A couple weeks back I wrote a little about the insurance company CEO being murdered in New York, and how it is likely a reaction to a number of factors that I have been writing about for year, with social disconnection and financial hardship of the masses, while those in positions of power benefit from the suffering.
From the linked article.
For a while now I have been talking about how culture has changed, how we are more disconnected, less community-orientated and for less concerned with the consequences of our actions. I think that this is driven by a number of factors, and one of the main ones is the incentivization of maximizing profits at the expense of wellbeing. Business is increasingly untethered from the results and needs of society, and this means that while corporations make record gains, the average person struggles more and more.
And while I am not a big believer in polls, I reckon this one points at some of the conditions I mentioned. It looks at opinions as to whether the actions of the killer were acceptable or not. While the focus has been on how 60% of the youngest demographic found it relatively acceptable, I think what is more interesting is the other demographics.
In the 70+ range, which you'd probably predict to be relatively conservative, 10% found murdering a "criminally innocent" person in the streets of America, acceptable, with another 10% neutral on it. That is 20% of predicted conservative thinkers who found murder fine. While the poll numbers were small, it is still pretty amazing how far society has come, and I suspect if this had happened a couple decades ago, most would find it unacceptable.
But, this is the problem when you put profit over people, because the maximization of profits (in the way we have set up business incentives currently) will lead to the minimization of human experience. People will earn less, jobs will be lost, automation will be expanded, social disconnection will increase and drive loneliness and depression, governments will increase taxes to cover shortfalls, and the meaning of life will shift. It will become more survival orientated, more individualistic, identity based. And ultimately, "us versus them" with them being anyone who is doing better than the us.
Do you identify as a wealthy person?
People act on incentive and there is incentive in seeing people suffer who people think deserve it. And, those who deserve it are those who are seen as people who benefit from our own suffering. It is rare that we hear stories about how awesome insurance companies are, how easy the claim experience, and how they tried all they could to maximize their payment to the claimant. There is a reason why.
That is not their business model.
Successful business models are not built on making people's lives better, even if they do at times. They are built on making profit, and that means that if there is the possibility to make profit at the expense of wellbeing, it will be done. Profit comes first. And while this is good for business, ever action has a reaction, and the social reaction of the actions in the last few decades has shifted us to where we are today as a society, one where in a developed, wealthy country, it is acceptable to shoot someone in the street, because they have legally profited from other's misery. It doesn't matter what the reality is, because there is so much division between groups now, and reality lies in the eye of the beholder.
The way the media want it.
Because division is good for business, and it is good for governments. Division generates money for corporations in a multitude of ways, and it reduces the chances of opposition for governments in a multitude of ways. There is no cabal driving this, just incentives. Incentives for profits on one side, and the incentive for people on the other. The more we reduce the wellbeing of people, the more incentive people have to push back on conditions - to react to actions.
The poll numbers above indicate one of the reactions to actions, where an increasing amount of people are recognizing in some way that the conditions we have are unacceptable. They feel bad and know things have to change, but aren't sure what that actually means or how to go about it. When an event happens that lays outside of the normal to someone who they believe is at least partially responsible for their own suffering, or indicative of those who are, it is natural for them to see it as positive, because at least it is change.
Until we are suffering enough, we dislike change.
More and more are suffering, and it is showing in many ways. As mentioned, depression is up, so to is addiction rates and substance abuse. Over the last decade, charitable donations have decreased as much as thirty percent too. That sense of duty to community has cratered, and the focus on individual enjoyment has ballooned. Enjoyment doesn't actually mean that life is good in this case, more that it is the point of action. People sit miserable on the couch, while enjoying streaming programs. They are lonely and intimacy starved, while they enjoy swiping left and right for a date. They are looking for relevancy and recognition, while they scream at strangers on the internet.
We all want something.
And our wants give us incentive to act in some way, to respond in some way. And when we aren't getting what we want, but we are seeing some pretty horrible people getting what they want by behaving badly, we get further disillusioned. Why care about community, why do the right thing, why put in any effort at all, when that is not the easiest way to get what we want in life? Why not be an asshole, because it seems to work for them - they get what they want. But, seeing the assholes punished, that gives a small sense of satisfaction, doesn't it?
Humans are complex, messy, and behave inconsistently. And this is just an individual, a single person. Throw many people together and there are going to be a wide range of challenges that arise, that get in the way of optimization and therefore, profits. But, people are also easy to manipulate and influence into behaving in particular ways, even if inconsistent with our own world view. Like the social warriors on the internet who are raving about eating meat, corporate greed, and reduction in social services - from the latest iPhone.
And from the same poll to finish off:
Another response to conditions.
32% is low for those younger age groups, but soon, the 30-39 group is going to be in middle management and those 40-49 will be upper management. This makes a difference for business and even though profit will still be the guiding force, how those profits are derived, and the financial mechanisms used, are likely to change. And with trillions of dollars in inheritance wealth being transferred during the next couple decades, the entire economy is going to go through a monumental shift. But take note to benefit.
Ownership is required.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
