Which profession is more important to society?

[radiantquest]

I have been giving some thought to society, professions and economics.

For instance, a Kardashian type, who makes fragrances and has a pretty face, nets more wealth than a scientist! Is it more important to you that Christina Aguilera sing well or that a school bus has a safe driver transporting your child to school? I cant be the only one that finds this to be odd...I am in no way saying that someone else should mandate what a certain person be allowed to make financially, but you have to admit that it is interesting that we, as a civilization have allowed this. I suppose that to me, at least, the degree in which a service is NEEDED should dictate the value, yet its nearly the complete opposite.

If I were given the opportunity to completely change society, how would I do it? How would I fix it? What would keep us from returning to where we are now?

So, back to the original question. Do you think that a doctor or a teacher is more important to our society?
-Teachers benefit our youth to create a future, while doctors benefit us to maintain our present.

Then there are engineers and police?

 

[suchende]

It's a strange thought experiment, to me, to imagine what a person "should" be without considering the scarcity of qualified people. There are just more people able to be a school bus driver than a physician or grammy-winning singer. But then, I suppose it could be argued that Kim Kardashian gives many people a little something; entertainment, joy, shadenfreude, whatever it is. Maybe she's appropriately compensated by a measure of touching many people shallowly, whereas a teacher touches a relative few people, but possibly more deeply.

 

[sonnyjane]

Ooooh chicken or the egg. Without teachers there would be no new doctors.

 

[Autumnovember]

Oooooohhhh.....I'm all ears.

I can see the claws coming out

And Sonny, your post is perfect.

 

[crown1]

surely the farmer deserves some consideration as we all must eat.

 

[lknvrb4]

Apparently athletes are the most important, look what they are paid. I think it is ridiculous they are paid millions to play a sport they love when there are so many better things money could be spent on. Just saying...

 

[justginger]

These people earn extravagant amounts of money because they make OTHER people tons of money. Sponsors, universities, fashion brands, whatever - people who do seemingly nothing still manage to bring in big bucks for various industries. Not saying it's right, but that's how I see it.

I saw a similar topic addressed in the comments of a Yahoo news story. Someone said, "Don't you think our medical scientists and researchers are already earning six figures?" in response to a statement expressing chagrin that 'important' (in their opinion) jobs are relatively underpaid. If that's true, I'm scheduled for a hefty raise!

 

[AmeliaG]

justginger is right. Whoever pays your salary has to have the money themselves; schools don't have the money to pay teachers an extravagant salary (though salaries for teachers are getting better). Hot actors make the movie studios enough money that the studios can afford to give lots of people full-time jobs to support their families. And if an actor makes enough bombs, he or she gets dropped.

I think its a great misconception that the amount of money you receive equals your worth. More often I think it just reflects how much money you can generate. I'm sure in some schools there are some 'star' teachers who attract a lot of students and they make more money than their non-'star' counterparts. I know my university paid 'celebrity' professors more than the average professor regardless of how well they taught because having 'celebrity' professors was great for recruiting new students.

Then there's the scarcity factor, if there are fewer doctors than bus drivers because medical school takes longer to complete and is more expensive, that drives up the cost of the doctor's pay. Although with the state of health care today, I don't know if that's still true.

 

[missy]

I think its a great misconception that the amount of money you receive equals your worth. More often I think it just reflects how much money you can generate.

I totally agree with this.


For good and for bad what you earn is (usually) dependent on how much you "produce". An actor/sports star produces hundreds of millions or more whereas what a teacher "produces" cannot really be measured in terms of dollars but is truly invaluable. Who can know when a teacher makes such a great impact on a young mind and that student(s) goes on to find the cure for what is now an incurable disease or something else of great value for society?

Similarly, what a doctor "produces" can and cannot be measured in terms of monetary numbers. They can net an amount of money for the practice/hospital but what about the immeasurable net of health for the people they are treating who might go on to produce something of great value? An attorney is paid based on what he/she earns for the firm- how much they produce in billable hours but what are they doing for society? How is that measured? What about the attorney who slaves away defending innocent people who have no money to pay? He is earning far less than an attorney in private practice but I might argue (depending on the specifics of each case ofc) that he is contributing more to society. What about the social worker who helps people get back on their feet and provides them the strength/knowledge/ability to become successful members of society contributing far more valuable services than they ever would have been able to without her intervention? She certainly isn't rewarded monetarily the way other professions may be but provides no less important a service.

