Today, in the news links, Bird Dog linked to a post related to Bernie Sanders and his loathing of the successful. The questions pondered by the author are legitimate. But it's fair to say a good number of people, at some point in their lives, probably have a level of dislike for the success others. The basis of this dislike results from a variety of sources, and though envy is probably the most common reason, I know there are many others. For example, I never liked Al Dunlap, or "Chainsaw Al" as he was often referred to. He was successful, he was an often sought-after manager, and he grew wealthy from his success. Of course, his method of becoming successful was not admired by many (including me) and many of his 'successes' later turned out to be based on certain fraudulent procedures, not least of which was channel-stuffing.
I don't consider my loathing of Dunlap to be particularly unusual or unjustified. I don't know the man, but his behaviors were pretty transparent. It was easy to not like him, as opposed to a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, who have proven themselves astute and relatively even-handed businessmen (even if you don't necessarily admire their politics).
There are still other reasons why people loathe the successful, and the death of flamboyant glam-rocker David Bowie reminded me of some. Many popular music stars have no problem speaking out against successful business people or businesses - even those in their own industry. I don't know if Bowie ever had anything bad to say about the marketers who helped turned him into a cottage industry, but plenty of his contemporaries certainly had/have very negative things to say about the successful. I have sat through more than one concert (Roger Waters in particular) which did nothing but complain about corporations and greed.
As a younger person, I used to complain about paying $X to go see a band. "The greedy music companies want to soak us." I still paid and saw the band. I never considered that the $X I paid covered a large number of costs which provided jobs to people. Sure the music promoters got wealthy, but these promoters were usually making money on the margins, and managed several events which also lost money. Whatever I ultimately paid for the ticket probably covered the costs for the show, as well as some losses on other shows.
As I aged, I realized even though I paid $X, jobs were created to service my entertainment needs. I also realized my willingness to pay $X meant I believed $X was a fair exchange for my entertainment. I no longer believed some wealthy promoter was ripping me off - I was engaging in a fair trade which left both of us better off. I enjoyed my entertainment and the promoter got paid for his ability to put together a show which thousands may enjoy.
It's that way with most things in life. As a basic clothes kind of guy, I've never felt compelled to pay for clothing just because it had a name on it. I rarely wear Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, or any designer clothing. If I do, somebody else bought it for me or I got it on sale. I reserve a special place in my heart for Brooks Brothers' suits - the only kind I ever pay more for, but I usually head over to the factory store anyway. So I'm not overpaying for a pair of jeans, or my sneakers, or a sweater. My son is particularly fond of Tod's shoes. He can't afford them, and hoped to be able to on our trip to Italy, so I looked into them. I'm not spending that much on shoes, sorry. I hear they are quite comfortable, and if you want to buy them, good for you. It's just not my thing, but I don't think anyone who wants that kind of shoe is getting ripped off. That's a choice on their part. If they want it, or are successful enough to afford it, God bless them.
The reality is people who loathe the successful feel they are somehow denied something which the wealthy haven't somehow earned. That could be called envy, but I don't think that's exactly all there is to it. Why would we be envious of the wealthy when they don't have access to much more than the average person does? I see a subtle difference between access and affordability. I have access to everything the wealthy have access to, I just don't have the money to afford it. For most of the 'stuff' I can afford, I don't worry too much. For most products in everyday life, I can afford to purchase almost all the same quality goods any billionaire can. If there are goods which are beyond the reach of my wallet, perhaps I save until I can purchase them. I'm not denied access, I'm merely deferring purchase.
There was a time, only a hundred to a hundred and fifty years ago, when being a successful provided certain benefits, and potentially access to goods and services, which nobody else could have access to. It wasn't just an affordability issue, it's simply the way society was structured. The Industrial Revolution brought into being a large group of parvenu which began slowly breaking down artificial barriers. A good example of access which is still limited is the House of Lords. Peerages were at one time hereditary, but new peerages are not. However, not everyone has access to join the House of Lords, and affordability is not the issue.
Some vestiges of this behavior can still be seen in everyday commerce. While seeking to purchase a handbag, Oprah Winfrey was once denied access. Oprah cried 'racism', which certainly is limiting access regardless of affordability. On the other hand, I have experienced a similar situation when walking into a high-end clothing shop as a young professional, wearing jeans and sneakers. While I was not denied access (my ability to pay softened the experience), I was clearly singled out as 'undesirable' until I made my purchases. I have no doubt if I'd walked in 75 years ago, looking as relatively ratty as I did, I'd have been denied entrance to the store entirely.
I have been denied entrance to more than one restaurant based on my dress. I don't have a problem with this, I understand they are looking to maintain a certain level of style, and my ability to pay for a meal is secondary to their desire to maintain an ambiance. If I really want to eat there, I'll dress accordingly.
So access and affordability are two different things. As the articles I've linked to point out, there isn't much that billionaires have access to that I don't, as long as I can afford it. I've flown first class (and yeah, once you've done it, it's tough to go back to economy, but I fly economy most of the time), I've stayed in five-star hotels (hotel points add up - I've never paid for a five star hotel), I use the same OTC medications billionaires use, I eat the same foods, and I could drive the same cars (if I can afford them, but I don't really like BMWs and Mercedes).
Why should I loathe people who are able to afford things I can't? Their ability to afford those things does not impact my life. Their ability to fly first class does not inhibit my ability to fly first class. Wasting time complaining about this, let alone trying to change this through law rather than making oneself better, is the sign of a cluttered mind. I don't begrudge my neighbor his country club membership. Even if I could afford it, I doubt I'd join. I may enjoy the game, but I'm a lousy golfer and my money is better spent than on a country club. I also don't begrudge his kids the cars he purchased for them. He's doing well enough to afford the cars (and the insurance!!), and if that's how he wants to spend his money (they are all smart, friendly, well-adjusted kids), that's his choice. I'm not buying my boys a car any sooner than I'm purchasing Tod's shoes for them.
For me, the idea of loathing success is a complicated concept. It's a luxury for those who are already successful (Bernie Sanders is nothing if not already successful) to be so cynically inclined, it can be a form of envy for those who are not successful, but for me it's just a waste of time. My anger over the success of someone else isn't going to make me more successful. In fact, it inhibits my ability to be successful, though some find it useful.
If the ability to afford expensive things is what gets you angry about the very wealthy, apply perspective. When I was 23 years old, I wanted a PC. I knew I could use it to manage my finances and prepare papers for grad school. I wound up paying $2,500 for something that was essentially a high-powered word processor. But it was good to have - I brought work home with me, I learned how to use spreadsheets and databases, and I wrote all my grad papers on it. That same PC today would have no value, it would be so under-powered, and its high-powered replacement sells for under $700. Essentially, one of the few things which successful people can afford to do is subsidize early stage technology. They overpay for it, and eventually a market develops (or doesn't), and prices fall allowing better technology to be affordable.
Why would I complain about that?
