Okay, so I just couldn't leave that post alone. This is what I ended up putting in the comments section.
Putting aside whatever taxing whoha, it's just a bad analogy. He's comparing taxation to purchasing, which really doesn't fly. When you purchase something, you're making a choice and that choice is based on how much you spend versus what you receive. It's that basis where the last portion of his analogy falls apart.
He said the men came to this bar all the time and everyone was happy with the situation, which implies that for the people who are paying, they are benefitting enough to continue to pay. With that in mind, there is no logical reason why any of them would beat up the rich man.
First four men are drinking for free. They will not beat up the rich man because they know they it would jeopardize their free drinks.
The 5th man is paying money, but he also gets to be the top dog of the 'poor folks' because while he is poor, he's still paying more than the first four. This gives him a sense of power over them, which he can find strength in when he's busy at his job. "This is hard, but at least I can hold my own at the bar." This status as BEST OF THE POORS is important to him so he wouldn't beat up the rich man because it would mess with his social standing.
The same motives are also true for the 6th man. He's still not paying much, but he knows he's not in the bottom half of the group. This means that while he isn't doing all that well, he's still part of the 'in' crowd of the social classes. He won't beat up the rich man because the rich man is his main social currency with people at his own level. "Yeah, I may make as much money as you, but I drink with that guy who can afford to pick up most of the tab."
The 7th and 8th men probably benefit most from being seen by all those around them. People who have less than they do see them with the poorer men and will think these men, while wealthy, are relatable. This will make them more inclined to go to these men's shops or purchase goods from them.
The 7th and 8th men are also most likely to get invited to parties by the 9th and 10th men and have those men and their families come to their social events, meaning there is a greater chance their children may meet each other and marry. So these two men would never beat up the richest man because they have too much to risk in the long run.
The 9th man is the one closest to the 10th man. He has the second highest social class but still benefits from really not having to pick up THAT much of the tab. He knows the others recognize his importance and standing and while he might gain more with them if the richest man was gone, that isn't worth the risk of losing the 10th man. The richest man is the 9th man's IN for all the clubs and parties and gatherings he wants to attend. The richest man is his best social ticket to also becoming a rich man, so he most certainly would never NEVER beat him up over ten dollars.
As for the 10th man himself, he is the one probably getting the most out of this. Remember, the first part of the scenario said he was perfectly fine with the arrangement and participated in it on a repeated basis. Why would he do this when he paid the most?
To begin with, this bar lets people of all social standings in without any kind of protest. That means it's probably a moderately priced place. The rich man is picking up most of the tab but knows it's nowhere near as expensive as it would be if he went to a bar with only people of his own circle. With that in mind, if he did go to that elite bar, he might not be The Richest Man. He would just be one of many men, whereas in this bar he is the one with the most social clout.
He could also be gaining because of his profession. Let's say he sells a product that has to reach a wide range of men of various socio-economic classes. Instead of paying an expensive research team to study demographic preferences, he can just pick up clues by watching the other men. Or he could be a writer who needs to know how different types of men talk and relate to each other. He might be a politician who wants to understand how to convey his ideas to everyone. They could have all be childhood friends and these are the people he feels he can trust the most.
Most importantly, however, this analogy breaks down because people would never really do this in a social drinking situation. If this is something these men do on a repeated basis, they're all used to having that amount of money taken out of their budgets. If the bar owner offered to take 20$ off of their tab, the most likely of events would be that the men would opt to drink 20$ more in booze, thereby keeping their bill the same, but getting more drunk.
No comments:
Post a Comment