And so on and so forth. Not to use me as an example but I feel I contribute a lot to where I work- not in terms of dollars and cents however but the service I am providing. I put my full energy and heart into everything I do there. However, when I recently asked for a raise the director turned me down saying I needed to "produce" more- however my specialty cannot be compared to let's say the psychiatrist who sees patients for refills and sees each patient for 5 min. I cannot do that ever. It takes much longer for me to examine each patient because my specialty is very different. However, when compared to the psychiatrist I am producing far less in monetary amounts and hence was turned down for my raise because the director of the clinic is looking at it solely in terms of what each clinician is earning for the clinic. Period. Short sighted? Not in his mind.

The examples are endless and the arguments many sided with no black or white answers. It's the way society works. You are "measured" dependent on what you produce in concrete terms more than the abstract. Not always ofc but just generally that's how it seems to work. Is it fair? I guess in my mind it depends.

 

[thbmok]

I think it's misleading for focus on the successful exceptions. Yes, there are many athletes and performers who make millions, but there are many more who are barely scrapping by. Just as there are doctors and professors who make millions while most earn relatively modest wages.

I don't think any profession is more important than any other. IMO each and every profession serves a purpose and is an integral part of society, provided it does not condone initiating harm to others in the process.

 

[missy]

I think it's misleading for focus on the successful exceptions. Yes, there are many athletes and performers who make millions, but there are many more who are barely scrapping by. Just as there are doctors and professors who make millions while most earn relatively modest wages.

I don't think any profession is more important than any other. IMO each and every profession is an integral part of society, provided they do not condone initiating harm to others in the process.

Yes, absolutely. We need all these professions. If people decided not to go into them we would fall apart as a society.

 

[Saoirse2]

To me, there isn't a most important...every occupation is dependant on another

 

[AGBF]

To me, there isn't a most important...every occupation is dependant on another

I think that your point of view used to be the American point of view: that honest, hard work should be rewarded. Of sourse, historically, honest hard work was not always rewarded! We had slavery. We had indentured servants. We had company towns. We had sweat shops and non-union laborers who worked in subhuman conditions. We had immigrants brought in to be abused. But at least we paid lip service to the notion that hard work was honorable!

Things have changed.

The quotation below was excerpted from an OP Ed piece in, "The New York Times" by Paul Krugman. It illustrates how meaningless the hard work of the individual has become to the wealthy, ruling élite in the United States, as epitomized by Mitt Romney, who has dismissed 47% of the country as unworthy of his time.

"By now everyone knows how Mitt Romney, speaking to donors in Boca Raton, washed his hands of almost half the country — the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes — declaring, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” By now, also, many people are aware that the great bulk of the 47 percent are hardly moochers; most are working families who pay payroll taxes, and elderly or disabled Americans make up a majority of the rest.

But here’s the question: Should we imagine that Mr. Romney and his party would think better of the 47 percent on learning that the great majority of them actually are or were hard workers, who very much have taken personal responsibility for their lives? And the answer is no.

For the fact is that the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for 'job creators,' a k a employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families — who, it goes without saying, make up the vast majority of Americans.

Am I exaggerating? Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day — a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what it said, in its entirety: 'Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.' Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.

Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words 'worker' or 'workers' never passed his lips. This was in strong contrast to President Obama’s convention speech a week later, which put a lot of emphasis on workers — especially, of course, but not only, workers who benefited from the auto bailout.

And when Mr. Romney waxed rhapsodic about the opportunities America offered to immigrants, he declared that they came in pursuit of 'freedom to build a business.' What about those who came here not to found businesses, but simply to make an honest living? Not worth mentioning.

Needless to say, the G.O.P.’s disdain for workers goes deeper than rhetoric. It’s deeply embedded in the party’s policy priorities. Mr. Romney’s remarks spoke to a widespread belief on the right that taxes on working Americans are, if anything, too low. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal famously described low-income workers whose wages fall below the income-tax threshold as 'lucky duckies.'

