaapiel9707 it depends on how prevention is attempted. prevention of use is evident through the war on drugs no? As opposed the safe injection sites for example which is more of a resolution of issue after the fact
Now you know why the govt floods the country with drugs. Jobs for the cops, judges, d.a.s, the social workers, prisons, halfwayhouses, lawyers, social workers.........etc.
What do you qualify as a drug? Do caffeine and nicotine fall into these categories for you? If so, 80%+ of the population consume drugs. If you account for pharmaceuticals, maybe more. You can even deem sugar a drug, tech can induce drug abuse symptoms. We as humans tend to vice to something. Work, drugs, sex, food, excersize. Some have more benefits than others. It'd be interesting to hear deeper conversations about this.
Stop the Demand. Stop the demand for these life damaging drugs. Then the drug smugglers will have no customers. Demand and supply.
I believe that this is true, but what incentive does this leave for the non-exceptional and sensible? Given this knowledge, it would be foolish to attempt to produce anything with ambition unless given exceptional genetics and environment.
So are the vast majority of us (given the mediums that allow all the option to only experience the greatest) left to do nothing but simply consume like animals? Do our human experiences not have inherent meaning?! This acceptance not only seems unethical, but also unsustainable.
Even with a handful of people creating the majority of the value, it still requires a little work at the local level to fit their creations to local needs. We can also look at many societies around the world where work does not make up as much of a person's identity as it does in the United States. Meaning can still be found in relationships with others and providing intangibles such as care and companionship.
Nonetheless, this could be a very difficult transition for many people. No doubt about that.
That said, there is actually a long history of considering consumption as one of the greatest goods - which should not be taken to mean merely mindless consumption of gruel or the like, but the enjoyment and appreciation of beauty, and of ideas, and of good company and the like. In the Westminster catechism, for example, it is declared that the chief end of man is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever". Enjoyment is a kind of consumption, and here in 1647 devout men declared it central to having meaning in life.
I have a short answer to this: Check the economical model of Islam that was used by Mohammed , first Caliphate and Abd al-Malik Son of Marwān. Check islamic jurisprudence of economy - especially Zakat system (taxing wealth ,not income - to the high) - to the ones in need. Also how islam prohibits Monopolies and interest/usury and how they run the government without taxes (at least to all women and Muslims) and promote reasonable free-market ,by encouraging good well and good actions.
That's because the idea that the top X% create most of the value is an absurd idea. It's not too far off calling people "wasteful eaters."
@@O1OO1O1 Agreed. JP is off on this one. I cannot imagine this can be proven without grasping at straws logically.
@@O1OO1O1 he meant the final main important actions done by those whom not necessary rich. Most people just want to get by. Only 20% do actual work and a fraction of that actually advance. Also many people try but they do not make for many reasons alongside bad luck or do not have the well to faille few times. Also because of the structure out there especially in USA and hyper capitalist societies.
Where is the rest of this conversation?
Also most careers you are capped at how much money you're going to earn. In order to earn extra you have to either transition to a new career or invest your extra money into another company. Most people seem to just throw money in their 401k and continue to work their job until they die putting them comfortably in the middle class.
Squareroot of world population = ~90.000
1% of world population = ~80.000.000
-> The title of the video falsifies the pareto-principle
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟐5𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟏𝟔✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ..
I believe that the top 8 wealthiest men have a combined networth higher than that of the poorest 3 billion. So they've managed to surpass the Pareto principle lol
There's talent, and there's corruption. Most of the money in the world is driven to the 1% by corruption.
No it's not, because if you look at the traits of all these rich and successful people you see a pattern. High IQ, High consciousness, high ambition, High creativity and problem solving skills.
@@ootmaster1 The majority of wealth is tied up in companies and created from companies and it's a big stretch to say they made thier money from corruption so nice try. Do the research and you will see most of the richest people in the world are from companies and investments firms that own companies.
@@ootmaster1 save me the Rothschild conspiracy theories. The Rothschild family are likely not even likely that big of players anymore, can you tell me how much they own of the world's largest companies?
@@ootmaster1 so what? Just because they own banks it doesn't mean they own the most assets in those banks and you act like owning a bank is evil, banks are holding companies, so tell me what are the biggest assets they hold?