I’ve read a few utopia stories recently, and it seems that most “perfect” worlds have one thing in common: the people as a whole give up some individual liberties to ensure that the basic needs of all are met. If we take Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (see below), basically everyone’s psyiological and safety needs are met. That is, everyone has a roof over their head, clothes, food, etc. Maslow claims that in order to get to the next level in the pyramid, all the levels beneath must be met. Thus, those who don’t have their needs for safety met have no chance to realize their greatest potential. Sounds pretty reasonable to me – if I’m worried about where I’m going to sleep, then I probably won’t be able to expend a lot of effort figuring out how I can best contribute something positive to the world. It isn’t a perfect theory, but I see some truth in it.
Coming back to utopias, everyone gets through that first threshold automatically, but really the point is for everyone to make it to the pinnacle. Does that mean everyone is a doctor or a lawyer? Of course not. But in one that I’ve read (Bellamy’s Looking Backward), to encourage people to take the jobs that are less desirous, those that take them work less hours. Would you clean bathrooms if you only had to do it for 2 hours a day?
Another constant in utopia is equal access to resources. This is achieved by either doing away with money all together, or giving everyone and equal amount of it. Education also factors into this, as well as Maslow’s hierarchy. If everyone is to contribute to their full potential, they need to get to the highest level possible. Without an education, the young cannot be aware of all the options available, nor will they have been exposed to the basic skills necessary to be successful in whatever calling they choose.
I don’t believe that we will ever see a perfect society formed on this planet. But I do think we should strive to create one. Does that mean we all have to be socialist? I’m not smart enough to know. But it does seem that the basic tenets of capitalism work against the idea that everyone’s basic needs can or even should be met (assuming that’s a requirement of perfection). This brings me to the question that sparked this article: Are we willing to give up the possibility of opulence to insure ourselves and our countrymen against destitution?
Bill and Melinda Gates have more money than they could ever hope to spend. They worked hard to get it, and they have done incredible things for people less fortunate than they are through the Gates Foundation. That is certainly to be applauded and encouraged. But what’s the point? Does any person or family need that much money? Should we be idealizing that as the ultimate achievement of the American Dream? Is that accumulation of wealth the result of one person’s work? Is that their “fair share” of Microsoft’s success? The highest tax bracket during WWII was 94%. For every dollar that a person made over $200,000 in a year, they got to keep 6 cents. In 2007 the highest rate was 35%, and it kicks in at just under $350,000. ($200,000 in 1944 is like $2.3 million in 2007)
Let’s get back to the question – are we willing to take a significant majority of a wealthy person’s earnings to insure that our children are well educated, our poor are not homeless, and our elderly are well cared for? If you made enough to buy a Gulfstream G5, could you be content with a BMW knowing that the difference paid for 20,000 students to get a year’s worth of quality education. The first comment of any conservative-minded person to all this would be that instituting it would discourage hard work and encourage loafing (not to mention that caring for the masses is an outrageous expense). That argument is valid, but I would point to potential savings in the long term – a better educated public that votes, works and lives smarter. In the short term, how much less crime would occur? Even if we could lift just one generation’s poor out of poverty, no matter the cost, what would the result be?
If you’re interested in reading any utopias:
Thomas More Utopia
Edward Bellamy Looking Backward
Charlotte Perkins Gilman Herland
Nathaniel Hawthorne Blithedale Romance
Know of any others that are a good read, let me know.
***Questions? Comments? Virtual-through-the-email-slap-to-Butta’s-grill? Butta can be contacted at butta@themixtapemonster.com***
For me, this was the most interesting Buttanomics yet.
I am a believer in Utopias in theory, but it will never work in practice because inevitably there is 1 douchebag for every like 4 people on the planet.
I’ve always wanted to be super rich, who doesn’t? But, I’ve also always known that besides traveling or buying every pair of shoes that I want, that I am more than happy with my current lifestyle despite my very low salary.
My thinking is that if I can be happy and pretty much support myself on what I make now, then having millions wouldn’t change my lifestyle all that much. Maybe you get a house, a nicer car, and a couple other material things, but then it’s up to you to do one of two things (or both):
1. give back to the community
2. ensure that your kid’s kids kids kids kids can have some cheese (c) Andre3K
excellent article. self sacrifice when it comes to money is just seen so rarely. where do you draw the line at “comfortable?” could i live on less and help more people? yes. but isn’t easier to look to the wealthiest and ask them to live at my level and help people?
is it really “sacrifice” to be Oprah (according to wiki salary 385 million a year and worth 2.7 Billion) and donate 10 million here , 10 million there, and 40 million on a school? is it enough to just be a voice? couldn’t she easily live off of one million a year? do the Gates need to have a 4 million dollar home? What if they built a 1 million dollar home and donated the rest?
now I am all for success, personal wealth and building yourself up. my point is, utiopia is based off of the willingness of those who have to give up, but how much is enough? lastly does their wealth mean they should give proportionally more than the average person, or are we just as guilty?