What really needs cutting, the right believes, are taxes on corporate profits, capital gains, dividends, and very high salaries — that is, taxes that fall on investors and executives, not ordinary workers. This despite the fact that people who derive their income from investments, not wages — people like, say, Willard Mitt Romney — already pay remarkably little in taxes.

Where does this disdain for workers come from? Some of it, obviously, reflects the influence of money in politics: big-money donors, like the ones Mr. Romney was speaking to when he went off on half the nation, don’t live paycheck to paycheck. But it also reflects the extent to which the G.O.P. has been taken over by an Ayn Rand-type vision of society, in which a handful of heroic businessmen are responsible for all economic good, while the rest of us are just along for the ride.

In the eyes of those who share this vision, the wealthy deserve special treatment, and not just in the form of low taxes. They must also receive respect, indeed deference, at all times. That’s why even the slightest hint from the president that the rich might not be all that — that, say, some bankers may have behaved badly, or that even 'job creators' depend on government-built infrastructure — elicits frantic cries that Mr. Obama is a socialist.

Now, such sentiments aren’t new; 'Atlas Shrugged' was, after all, published in 1957. In the past, however, even Republican politicians who privately shared the elite’s contempt for the masses knew enough to keep it to themselves and managed to fake some appreciation for ordinary workers. At this point, however, the party’s contempt for the working class is apparently too complete, too pervasive to hide."


Deb/AGBF

 

[decodelighted]

Society has always lifted certain people up in order to be able to tear them back down & feel better about themselves in the process. And theater was created to mimic that cycle quicker & more easily for an instant catharsis.

Kings, Kardashians - what's the diff? Nada.

 

[AmeliaG]

To me, there isn't a most important...every occupation is dependant on another

I think that your point of view used to be the American point of view: that honest, hard work should be rewarded. Of sourse, historically, honest hard work was not always rewarded! We had slavery. We had indentured servants. We had company towns. We had sweat shops and non-union laborers who worked in subhuman conditions. We had immigrants brought in to be abused. But at least we paid lip service to the notion that hard work was honorable!

Things have changed.

The quotation below was excerpted from an OP Ed piece in, "The New York Times" by Paul Krugman. It illustrates how meaningless the hard work of the individual has become to the wealthy, ruling élite in the United States, as epitomized by Mitt Romney, who has dismissed 47% of the country as unworthy of his time.

"By now everyone knows how Mitt Romney, speaking to donors in Boca Raton, washed his hands of almost half the country — the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes — declaring, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” By now, also, many people are aware that the great bulk of the 47 percent are hardly moochers; most are working families who pay payroll taxes, and elderly or disabled Americans make up a majority of the rest.

AGBF, I think the discussion is bigger than Mitt Romney. After all, many of the actors that hate Romney and support Obama are the overpaid actors we're talking about whose jobs are allegedly not important.

America has always been about creating wealth. It's just that previously, one couldn't do that without a lot of hard work. The economy is a lot more complex now. I think the media has a lot to do with it. It creates celebrities who bring a lot of money to those that can hitch themselves to a star.

 

[soocool]

People who buy services/products determine who will be wealthy and who will not. If people did not spend money on going to sport games, movies, or buying the latest fashions endorsed by models/actors/reality stars. etc then they would not be rich. If no one ever bought an iPhone, iPod, or any apple product, then Apple would not exist today.

Now to answer your question, the profession that is most important to society is that that helps society, whether that is the farmer who works hard to provide healthy fruits and vegetables to people, the teacher who inspires his/her students to learn, the doctor who eases the pain and suffering (not the doctor who promises to make you look 10 years younger) and takes a true interest in the health of his/her patient, all the way to the politician who really does give a "dxxx" and looksout for his/her constituents' best interests.


As an aside, I am a firm believer in a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount for the same public services. I do not see why those who make more should pay more. It always amazes me when people claim how poor they are when they drive their leased status cars, live in mansions they cannot afford, take lavish vacations when they should be saving for their kids college educations and/ or their retirement. My father came to this country without anyone's help and established his own business, hired kids to help them pay for college. He gave a number of kids the funds so they could stay in college or trade school and never asked them for a penny back and yet once they became established in a career they never forgot about my father. One of these kids is my DH. Dad did well because he worked hard and because he always gave of himself he had the support of the community when he needed it. Dad never measures his wealth in dollars, but in the number of friends he has made and the lives he has touched.

