Flipping an argument on it's head and completely undermining it should be met with hesitation but it will become clear as to why this shouldn't be such a surprise. If we take a look at what drives a human being, we may have a better understanding why it's possible that money isn't the root to all happiness. In fact, it may be possible that happiness is more important than money after all. Why would be arguing the amount of money one sex makes over another, if it isn't at the end of the day about the happiness of the individual?
A study done in 2010 found that happiness in the workforce, was at 30%. 30% of all full-time employees in the workforce were happy about their position and their life in general. If 30% are happy, then that leaves 70% that are obviously not happy/blah with the direction or landscape of their life/job. But making a median of $11,000 more than women per year; how can one be unhappy? It may be as simple as the fact that money doesn't buy happiness.
The stress put on dollar signs, is being unfairly sought after as the ultimate goal in life. We understand that the money differential between men and women is obvious and can be understood as being unfair in the sense that each person, based on sex, isn't making the same amount on average. However, if we were to fix this symptom, would we truly fix anything at all, or would we just be running further from the problem? The problem being that happiness is what we truly long for, and if we want fairness in the workforce, we don't want it for "fairness" in and of itself, we want it so that we are all happy and no one is felt cast off. 30% of all full-time employees aren't happy now and some of them are making more money than the average. What does this tell us about what we are arguing about? Is it possible we are addressing an issue that is but a symptom of the greater illness; unfound happiness?
We must embrace the discrepancies and understand that it isn't about the dollar signs put behind ones name but the amount of non-quantitative data that is found within one's life. It cannot be the fact that wealth makes someone happy who hasn't had the chance to earn it. The reason for this is because they wouldn't know what it is like until they had accomplished it, and therefore wouldn't know the happiness that could be gleaned from their monetary wealth. We assume that more money will make us happy but since we don't know, how do we decide that it will?
We only have an argument over something that we think will cause a difference in the lives of individuals in a positive manner. If this is the case than we are to assume that more money and more equal portions of money will equate to happiness within men and women. But then we are given a statistic that shows 70% of all full-time employees are either blah or hate their current job. But yet we want to pursue more money and equality in the thing that is causing over half of those involved to not be happy. Let us decide if happiness is what we truly want, or is it wealth. In this argument, it cannot be both. For if it is wealth than we have a larger problem on our hands, and that is, why do seek justice, laws, accountability, etc. if not for the happiness of each individual? And if it is happiness, than why pursue something that over half of those involved already dislike, and better yet, something that we don't truly know will make us happy?
As the late great Aristotelian Biggie Smalls no doubt would've opined on this very issue: mo' money, mo' problems! Great post; keep blogging. Have a great weekend.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Lopez '05
Philosophy Major
After mulling this over for a bit, I wonder if you're argument might be phrased differently. I think I'm in agreement with the post as a whole, and I think that it delivers more insight than the consistent bewailing of differing wages.
ReplyDeleteIt boils down to the acceptance of the American dream which, though speckled with idealist chatter, ends up reducing to one, final, modern qualification: the contents of our bank accounts.
The more that we discuss the wealth gap, the more that I am reminded of the history of our College, and a specific historical event outlined in "These Fleeting Years" (if we're Wabash students and haven't read this text, we've done ourselves a great disservice). When the College lacked the financial knack and resource to pay its professors, the professors didn't quit to seek out appointments elsewhere; instead, they picked up day jobs at farms and factories in town to supplement their pocketbooks. When they weren't teaching, they were working and when they weren't doing either, they were preparing for both.
Does this seem extreme? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, it sure appears to make more sense that if you love a profession, a task, a self-proclaimed duty, the cash-flow ought not to dictate your engagement with and fulfillment of it.
Well, we have to make a living, right? That's an obvious retort. But if "a living" reduces to a paycheck, I'm not interested in making one.
I would have to agree that if "making a living" is minimized to a piece of paper with a number in four corners, I want no part of ever having this so-called "living."
ReplyDeleteI wonder however how much this notion of equality runs our lives to the point that happiness can ONLY come, after we feel equal. It seems that equality is the root of all evil. We've been trying for decades and even centuries to make everything equal and the more we try, the more we upset other people. I believe it to be one of the largest misconceptions that equality is good. I believe equality is not only bad but fatal.
Equality rips the very fabric out of being someone different. One may argue that it's not about being the same person but being able to have the same opportunity. I have news for you, it will never be that way and if it was, or ever became that way, we would argue that it's not fair either because we're pulling away from a gender, race, etc. that might just be better at the given position. Accepting and modifying is one thing, changing for the sake of equality is something completely different and scary for the fate of mankind (humans).
Doug, I think I see the main point behind your argument, but I also want to push back on some. I agree that an over emphasis on pure "equality" might not solve the problems we want to be solving, but I don't think the current trend strive for social equality is harming us.
ReplyDeleteI think I hold this opinion because of history. If certain demographics and minorities never demanded their own equality, then we might still be stuck in some sort of racist/sexist wasteland reminiscent of much of the Western world's long history. I think that we need to continue and work for equality, and I think that changing for the sake of being equal is good enough cause to change. I do, however, think that issues of gender and race equality are "new" to us in a very important way: this is the first time our culture has worked to treat women equally. We are only a couple of generations into the women's rights movement, and I think it is important to watch what happens closely. Big changes have/ will continue to happen, and it is important to think about these changes. It would be very bad to lose personal identity because of equality, but it is probably even worse to rob entire genders of their personal identity to preserve the status quo.