Resentful Judgements on Deservedness

[Phi for All]

I was going to start a thread about the AHCA proposal, but I realized what I really wanted to talk about was the heavy focus on how to disallow medical coverage to lottery winners. The Republicans are very concerned about NOT covering medical costs for people who've won the lottery, taking up 6 of the 60 pages in the AHCA document. Whaaaaaaat?

 

There seems to be a pattern here, and I'm not sure if it's a conservative one, or one influenced by massive wealth, or if it's just a general human proclivity. Lots of folks seem to be under the impression that lots of other folks get lots of things they don't deserve at all. They resent it to the point of irrationality, and ignore facts that refute their fears.

 

I think this is at the heart of why the US is the only large developed nation without universal healthcare. Many still look on public funding as a charity that demands to be appreciated or you don't deserve it. Is that conservative fear? Wealthy paranoia? Human shallowness?

[CharonY]

Honestly, I think that is a very common human condition and it is not quite accurate to state that only conservatives suffer from that. Most part of Europe are what one could consider left from the US center, yet you will find the same argument against social welfare almost across the board.Though, to be fair, conservative parties tend to play stronger to the outrage of improper use of social welfare. But honestly, you will always find people across the board being outraged of welfare recipients not using the money handed to them in a right way (e.g. getting "luxury" or junk food). Or that you find more outrage for people abusing social systems, even if damages are far less compared to those that abuse the financial system. Accordingly, most people are alright with stricter control of the former, but there is less pressure to do same for the latter.

 

I have mentioned somewhere that I feel that people are more accepting of their lot, if they know that no one is getting ahead of them unfairly. And I feel that it seems to be very much a default position of most people. Going against that notion requires to have a broader view on the population and society which, I suspect, takes more work.

[Delta1212]

The results of psychology experiments involving the Ultimatum game and Dictator game point to humans having an innate sense of fairness that they value at a disproportionate level to immediate personal benefit.

 

Evolutionarily speaking, I would venture that this is a bit of a hack for a species that exists primarily within long term social groups, promoting the behavior that means that people will learn that failing to offer you a minimally "fair" benefit when making a deal will result in you going out of your way to harm them even if it would have been better for you in that specific deal to take the offer, under the assumption that most people you interact with in a deal making capacity are liable to be people that you interact with more than once and that this behavior is liable to get you better deals moving forward.

 

Unfortunately, it also means that if the perception of fairness can be played upon in a modern context, it is very easy to get people to accept a scenario that is to their own detriment if it denies a benefit that they do not believe is being fairly given to another party.

[Strange]

I must admit to being completely baffled by the American psyche. On the one hand, it appears to be a deeply religious (mainly Christian) country, with all that implies about caring for others.

 

On the other hand, someone on Twitter said, "why should those of us with money pay for others" (with nothing explicit about why those other might need help, just a blanket selfishness, as far as I could tell).

 

Surely, the whole point of being "a society" (*) is that you all chip in to provide infrastructure, police, roads, services, assistance, etc. to the whole population. Is the fear that helping others might be the first step to a Communist Hell just a hangover from the era of the Iron Curtain and McCarthyism?

 

(*) Which is why I have always thought that Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society" speech is one of the most evil bits of political rhetoric I have heard in my lifetime.

[CharonY]

The results of psychology experiments involving the Ultimatum game and Dictator game point to humans having an innate sense of fairness that they value at a disproportionate level to immediate personal benefit.

 

Evolutionarily speaking, I would venture that this is a bit of a hack for a species that exists primarily within long term social groups, promoting the behavior that means that people will learn that failing to offer you a minimally "fair" benefit when making a deal will result in you going out of your way to harm them even if it would have been better for you in that specific deal to take the offer, under the assumption that most people you interact with in a deal making capacity are liable to be people that you interact with more than once and that this behavior is liable to get you better deals moving forward.

 

Unfortunately, it also means that if the perception of fairness can be played upon in a modern context, it is very easy to get people to accept a scenario that is to their own detriment if it denies a benefit that they do not believe is being fairly given to another party.

 

I would be careful about evolutionary interpretations, as they are very difficult to validate. However, I think it plays together with the observation that people have a stronger aversion to loss than positive feelings to an equivalent gain (see the work from Kahneman). Someone getting ahead feels like a loss and may thus amplify negative emotions toward that. That is all speculation, of course.

Edited March 9, 2017 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

 

(*) Which is why I have always thought that Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society" speech is one of the most evil bits of political rhetoric I have heard in my lifetime.

Yes. She initiated the "Me" mentality, of which, much is still in evidence today, if not more. I found a copy of that bit:

 

 

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

 

http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

Edited March 9, 2017 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Surely, the whole point of being "a society" (*) is that you all chip in to provide infrastructure, police, roads, services, assistance, etc. to the whole population.

 

There seems to be a FU point where American people can be rich enough they don't need help with anything. Their homes are museums, on parklands with a pool. They can even hire their own police and fire suppression systems, so they pretty much just need the military to keep their business interests safe. That's when they want to stop paying taxes, and start resenting everything that doesn't benefit them directly. Having so much, they resent those judged undeserving.

