Political leanings and personal wealth

[Politesse]

The left sees people as basically equal cogs--unions are the essence of this, they say all that matters is seniority. Income will increase with age but between one's peers there won't be that wide an income range. You need to do a reasonable job at whatever you do but there will be little benefit from trying to excel.

I'm not sure what leftists you've been meeting, but speaking for myself, I think the myth of meritocracy is a lot more honest than a system where skin color or chromosomes determine your worth. Equity and motivation go hand in hand.

Most unions are the antithesis of meritocracy.

What makes you say that? I belong to a union, and I don't see that it has inhibited my career progress in any meaningful way. Rather, it has constantly pushed for fair compensation, fair hiring processes, and policies informed by shared governance, all of which make it far more likely that I will be able to perform to the best of my ability. How is collective representation a challenge to individual accomplishment? In things I have control over (my job duties, the environment I have direct control over), the union has very little role. In things I have very little power to control as an individual (district negotiations, state policy) we have the union to protect our rights as a class. We are going on strike next week, as it happens, and I am proud to join this action. There's no point in being "free" if being free means having your pocket picked by the powerful, with no means of protest or redress.

 

[Toni]

No one in my family is fabulously wealthy by American standards. This is anecdote not data but in my family--and my husband's family as well, those who are the least well off tend to be the most conservative. I find the correlation is to education, not wealth.

No, it's actually wealth. Entitlement is the psychology of wealth, while shame is the psychology of poverty, even though the wealthy and their oblivious and less wealthy supporters among us assert the opposite.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-of-entitlement-how-wealth-breeds-narcissism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23963971

It seems the more material wealth a person has, not only do they feel more entitled, but also more insecure and afraid of hordes of poor people coming to take it all.

Obviously it's not a hard rule, and I believe education is what can offset that mentality in the wealthy people who do want to pay more taxes and who do support equality and all the bleeding heart liberal programs.

My husband and I are easily the most wealthy and also easily the most liberal of our family members, with the exception of our adult children who are less well off financially but more liberal. Bleeding heart is our nuclear family crest.

I don't feel the least insecure about hoards of anyone coming to take my stuff. And I'm hosting Thanksgiving.

The most conservative people I know are those who are least well educated and more economically insecure--and more religious. Those would be a bunch of my conservative relatives. Leave off the religious part and that would include ALL my conservative relatives. A number of fairly religious friends are also pretty liberal.


I do tend to think that I am entitled to things like: access to medical care; access to a voice in my government; access to education; access to adequate police/fire department/usual public safety stuff protection. BTW I think that everyone else is entitled to those things as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most unions are the antithesis of meritocracy.

What makes you say that? I belong to a union, and I don't see that it has inhibited my career progress in any meaningful way. Rather, it has constantly pushed for fair compensation, fair hiring processes, and policies informed by shared governance, all of which make it far more likely that I will be able to perform to the best of my ability. How is collective representation a challenge to individual accomplishment? In things I have control over (my job duties, the environment I have direct control over), the union has very little role. In things I have very little power to control as an individual (district negotiations, state policy) we have the union to protect our rights as a class. We are going on strike next week, as it happens, and I am proud to join this action. There's no point in being "free" if being free means having your pocket picked by the powerful, with no means of protest or redress.

Which has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If you do your job better do you get more money?

 

[Politesse]

Most unions are the antithesis of meritocracy.

What makes you say that? I belong to a union, and I don't see that it has inhibited my career progress in any meaningful way. Rather, it has constantly pushed for fair compensation, fair hiring processes, and policies informed by shared governance, all of which make it far more likely that I will be able to perform to the best of my ability. How is collective representation a challenge to individual accomplishment? In things I have control over (my job duties, the environment I have direct control over), the union has very little role. In things I have very little power to control as an individual (district negotiations, state policy) we have the union to protect our rights as a class. We are going on strike next week, as it happens, and I am proud to join this action. There's no point in being "free" if being free means having your pocket picked by the powerful, with no means of protest or redress.

Which has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If you do your job better do you get more money?

Well no, but that is because of the way professors are compensated, union or no.