 

[radiantquest]

My point is this-There are many many professions that are absolutely necessary. If you put it in a perspective of an end of days situation and lets say that there is only enough food, shelter and money to pay 500 people. Which professions are imperative to start over? Wouldn't you want more people doing things that will better, protect and take care of your tiny society? Wouldn't you then want to compensate them for their hard work? No one in their right mind would get 500 people and compensate the ones that are entertaining the most. And yet, this is where we are today on a much larger scale.

This is what it comes down to as far as I am concerned. We are running our country into the ground because our values as a society are a$$ backwards. As a continuing part of my thoughts I would be very interested in hearing what today's 5 year old children want to be when they grow up. I plan to poll and see what comes up. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in what I believe the majority of what the answers will be. Please ask your DS and DD and see what they say as a start to my poll.

It is intriguing that the individuals involved in the media are the top earners and are also the ones that are the driving force in what is wrong...

What do you think will fix our situation? Do you think we are too far gone? Are we already on the event horizon and there is no turning back?

I talked to DH about it all. I want to go off the grid. I told him I have ideas. I have plans. Whoever agrees and wants to donate an island and come with me are welcome

 

[Haven]

My point is this-There are many many professions that are absolutely necessary. If you put it in a perspective of an end of days situation and lets say that there is only enough food, shelter and money to pay 500 people. Which professions are imperative to start over? Wouldn't you want more people doing things that will better, protect and take care of your tiny society? Wouldn't you then want to compensate them for their hard work? No one in their right mind would get 500 people and compensate the ones that are entertaining the most. And yet, this is where we are today on a much larger scale.

This is what it comes down to as far as I am concerned. We are running our country into the ground because our values as a society are a$$ backwards. As a continuing part of my thoughts I would be very interested in hearing what today's 5 year old children want to be when they grow up. I plan to poll and see what comes up. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in what I believe the majority of what the answers will be. Please ask your DS and DD and see what they say as a start to my poll.

It is intriguing that the individuals involved in the media are the top earners and are also the ones that are the driving force in what is wrong...

What do you think will fix our situation? Do you think we are too far gone? Are we already on the event horizon and there is no turning back?

I talked to DH about it all. I want to go off the grid. I told him I have ideas. I have plans. Whoever agrees and wants to donate an island and come with me are welcome

We talk (fantasize) about this all the time. Or moving to Switzerland. We really enjoyed Switzerland.

I have a friend who is currently transitioning into an off-the-grid life. She and her husband bought a beautiful home on 10 acres of land in upstate New York (for a fraction of what we spent on our quarter of an acre and small home here!) They're cultivating the land to grow the food they need, taking it step-by-step, but it is a very tempting prospect.

 

[JulieN]

I think no matter what, some people are always thinking that society is going backwards. Even in the Biblical stories, the writers say that god was not amused.

 

[AGBF]

People who buy services/products determine who will be wealthy and who will not. If people did not spend money on going to sport games, movies, or buying the latest fashions endorsed by models/actors/reality stars. etc then they would not be rich.

In the United States. Wealth is not divided the same way in all countries. In some countries the rich are not so rich and the poor are not so poor even though people still buy things and go places. That is because the government plays a different role and people of those countries often like their "socialist" Lives. My husband's family in Italy has often been shocked at our lack of health insurance; maternal health and family leave benefits; and retirement benefits/ old-age pensions. I have heard that Sweden and France are similar.

Deb/AGBF

 

[packrat]

I think no matter what, some people are always thinking that society is going backwards. Even in the Biblical stories, the writers say that god was not amused.

If he was not amused back then, I bet he's good and pissed off by now.