I did hear an interesting stat on sports radio the other day. Apparently 30% of Americans think that professional athlete salaries should be capped at $1 million.
I am not in favor of that. If you think they make too much, then you shouldn’t be buying game tix for 90 bucks, or apparel, etc. Plus, capping the athelete salaries wouldn’t do shit but make the owners even richer.
Just interesting I thought.
I completely agree with the hierarchy of needs, but not with a society of total sharing. A few points:
- In a society where there is complete sharing, nobody would want to be a surgeon. Most people would probably take the less desirous job if it meant less working hours, but the problem is who takes their jobs? Well then those people would work less hours to equal it out. But, if surgeons had to work less hours, it wouldn’t work because a) there aren’t many people able to be surgeons and b) the cost of training enough surgeons to make up the hours would be way too high. There needs to be rewards for highly specialized jobs that serve the public.
- A utopian society as described above could slow innovations. There is no incentive for risk in order to gain reward. Small/specialty stores wouldn’t exist as they are now because established/big stores would already take care of everything (Jordan brand shoes wouldn’t be special because they would cost as much as all other shoes and everybody could get them); google wouldn’t exist because there was already yahoo; high-speed internet wouldn’t exist because we had dial-up. All of these “better” things exist because people raced to make things better to make money off of it. They may have come around, but not as fast. Over the years, this method could potentially put us centuries behind.
- Humans are greedy, there would always be people stealing from each other, even if we all have the same. Nobody would be living lavishly and some people are willing to break the rules in order to get what they want.
- Should Bill Gates have as much money as he does? Here’s where I get a little more liberal and say no. He deserves to be massively rich because of what he has done, but I think higher income levels should be taxed more than they are, especially at that level. Taking an extra 1 million or so a year won’t deter him. The problem is that it is an objective level.
- A counter point to that is that I could be giving more. Cookout isn’t a necessity and I could getter cheaper food, I could’ve bought a cheaper car, or a cheaper home, but I didn’t. The monster buys multiple cds a week which isn’t a necessity. We don’t have as much money as Gates, but I didn’t come up with something that just about the entire world uses. It’s not necessarily fair to tell him how much money he should have. Again, I think there is a level where he should be taxed more, but it’s objective.
- Which leads into the rich supporting the poor. I think the poor need more help than they are receiving now in our country, but it is also a very flawed system. There will be plenty of people who just mooch off the system. There are people willing to live with being poor if they don’t have to work. Also, wasn’t it ODB who was able to get a welfare check when he was making millions? There will always be ways to screw the system and there will always be people looking to cut corners.
EXCELLENT comments and points Stonewall. Very thought-invoking indeed.
Good to see you back on the blog, man!!!!
Appreciate the comments – good to know I’m finally stirring things up.
A few comments in response:
- A lot of us (myself included) could do more within the current system to create less inequity
- There obviously has to be an incentive system to encourage creativity and progress, without getting into too much detail, Bellamy’s involves high social regard for those that take on challenging jobs (something that would have to be inculcated through education). If you are smart enough to be a surgeon or come up with google, and you are taught to work towards that self-actualization top of the pyramid, are you going to be content with cleaning toilets?
- There can still be a lot of personal freedom and diversity in products. Again, riffing on Bellamy, if everyone makes what the Monster makes (eg more than enough to live of off) then we are all free to make decisions on what we want. The Monster buys cds, Stonewall may get a little extra Cookout now and then, I would probably still drink too much.
- I don’t think humans are innately greedy, I think we learn to be because we are rewarded for it. If you remove the reward, you remove the behavior.
- Our country’s current system is embarrassing considering the wealth we have. I can appreciate that no one wants to give a “handout” to those that refuse to work, but I don’t think it’s fair to punish the entire bottom of our society. I’m ok with freeloaders if we can break the cycle that keeps the same families in poverty generation after generation.
-Number crunching: The most recent GDP I found is $14,200.3 billion (which I think means 14,200,300,000,000 … holy crap) and population estimate 306,135,195. If that was redistributed equally for every man, woman and child it would be about $46,000 in consumption per person per year. I’d be ok with that.
Okay, I’ll sign off on a few points here too:
– It’s been said a few times that there is a concern about giving a “handout” to people who simply don’t want to work. I’m the first to admit that there will always be people out there trying to scam the system…looking for that free dollar. However, the people I’m most concerned about when it comes to welfare are the individuals that are AFRAID to work, b/c with limited skills and education, taking a job for the sake of working could actually have a negative impact on their household income. Can you really blame a single mother who doesn’t want to work 3rd shift at Arby’s b/c it pays less than her welfare check? This is a flipside to the welfare debate that often gets overlooked.
