Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 07:37:58 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu,alt-politics-greens@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: TWO DIFFERENT WORLDS & BASEBALL PLAYERS SYNDROME SAME TIME, SAME PLACE, DIFFERENT WORLD, & BPS After reading posts for about 6 months, I have finally realized that the people who post must live in two completely different worlds, that have in common only that they exist in the same place and at the same time. People from both worlds can cite statistics, examples, and studies to "prove" the validity of their world view. To some, Americans are poorer now than in the past, with the 1960's or 70's representing the high point in history, with a few citing the last century as having been the best. We are going downhill with a shrinking "middle class". The 1980's were a DARK AGE when only 5 people (or is it 5%?) became fabulously wealthy while almost everyone else became poor. There was a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich. They talk about the Pauperization of America. Unemployment is higher than ever and growing. And those who can find a job find that their pay buys ever less. The rest of the world is better off than us. I live in a completely different world- almost a mirror image world. In 1958 John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book "The Affluent Society". The thesis was that for the first time in world history a country (the USA) had reached a level of material well being never before seen: the average person didn't worry about starvation. Life was not a struggle to get enough to survive each day. We had not just food and clothes and shelter, but cars and radio and even TV. In fact we were starting to choke on our affluence! We were starting to suffer from a never before seen set of problems: those of being TOO rich. A year or so ago, the US passed a landmark of sorts. We became (on average) TWICE as rich as when "The Affluent Society" was written. We became the DOUBLY AFFLUENT SOCIETY. This is the world that I live in. In my world, most people were poor in all past centuries. Then, only the few very rich could have, not only more food than was good for them, but have music to eat by. The nobility could have their own string quartet or even orchestra to serenade them during dinner. Today, even the poor over eat and anyone can buy a CD player which gives music comparable to live quality (as the Milli Vanilli episode demonstrated). In my world, the Kings of the past had only 2 or 4 horses pulling their chariot or coach. The Emperor of Rome couldn't get a glass of ice tea.. Today all but the very poor can afford a car with hundreds of horse power. Only the rich could afford color TV with 4-10 channels in the late 1960's but practically everyone has it now, usually with 40+ channels to choose from. A computer costs thousands then and not even the very rich considered having one in their home for personal use. I ride my bike to work through housing built in the late 1950's and early 60's. They mostly have one car garages. When I bought a house in 1966 it had a 2 car garage which I thought would be nice for storage. Like most people then, I never expected our family could EVER afford 2 cars. Practically all of these houses now have widened driveways so the other cars can park off street and not block the car in the garage. In the poor sections of town, the clutter of cars parked in the street is even worse. In my world, the poor were skinny from malnutrition in the past In the US today, there is an INVERSE relationship between income and body weight for the first time ever. The most widespread form of malnutrition today in the US is obesity, and it is even higher among the poor. In my world the 1980's were the time of the fall of the Evil Empire and a chance to save the world from the prospect of nuclear destruction. There WAS a "statistical" transfer of money from the "poor" and "middle income" upwards. The mechanism was mostly that individual families got richer. Unemployment rates are deceptive since they are compiled differently in different countries and at different times. The percent of the population that IS working at a paying job is higher now in the US than in other industrial countries, and has generally been rising here for the past 40 years. My world is divided into about 20% of the population living in the Industrialized Nations and they are mostly rich; and 80% who live in the 3rd world and former Soviet Block (2nd world?), and they are mostly poor, living on an average of about $5 per day or less than $2000 per year. BASEBALL PLAYERS SYNDROME The Americans in my world consume a disproportionate share of the worlds' resources and generate a disproportionate share of the CO2. But they complain the most about not having enough. They suffer from what I call BPS: Baseball Players Syndrome. Does having more make people happier? Does money buy happiness? I used to think so. Then I encountered an interesting series of events with people I know (or know of). A teenager was happy to get a $5.00 /hr job. A state worker was upset that they got a raise that brought them to ONLY $32,000 per year. They complained to an employee relations councilor who countered that THEY were REALLY PISSED that their raise was only to $60,000. The President of the UW system threatened to QUIT because he was offered only $120,000. The UW basketball coach DID quit because he was offered only $250,000. But the most unhappy of all was a Green Bay Packer. He was INSULTED by the meager $2 million offer, and sat the year out rather than work for such a sum. From this, I formulated BPS: the new disease of the DOUBLY AFFLUENT SOCIETY: The more people ARE paid, the more they think they are UNDERPAID. When baseball players were paid 2 or 3 times as much as factory workers, they were thrilled to have made the team. I lived in Kansas City in the 1950's and knew several KC Blues AAA players. A chance to play for the YANKEES was the thrill of their life. As salaries rose to the hundreds of thousands per year, there was discontent and talk of strikes. With salaries into the millions, a world series is cancelled by a strike for the first time ever. That is BPS, and to the bottom 80% of the people in the world our whole culture has it. A reply from smg claimed that players are paid what they are worth. He was new to the net, and addressed his reply to "this group" Subject: reply 1 to BPS Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 12:41:08 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu, alt-politics-greens@cs.utexas.edu,smg@zeus.tamu.