 

[packrat]

RQ, I've felt the same way for many many years. Just into my 20's I dated a guy who was a sports fanatic, and the pro baseball teams went on strike. Their strike pay per WEEK was more than my dad took home in a YEAR. (k, so it was a long ass time ago, and I don't remember exactly, but their strike pay was exorbitant) At the pack, when you go on strike, your strike pay is a about $14 a week-how far will that gitcha? Think you can feed a family of four while trying to get the bosses to pay you more than just over minimum wage on $14/week? And here those big fat whine baby pee pants "men" were complaining that their millions and millions of dollars (one man making more in one year than my dad would in his entire lifetime) wasn't good enough, and for what? Being able to hit a ball real far and run really fast? Well whoopty dingdy dong. I can fold my tongue into a clover bitch, fork over the money.

We almost broke up over that. Duh.

I don't think any one profession is more or most important to society. Do I think being say...a tennis coach is not on the same level as one who is spending 80 hours a week finding a cure for childhood leukemia? Or a make up artist maybe not the same as the person who discovered penicillin? Yes. Do I think Johnny Depp's contributions to the universe as Captain Jack Sparrow are equal to that of police officers and firemen, some of whom risk their lives to save others? Much as I am deeply and utterly enthralled my his hotness, no.

I think being a mom, as a profession, is pretty damn studly tho.

 

[AmeliaG]

My point is this-There are many many professions that are absolutely necessary. If you put it in a perspective of an end of days situation and lets say that there is only enough food, shelter and money to pay 500 people. Which professions are imperative to start over? Wouldn't you want more people doing things that will better, protect and take care of your tiny society? Wouldn't you then want to compensate them for their hard work? No one in their right mind would get 500 people and compensate the ones that are entertaining the most. And yet, this is where we are today on a much larger scale.

In that situation, we'd also probably be living in a dictatorship because with limited food, water, and essentials, it would be life-threatening to the group for individuals to have too many rights.

If I lived in a situation that you described, I'd probably be all for the dictatorship and rationing out of necessities if it meant the difference between living and dying for all of us but I'm not so if I have my choice, I'd rather not live under the siege mentality that's necessary for survival in the situation you describe.

 

[thbmok]

My point is this-There are many many professions that are absolutely necessary. If you put it in a perspective of an end of days situation and lets say that there is only enough food, shelter and money to pay 500 people. Which professions are imperative to start over? Wouldn't you want more people doing things that will better, protect and take care of your tiny society? Wouldn't you then want to compensate them for their hard work? No one in their right mind would get 500 people and compensate the ones that are entertaining the most. And yet, this is where we are today on a much larger scale.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I think it's ridiculous to assume that what works best for a society of 500 people is in any way relevant to what works best for a society of 5,000 or 5 million or 5 billion people.

 

[AmeliaG]

It is intriguing that the individuals involved in the media are the top earners and are also the ones that are the driving force in what is wrong...

The media isn't all bad. The media along with better weather forecasting has saved many lives because you could now warn people of a life threatening storm, hurricane, or tornado. But here's the rub - these entertainment shows probably bring the the broadcasters enough money that they can afford to do public service announcements.

And what about women who hear on the news about a rapist roaming the area and thus can protect themselves better? Or missing children who today have a better chance of being found because we have a media that can broadcast their name and face all over everywhere. Before the advent of the media, it was a lot harder.

I'm reminded of a show I saw about the Holocaust. There was a group that solicited donations to get people out of Germany. People in Germany complained that the American donors were far more likely to put up a big donation for a famous author or actor than a local protestor that clearly was in more danger. The head of the organization explained that the size of the donations for celebrity Jews enabled the group to rescue that protester and several others in danger. She guessed that without the celebrity Jews, the group wouldn't have gotten the money it did to save the number of people it saved.

 

[AmeliaG]

RQ, I've felt the same way for many many years. Just into my 20's I dated a guy who was a sports fanatic, and the pro baseball teams went on strike. Their strike pay per WEEK was more than my dad took home in a YEAR. (k, so it was a long a$$ time ago, and I don't remember exactly, but their strike pay was exorbitant) At the pack, when you go on strike, your strike pay is a about $14 a week-how far will that gitcha? Think you can feed a family of four while trying to get the bosses to pay you more than just over minimum wage on $14/week? And here those big fat whine baby pee pants "men" were complaining that their millions and millions of dollars (one man making more in one year than my dad would in his entire lifetime) wasn't good enough, and for what? Being able to hit a ball real far and run really fast? Well whoopty dingdy dong. I can fold my tongue into a clover bitch, fork over the money.

