I've seen more blogs recently use that quote in a negative way, even though it's taken out of context, and the original author of that quote meant it as an overall positive thing (for the world).
Indeed. A lot of people on the Internet have what I call "Joe the Plumber" syndrome; they imagine themselves as though they are better off than they are, and then get upset when something helps the little guy. In this case, people are upset that there is no money in developing your own phone OS, because you can't compete with Free. But in reality, most of these people don't make phone operating systems, but they do buy phones. So Android ends up being great for them: cheaper fun electronic toys.
I'm not sure this debate is likely to go anywhere, but what exactly is wrong with people thinking they are better off than they are, or aspiring to be?
If people don't want help, why force it upon them?
Disclaimer: I love Android and 100% of my slates are running it. I love that it's free. Check my profile, it's all I do all day.
I'm just calling out your "Joe the Plumber" reference.
I'm calling out your calling out of the Joe the Plumber reference :)
Here's how I see Joe: he gets upset that Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich to give benefits to the poor, because he thinks he's rich. But as it turns out, he's poor: he makes $40,000 a year and would greatly benefit from Obama's tax cuts. This confuses me not because of the politics, but because he is acting against his own self-interest because he thinks his self-interest is something that it's not. If he did own his plumbing company, he'd see a little less profit due to Obama's tax increase. But he doesn't own the company and probably will never will; he wasn't even a licensed plumber and he left his job there.
To apply this to phones, people imagine themselves in the position of being a phone software company, when they are really phone developers or users. In this case, Android is good, because it means more users will be using their phone, and that means more apps or more users buying your apps.
This is getting off-topic, but it's possible to oppose taxes to the rich without fancying oneself to be rich. The above Joe the Plumber description paints a picture of a delusional redneck. That's not necessary to debate taxation policy.
EDIT: to bring this closer to topic: is it really "transfer of wealth" if the wealth was never really there? Most new cool gadgets get commoditized. If anything, Android is probably one of the better-designed systems under the hood (at least as far as the app API goes). Either way, the first smartphones were themselves incremental improvements and iterations over prior things like PDAs, etc.
He was, and was actually upset that Obama was going to raise taxes on wealthy people (250k+ incomes), and actually raised a stink about it. Later on, the media dug into his life and realized that he had a very basic plumbing license, did not actually intend to buy a business he had mentioned he was going to do, and only made about 40k per year (and had a judgement lien against his income for failure to pay taxes).
The comparison to Obama's tax plan was not off topic, because "Joe the Plumber" was in fact characterized and quoted by the media as someone who was going to have his life changed for the worse due to Obama's tax plan, when in reality, nothing in his life would have changed, but he still argued against the tax plan.
One doesn't have to be rich to oppose taxes for the rich. Even if those higher taxes would somehow benefit you through a reduction in your taxes. You can disagree with an increase in taxes in principle. For instance, I don't think more taxation is necessary in any income group. How about reducing military or social insurance spending? Problems abound, but the point is, it's not totally outrageous to oppose taxes for the rich even if you only make an average income.
of course not -- but the subject was Joe the Plumber. He certainly framed his question as one of self-interest rather than one of principle, so the question of misunderstanding ones self interest is applicable.
""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?""
The answer to his question is A.) No, you're not buying that company. And B.) Yes, each dollar you made above 250K would be taxed at a 3% higher rate than normal, if you did. So $3,000 per $100,000.
Misunderstandings abound about economics. It does not mean all opinions flow from misunderstandings, but many are colored by them. Most people (regardless of their opinion on taxes and spending) do not realize that federal revenues as a percent of GDP are at 20 year lows. Which is not surprising, as taxes have been cut systematically over the years.
Yet people generally "feel" like the federal gov't is taking in more than ever as a percentage.
I now see why my post got downvotes. I was unaware that JtP as a specific situation was about mistaken self-interest (originally I thought it was solely about generic blue-collar appeal for McCain/Palin).
The problem isn't that he's supporting cuts for someone in a different bracket, it's that his own reasoning has him in the bracket which he's not in. He's opposing tax laws that don't directly affect him based on the misunderstanding that they do directly affect him.