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: Re: Two Different Worlds & Baseball Players Syndrome Re: Two Different Worlds & Baseball Players Syndrome WELCOME ABOARD! I have been on line for only about 6 months and don't yet know all the netiquette; also I am a low-tech hitch-hiker on the electronic super highway. I can't post directly but must e-mail messages to a utexas server. I don't read the newsgroup regularly and would normally have missed your message. I suggest you post a reply/comment to another post using as title Re: ORIGINAL TITLE. The subject title "This group" just doesn't help. I also send a copy to the author in case they, like me, might miss it otherwise. The reply to smg@zeus.tamu.edu (GRAHAM,STEPHEN M): You say in effect that baseball players are not overpaid since the fans & TV sponsors will put out enough to watch the good ones. They earn their pay. Two points here: POINT ONE: Its not what they are WORTH, Its what they THINK I defined BPS as the More people ARE paid, the more they THINK they are UNDERPAID. Note it says nothing about how much they should be paid or how much they are WORTH. I am talking about a purely subjective thing: how one perceives one's salary. You could make a good case for the proposition that they are correct: the highest paid in society deserve even more and it is the minimum wage employee who is being OVERPAID. POINT TWO: Who put up the CAPITAL? The Milwaukee Brewers play their home games in Milwaukee County Stadium. This is common in major league baseball: the city or county builds the facility for the game and the state and federal government provide the highway network to make it possible. The Governor in Wisconsin it trying to come up with a $250 million tax package to build a new stadium for the Brewers. It is described as "investment in infrastructure" and to "provide jobs" etc. But is it? I see it as a subsidy for the players & owners (and fans). I won't even raise the issue of corporate box seats as tax deductible business expenses. Sports, like casino gambling, is not a productive investment but a "zero sum game". There are lots of things the state of Wisconsin could invest that $250 million in besides a new stadium. For example, commuter light rail. A group in Madison has a plan for an express "trolley" (light rail) to connect western Dane County to the UW, State Capitol, Downtown, and big shopping malls on the west and east sides of town, and on to eastern Dane County. It probably won't be built since it would cost $50 million. Of course highway projects of the same cost will be built. And so will the new stadium. But a comparable mass transit system for Milwaukee is considered too expensive. Who benefits from mass transit? And who from a new stadium? What I am suggesting here is that we have some priorities out of order. If the Brewers want a new stadium, the players and owners can take up a collection and build it themselves. You ask: How would I like it if my boss said my salary would be capped at X dollars a year, no matter how good I am at my job. Well, if X= $5 or $10 million (corrected for inflation), I might not like it but a least I could afford the psychological counseling to enable me to cope with it. ,,,,,,, _________ooo__(_O O_)__ooo___________________________________ (_) (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) University of Wisconsin, Madison USA Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 03:51:57 CST From: "jim blair" To: kern@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Cc: BCc: Subject: re: BPS In Message Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:32:10 +0000, "Hugh R. Kern" writes: >Let's see, all summed up: > > The more people have, the more they complain. > >I really like your thesis and its name. > >The disturbing conclusion is that if you buy the similar thesis that >revolutions aren't caused by poor conditions but rather by raised >expectations. And, if an increase in complaints indicates disappointment >with expectations, then we are in for quite a revolution starting with >Americans, our most affluent class of humans. > >Hugh Kern -- (kern@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU) I looked for but could not find an article I read back in the 1960's. The thesis was that revolutions are not when things keep getting worse for "the people" as was a common idea then. The article claimed that most revolutions happen when conditions are getting BETTER, but not fast enough to keep pace with EXPECTATIONS. It gave 3 or 4 examples. If I ever find the reference, I'll send it to you. AND: Duncan Angus CASSIDY wrote: > > "Sludge" writes: > > >http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1674.50381 > > >"University of Chicago researchers divided 800 teenagers into four groups > >according to the income levels of the communities in which they lived for > >one study published in the October 1998 issue of Monitor on Psychology. They > >found that the wealthier the community, the less happy the teenager." > > Maybe rich kids are unhappy because adverts tell them they will be > happy if they buy these clothes, that car, this computer game or > drink that soft drink. If they buy the right brand of sneakers, > they can "Just do it". When they buy these products, chances are > they will be just as unfulfilled as they were before they foolishly > parted with their money. > > You aren't the label on your jeans. Don Libby: Duncan Angus CASSIDY must be an associate of R Kym HORSELL, no? The above mentioned research would seem to square well with the theory of relative deprivation. Cross-national studies of general life satisfaction and happiness have long established that one's absolute material standard of living appears to be less well correlated with life satisfaction than is one's relative standing in a relevant social hierarchy. The same is true of longitudinal studies: average material wealth increases over time, but average happiness or satisfaction scores do not. There are some methodological questions to be dealt with (such as establishing a common frame of reference to control variation in referent standards for "self-anchoring scales" at a nominal or ordinal level of measurement), but the theory of relative deprivation has gained general acceptance, none-the-less. Cassidy's comment raises an issue that was pertinent about thirty years ago when the television media began to go global. It was feared that images of a relatively affluent lifestyle lived by characters in American TV shows would precipitate a "crisis of rising expectations" in the developing world. Sorry, I can't recall the references off hand. Final comment, taken from demographer and economic historian R.A. Easterlin's 1996 book _Growth Triumphant: The 21st Century in Historical Perspective_, where he observes that the triumph of material growth has not necessarily been the long hoped-for triumph of humanity over material wants, rather it would appear to be the triumph of material wants over humanity. -dl