A.
This reading was a little confusing to me due to the old english writing style. It was interesting to see the breakdown of different types of jobs and how society looks at them. The leisure class is considered the noble class and the lower class is looked down upon. It's funny how things change in how they are viewd. This writing talks about being drunk was looked at as noble and that wives would make narcotics and intoxicants for the men. Today these things are frowned upon and one would relate someone drunk in public as a low life or what is considered the lower class when this was written.The social and working classes today aren't considered as segregated. Someone is not looked down upon for having an average job. I will agree that the top 1% of wealth in America is looked up to by most people in the fact that they want to trade places with them.
I thought it was interesting that the lower class takes a lot of pride in the work that they do. This has a lot to do with that if they aren't productive in work, then they will get fired and wont be able to feed their family. The upperclass has more security of a job this piece makes it seem like. It was also very interesting that a person's wealth used to show one person's importance over another. This is interesting because the wealthy person would not be wealthy without the poor person working for him. This is because trade is not zero sum.
Also that certain drinks were considered for the nobles only is something that is very different today. With free trade, anyone is aloud to consume anything. As long as they pay for it, then they can buy it. Even if it puts them in debt they still have the free right to purchase any good that is legal. This is not the case when this piece was written.
B.
1. Are workers today, still considered to be enslaved by their employer like they were when this article was written?
2. What could have caused a change that industrious class people today do not have the same principle that they should consume only the amount of a substance necessary for them?
C.
This writing talks a lot about the leisure and working class and how their roles in society are viewed. The labor class used to be thought with weakness and subjection to a master. The writing also talked about how productive labor was lower classes way to obtain goods. The lower class is in no way considered lazy and they take pride in their work. Wealth used to show someone's importance over another man. A leisure lifestyle was considered the best way to live. The leisure lifestyle was only for the nobles and wealthy people. Only certain beverages were aloud for the rich as well as narcotics. Both of these were considered to be noble. In the leisure lifestyle, the women produced the goods for the man to consume. This lifestyle used to be very common in the past.
The elite class relied on the interest of pecuniary employments. A quote to show this is "The captain of industry is an astute man rather than an ingenious one, and his captaincy is a pecuniary rather than an industrial capacity."to enter the elite class, one had to have a pecuniary employment. The writing also said that the captain shapes human nature by education and selection. Non economic employments are associated with money related jobs.
The bigger the industry that someone ran, the more reputable that person is considered and the more people that he can employ. The class considered under this person were people with jobs that worked directly for these employers. These are people like lawyers and accountants. Merchants were only considered reputable if they owned a lot of things. Manual labor was the class above unemployed where these people were very looked down upon. Things are very different today in that manual labor wouldn't be looked down upon because people today realize the importance of manual labor workers to make our lives better.
Always a pleasure reading these posts Sam! There's of course much to be said on the questions and topics that you raise here. Below is what I wrote to another student and it is applicable here as well. When I find some extra time this weekend I may send some more notes and thoughts...
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the above thoughts and I agree with several of the sentiments you express. I am glad as well that you browsed through the blog posts by Rizzo that I sent out. You bring up many good thoughts here and I'll address briefly just one or two below, but there is of course much more to be said:
Perhaps it is greedy NOT to be a banker or consultant or lawyer. Think about why. These professionals make much more money, and mainly because the market dictates their value as being higher, not because some greedy, evil person in the top of a tower says they should be paid more, and this is GOOD for society. These people pay higher tax revenues and thus there is more money for public goods. And, we learn that wealth is created by production and exchange, so that these people making more money implies they are more productive and thus the WHOLE of society is richer, not just them. If a $1 million a year banker leaves the job to teach, then the world is necessarily $1 million poorer- and we are all poorer for this. But why do we then not call this person greedy? We call him noble for going to teach! Its an interesting thought. Of course, over the past few days I've seen op-eds by students that others should not sell their souls to go into finance and high-powered consulting, and to an extent, I agree with the message that too many go into these fields, though I don't agree with the arguments they make to support their point.
And as for your 3rd question, just as Rizzo says in his blog posts regarding honoring people of every profession, I strongly agree with that. I don't really understand why a manager of a restaurant or a waiter or someone who we typically consider to be in a more "menial" job should deserve any less respect than a cop or firefighter. And I've seen on many occasions waiters and service workers treat others with much more respect and dignity than do cops.