For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
This week, David Brooks encourages us to understand our economic situation "by looking for shifts in ideas and values, not just material changes." Today, following "decades of affluence, the U.S. has drifted away from the hardheaded practical mentality that built the nation’s wealth in the first place." Though Brooks points to a shift in values "at all levels of society," he blames America's elites -- its "brightest minds" -- for "abandoning industry and technical enterprise in favor of more prestigious but less productive fields like law, finance, consulting and nonprofit activism." And he closes with this warning:
Up and down society, people are moving away from commercial, productive activities and toward pleasant, enlightened but less productive ones.
Less productive, yes. But more pleasant? More enlightened? As Matt Crawford revealed in his Shop Class as Soulcraft, vast swaths of the 'knowledge industry' are joyless, robotic exercises in meaningless word-crunching. How many young attorneys at big law firms find their work pleasant and enlightened? How many graduate students? Is public relations a pleasant and enlightened activity? How about investment banking?
No, I think our knowledge elites aren't very likely to find themselves in the lap of luxury -- unless they go into government work. And even there, the strictures of bureaucracy and the horizonless quality of toiling for the state make the workaday world something less than an upper-class paradise. Even among elites, only a tiny few can bask in the glow of their own entitlement. Brooks cleverly quotes Michelle Obama:
“Don’t go into corporate America,” she told a group of women in Ohio. “You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. ... Make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry.”
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
If Jesus was living (on Earth) today, in upstate New York, maybe building step stools in his carpenter shop, he'd be using all his healing miracles to avoid personal injury lawsuits from people who fell off his stools. To build things for the public today is to have a target on your back. It's not fun anymore.
Edited on Sep 10, 2010 at 1:01pmJun '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
Apparently not if you are shepherding Claire around Long Island...
May '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
Less directly productive, maybe. But lots of those professions facilitate the production of great wealth elsewhere in the economy, by directing capital, increasing personal happiness, providing enforceable contracts, etc. Of course, they aren't universally positive, since we also have things like frivolous lawsuits, bureaucratic red tape, and professional left-wing activists.
In fact this even applies to some of the more "noble" professions Michelle Obama mentioned. Nurses and teachers don't produce any wealth at all, but they protect and facilitate wealth generation by other people, bless their hearts.
Edited on Sep 10, 2010 at 5:24pmJul '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
David Brooks?
Who is he?
May '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
Michelle's quote is illuminating. With Obamacare in the bag, all the jobs she mentions are, for the most part, government jobs.
Jul '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
That quote always cracked me up. They "...move(d) out of the money-making community..."?
Look, affirmative action only gets you so far.
Fact is, Barack and Michelle weren't hot commodities in the "money-making community". Corporate recruiters weren't chasing after them the way college admissions officers were.
Besides, the for-profit world doesn't offer 15 weeks' vacation each year.
May '10
Re: For Elites, No Lap of Luxury, Either
My, we could make untwisting Brooks' columns into a regular feature on Ricochet...
The folks entering those unproductive professions are far from our "brightest minds", elite only in arrogance and self-admiration. The productive professions don't suffer for their absence. So that's not the real problem.
Rather, the issue is in making non-producers so prominent, even dominant in the culture. The world can use a few consultants, professors and even activists, but letting them run things is madness. This belief, that Brooks displays, that these represent the best minds is the root problem. He's taking them much too seriously, and not attentive to the more modest people who can produce and do things.
As for the First Lady's comment, that money-making and "helping" are mutually exclusive... the best way to find out if you are really helping someone... they're willing to pay you.