– While some people (particularly during election season) like to refer to the progressive tax system as socialism, there’s a reason it exists. It’s not like a group of poor people got together one day and said, “Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s implement an extremely complicated economic policy in which we pay a smaller percentage of our measly income into the community chest, just to piss off those rich guys.” It’s not a conspiracy. It exists because those that can afford to pay, should be doing so. Further, the rich stay rich in that system–just not at the 100% level they’d like. While they are taxed at a higher percentage, those in a higher bracket still keep a larger amount of gross income than those below them. No one is made worse off in relation to anyone else…only in relation to your pre-tax dollars.
– I do agree with Stonewall that capitalism is the driving force of innovation in our society. And I am completely okay with that. As long as we can all come to an understanding that achieving the “American Dream” and making buttloads of money comes with certain responsibilities, like helping those who are less fortunate have a fair crack at that dream too.
– I am in favor of a 99% tax bracket solely reserved for Kanye West, Terrell Owens, Ben Affleck, and Kobe Bryant. Of course, they’d all still make well over $100,000 a year. Put that in your pipe and marinate for a minute! We could leave those four twat-waffles with 1% and they’d easily make three times what we pay teachers.
– $46,000 sounds pretty good to me too.
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” -Spock
We are working on this at Third. We are machines who are also utopians.
Holy Smokes … I’m gonna go as far as to say this was the best thought-provoking article, rich with thought-provoking feedback, that I’ve witnessed on this blog, and elsewhere – in a very long time.
There is too much here to respond to, so instead I – like my friends who responded before me – will just toss in my two cents.
First off, I think ‘utopia’ is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. What one person deems as the ultimate society that would benefit all is not necessarily the same for everyone – in terms of what its foundations and practices are – and that could have a big impact on this debate. That said however, there definitely could be a happy medium that could be reached through compromise across varying groups of people with different interests in terms of what defines utopia and what steps should be taken to get there – so in effect I’m echoing the same sentiments of those before on the problems of our current system.
Secondly, I definitely agree that capitalism has a big impact on innovation; but I don’t agree that there are no other means to the same end. Innovation results from the incentive to perpetually improve life; capitalism refers directly to that incentive being monetarily based. Therein lies the disconnect. There are other incentives that are not monetarily based that could spur innovation. I won’t take that point much further because it’s quite philosophical, and I am at work, but one case in point (for the sake of humor) is our old friend, the late but not forgotten Rube Goldberg. I innovated that little piece of technology not to make a buck but because it was a challenge that I enjoyed overcoming, because I wanted to personalize in the most basic way one of my most-used tools (at the time), and because I genuinely appreciated the accolades it generated from those I surrounded myself with (i.e my friends). Granted that example is lighthearted and funny, but I think it shows innovation (in any form) is not always monetarily based.
That leads me to my third point – Money. One thing that each point in the article, and each point in its feedback has in common is the tie-back to money. ‘GDP figure; 94% tax bracket; 99% tax bracket; Gates’ level of wealth; the cost of their homes; teachers pay; $46k being the average consumption per capita in the US’ – they all relate to a number of dollars. I think money is, to invoke an age-old saying, the root of all evil. Personally, I think any society that relies on money is automatically precluded from the pursuit of utopia. People don’t need money; they use money to get what they need. Eliminate money and replace it with the uber-simple idea of getting them what they need and you have your utopia. A resource-based economy (as opposed to a money-based economy) is, in my opinion, the only route to utopian ideals of all sorts. However, there is a problem with that simple idea which goes back to the reason ‘money’ was instituted at the very beginning – a problem that I am in no way qualified to ponder. Money is the medium of exchange that is common to all needs. If person A needs food and has a surplus of weed and person B needs weed and has a surplus of fuel but person A doesn’t need fuel, how do you make them both happy? Enter money; person A sells their weed for money so they can use that money to get the food they need; and person B sells their fuel to get money to buy the weed they need. In that sense there is a need for money, but I wholeheartedly think there is a way around it and a better means to the same end. But what if the government was the steward of all things that are needed by all people? Then person A could just trade the government the surplus of weed they have to get the food they need and person B could trade some of their extra fuel to get some weed.
And my final point – a Utopian society is not by definition an American society. ‘The American Dream’ has absolutely nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in general – absolutely nothing. Even the poorest of the poor here in the USA are better off than more than half the worlds population – and THAT is representative of an even bigger problem that is holding us back from utopia. Before any steps are taken towards changing society and revolutionizing the government, and maybe even the initiation of a resource-based economy; people everywhere will need to recognize what they have in common with ALL others – instead of what is different about them. Borders are bad. Space Exploration is good.
I’m finished.
nice final point dude. fix earth before space though
In response to your request for more good utopian reads: Aldous Huxley’s “Island”. It’s a personal favorite–I highly recommend it!