We almost broke up over that. Duh.

I don't think any one profession is more or most important to society. Do I think being say...a tennis coach is not on the same level as one who is spending 80 hours a week finding a cure for childhood leukemia? Or a make up artist maybe not the same as the person who discovered penicillin? Yes. Do I think Johnny Depp's contributions to the universe as Captain Jack Sparrow are equal to that of police officers and firemen, some of whom risk their lives to save others? Much as I am deeply and utterly enthralled my his hotness, no.

I think being a mom, as a profession, is pretty damn studly tho.

But where is the money to pay people in these noble professions what we think they deserve?

Take child care, it's often prohibitively expensive for young parents to pay with their salaries especially to pay for a nanny to stay in their home. Yet childcare workers are notoriously underpaid. And many women can't even afford to stay home with their babies. They are single mothers or their husband doesn't bring in enough income to support the family. It's a luxury.

Sure when most women stayed at home before the Sixties, one man's salary could support a whole family but we can't count on it any more. Women who work contribute a lot to the economy, so much so that we'd notice their absence if all women stopped working when they had children.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There are many important jobs out there that have profound influence on the lives of others that are not particularly valued by society. I have thought about this before since I am a teacher who teaches dyslexic children how to read. And children who cannot read have a very dim future. A large percentage of the prison population cannot read, because schools do a notoriously poor job of remediating reading disorders. Every bit of training I had in methods to teach dyslexic children was paid for by me (including flights, hotels, etc.), not by the schools which employed me. Thankfully I have a lot of satisfaction in what I do, because I will never be financially compensated at a level that reflects the training and expertise and results that are achieved. I am sure there are many others here who could say the same thing. This is just one example.

 

[Haven]

I've been thinking about this question for a while and I keep coming back to the same thing:
Parenting. Parenting is the most important "profession" to society. I know it's not technically a profession, but if every person had the benefit of being raised by a strong, positive, supportive parent or guardian, then I believe society would be in much better shape now.

 

[missy]

I've been thinking about this question for a while and I keep coming back to the same thing:
Parenting. Parenting is the most important "profession" to society. I know it's not technically a profession, but if every person had the benefit of being raised by a strong, positive, supportive parent or guardian, then I believe society would be in much better shape now.[/b

No question about it. Society would be in a much better place if we all had loving supportive parents.

 

[suchende]

People who buy services/products determine who will be wealthy and who will not. If people did not spend money on going to sport games, movies, or buying the latest fashions endorsed by models/actors/reality stars. etc then they would not be rich. If no one ever bought an iPhone, iPod, or any apple product, then Apple would not exist today.

Now to answer your question, the profession that is most important to society is that that helps society, whether that is the farmer who works hard to provide healthy fruits and vegetables to people, the teacher who inspires his/her students to learn, the doctor who eases the pain and suffering (not the doctor who promises to make you look 10 years younger) and takes a true interest in the health of his/her patient, all the way to the politician who really does give a "dxxx" and looksout for his/her constituents' best interests.


As an aside, I am a firm believer in a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount for the same public services. I do not see why those who make more should pay more. It always amazes me when people claim how poor they are when they drive their leased status cars, live in mansions they cannot afford, take lavish vacations when they should be saving for their kids college educations and/ or their retirement. My father came to this country without anyone's help and established his own business, hired kids to help them pay for college. He gave a number of kids the funds so they could stay in college or trade school and never asked them for a penny back and yet once they became established in a career they never forgot about my father. One of these kids is my DH. Dad did well because he worked hard and because he always gave of himself he had the support of the community when he needed it. Dad never measures his wealth in dollars, but in the number of friends he has made and the lives he has touched.

And I don't see why we should all subsidize shareholders of corporations, who enjoy the rent-seeking fruits of corporate welfare and all our other subsidies (like a lack of real accountability for environmental harm), which costs us all a heck of a lot more than the social net and benefits the high income earners and high net worth among us. And things like public schools, who educate our highly skilled workforce, benefitting tech companies far more than the working poor.

If we all really paid our fair share of public services, it may well turn out that the wealthiest among us would find themselves with a much fatter tax bill.