 

I don't mean to generalize. I know people with fabulous wealth who fund worthy causes, and believe in supporting a higher level of economic security. But we chose this system. We've voted people into office who have ensured it's this way, and when they didn't believe this we voted them out. It's a system that heavily favors an already heavily favored upper class, so it must be what makes the majority of us happy. We're in a democracy, we can set it up the way we want, and we've chosen this.

 

Italy decided to structure the way workers are compensated by dividing up pay so they get a 13th month payment in the middle of December, which most turn right around and spend on Christmas and vacations. They like it that way, it helps everyone participate in their own economy more, and just gives everyone in general a great feeling of national pride. You could point out to everyone that the Italian companies don't pay their workers more in order to do this, that it's just a restructuring of compensation benefits, but you could never sell this concept to the US job providers. Eventually, the question of whether an employee deserves such a benefit would be raised.

[CharonY]

 

 

Italy decided to structure the way workers are compensated by dividing up pay so they get a 13th month payment in the middle of December, which most turn right around and spend on Christmas and vacations. They like it that way, it helps everyone participate in their own economy more, and just gives everyone in general a great feeling of national pride. You could point out to everyone that the Italian companies don't pay their workers more in order to do this, that it's just a restructuring of compensation benefits, but you could never sell this concept to the US job providers. Eventually, the question of whether an employee deserves such a benefit would be raised.

 

Well, in Germany there is also a 13th salary but it is more a flexible tool to offer (or decline) benefits to the workers. If anything, it is more an expression of paternal benevolence (so to speak).

 

In most cases the 13th salary is part of a bonus pay agreement. As such, depending on the type of contract it is possible to cut it. Examples include e.g. missing work days, leave due to illness, and often also maternity or paternity leave. In Germany (but not in Italy) it may include a provision that it is only provided if the company reaches certain profit targets. In addition, one may not get it, if one loses one job before December. As such, it is a bonus that is used to benefit workers but gives the companies a lot of power how to administer it. In addition, part-time workers are generally exempt from these payments. A higher salary would not give them that leeway.

 

What one could argue is that in the USA there are stronger anti-collective bargaining unit sentiments. But benefits and other deferred compensation plans do exist.

[MigL]

'To be fair to M Thatcher, if you take her comments out of context, she sounds awful, but if you read the whole transcript it doesn't sound so bad.

" its our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbor"

"there is no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation"

 

Certainly doesn't sound like

" its all about me; everyone else can go F themselves"

when you read the whole thing, does it ?

 

Good or bad ( a lot of different viewpoints ) she was one of the most influential people in British government since the 50s.

And much better than the useless British politicians that have followed.

 

As to this human condition where we try to better ourselves by bringing others down; it is almost instinctive, and certainly not political.

But I wonder how 'old money', rich people, who have inherited their wealth, would feel about including winners of the genetic lottery in the group denied free coverage ?

Edited March 10, 2017 by MigL

[Phi for All]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-shimkus-prenatal-care_us_58c1e4fae4b0ed71826b6e4e

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) suggested Wednesday that one reason Republicans are unhappy with the Affordable Care Act is because men must pay for health care plans that cover maternity services.

The congressman’s comments came during a lengthy markup session in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the first steps House Republicans took to advance their bill to repeal and replace the health care law. During the hearing, Rep. Michael Doyle (D-Pa.) asked his colleague Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to explain what he meant when he said premiums were “skyrocketing” in his state “because of the mandates from Obamacare.”

“What mandate in the Obamacare bill does he take issue with?” Doyle asked. “Certainly not with pre-existing conditions, or caps on benefits or letting your child stay on the policy until 26, so I’m curious what is it we’re mandating?”

“What about men having to purchase prenatal care?” Shimkus replied. “Is that not correct? And should they?"

Doyle appeared confused by Shimkus’ comment.

“There’s no such thing as a la carte insurance, John,” he said.

“That’s the point,” Shimkus replied. “We want the consumer to be able to go to the insurance market and be able to negotiate on a plan ...”

“There’s not a single insurance company in the world that does that,” said Doyle. “You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist.”

More resentful judgements? Women don't complain about having to pay extra for insurance to cover prostate problems.

[Ten oz]

Surely, the whole point of being "a society" (*) is that you all chip in to provide infrastructure, police, roads, services, assistance, etc. to the whole population. Is the fear that helping others might be the first step to a Communist Hell just a hangover from the era of the Iron Curtain and McCarthyism?

 

 

While I agree what you describe should be the mutual point of society it isn't. Slaves and indentured servants were brought to the U.S. and forced to build infrastructure. Roads and railways constructed so that the wealth could come conduct business. Police forces were initially stood up to catch runaway slaves.

 

The whole point on the society on a plantation was to serve the ambitions and culture of the owner. The whole point of society turn of the century industrialist described so well by Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was to server the wealth and ambitions of the industrialists.

 

Unfortunately most large components of society do little to serve society. Why that is, tough question to answer. There seems to be a certain portion of the population that whether through conditioning or mental condition from birth lack a sympathy, empathy, or the ability to love something which isn't their own. These people aren't driven exclusively by greed but rather a lack of appreciation for others or society as a whole.