$40k a year and he is poor? umm... Sure he would benefit from tax cuts but $40k/year is not poor. According to wikipedia poverty line sits around $22k in the states.
It's wrong for people to think they are better off than they are because such thinking leads to decisions that will hurt Joes in the end. It's exactly Joes who shoot themselves in the foot by thinking that it's an each man for himself world.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." --Steinbeck
I'm not sure I'll be able to change your mind if it's not evident to you why that is a bad self-image, but here goes:
First, you have to define "bad". It's not bad for the planet, or bad for society as a whole. It's bad for the person who has that belief, because it leads him to act against his self-interest (as a poor person) and making him act for the interest of richer people.
Shouting "Why should the rich pay higher taxes so the poor can get better healthcare?" when you're yourself poor isn't "good" for you, is it?
First, you have to define "bad". It's not bad for the planet, or bad for society as a whole. It's bad for the person who has that belief, because it leads him to act against his self-interest (as a poor person) and making him act for the interest of richer people.
It depends on how important your principles are to you. One expression of altruism that the left in the US doesn't seem to respect at all is the idea that someone who's poor or unemployed might still believe that it's not healthy for society to grant him all sorts of entitlements.
Put another way, apparently "voting for your own self interest" is a good thing only when the lower and middle classes do it. I find this hypocritical in the extreme.
Shouting "Why should the rich pay higher taxes so the poor can get better healthcare?" when you're yourself poor isn't "good" for you, is it?
I'd like to think that my bank balance doesn't determine my political thinking, with regard to what I believe is the best way to run a society for the long term benefit of all of its members.
I wholeheartedly reject the notion of 'class' when applied to productive adults in the United States. So the rhetoric of rich versus poor means nothing to me, beyond referring to an unreasonable concern that some people seem to have with numbers stored in a bank's database under keys associated with other account holders.
Trivializing money by referring to it as "just numbers in a bank" is surreal. Those numbers in a bank are the #1 determinant of whether you will do things like: eat, have a roof over your head, or pass on your genes.
It's pretty much impossible to overemphasize the importance of those numbers.
You're pretending that class doesn't exist while you pretend that money doesn't matter. Class is real. And class is important specifically because money does matter. A lot.
When you're truly rich, they're just numbers in a bank. They're a scorecard by which you determine whether you're winning. Poor people want a reliable car and a roof that doesn't leak; rich people want a higher score, but rich people are more effective at getting what they want.
As for Joe the Plumber syndrome, there's a relevant quote from Vladimir Nesov. Something along the lines of "revealed preference is not a very charitable way to interpret people's actions."
>One expression of altruism that the left in the US doesn't seem to respect at all is the idea that someone who's poor or unemployed might still believe that it's not healthy for society to grant him all sorts of entitlements.
So if you're poor and left-wing nobody should take you seriously? What if you're rich and left-wing?
And I don't think a lot of people have a problem with the rich voting in their self-interest. It's when they control the airwaves and purchase the government that people get upset.
(Needless to say, I'm not referring to people in the 250k-500k band here, but rather that 1% that controls half the wealth of the nation.)
Probably because there is a rather obvious negative interpretation: People think they have a real chance to become a millionaire, while in reality, they will probably always be comparatively poor. So they always make decisions based on this imaginary future as a rich person, even if it is much more likely that they will not be better off in the future.
The implicit assumption is that the plumber is farther along in his life and has a lot more (family, home, social benefits, health, etc.) to lose than a 19 yr old in YC...
The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging you have a problem ....
If the Joe the Plumber wants to support tax cuts for the rich and he's fully aware of his situation, then there is no issue having that opinion. But if his self-image is distorted (as was implied by the media reports), then it is bad to posses that as it means you will be making wrong decisions based on incorrect understandings.
The issue isn't his desire to aspire to greater wealth, it's his unrealistic understanding of what his actual financial status is.
Steinbeck clearly didn't mean it as a compliment, though, so I have to assume the same of anyone who just drops the quote in a thread with no elaboration.
That's ludicrous. Perhaps people make decisions based on values instead?
For example: I don't make 250k/year, but I'm opposed to increasing the taxes of that income bracket. Perhaps a true value driven person sees taxes not as a way to get more of what they didn't earn, but as something that isn't morally right.
