3 ms·

It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any. > The so-called Protestant Ethic then prevale

It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any. > The so-called Protestant Ethic then prevalent held that man was a sturdy and responsible individual, responsible to himself, his society, and his God. Anybody who could not measure up to that standard could not qualify for public office or even popular respect. One who was born "with a silver spoon in his mouth" might be envied, but he could not aspire to public acclaim; he had to live out his life in the seclusion of his own class.

kbenson 8y ago
Originally, sure, but I think it's been perverted over time (in the USA at least) to the point that it's really only applied to the destitute. Also, I think it's become enough of a cultural norm that the non-religious (or those subscribing to a different religion) still feel some pull towards the concept since they were raised where it was prevalent. It also comes down to it being easier to spot someone in poverty than to spot someone that's rich but hasn't worked for it themselves. That might explain most of it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any. In theory, but in practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy. It's often paper thin, but as long as they make the gesture to ritually acknowledge the norm, it seems to suffice in practice. Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale.
- dpwm 8y ago
  > In practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy. This happens a fair bit in the UK. Due to the media's obsession with entrepreneurs, we see the wealthy gambling a bit of family wealth on a series of startup ideas that are clearly not made for the reality we inhabit but sound snappy and fin-techy (blockchain for banks, with no understanding of banks). > Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale. If you take away the spending of money bit, there is an equivalent at the other end of the economic scale. There exists some person with inherited wealth that builds a personal myth of their inherited wealth not being responsible for their current wealth. There exists some person in inherited poverty that builds a personal myth of their inherited poverty not being responsible for their current poverty. The latter does happen.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    By no parallel equivalent I mean that there is in practice no equivalent method for someone in overt poverty to fake virtue under the particular model of virtue being discussed as there is a wealthy person whose wealth is inherited rather than earned. (It is sometimes possible for a person who is not wealthy to fake wealth to fake virtue under the system, though it's more common for a person who is wealthy to fake greater wealth for that purpose—Donald Trump is, interestingly enough, an example of both this and the pretending inherited wealth is earned methods of faking the virtue of earned wealth.)
godelski 8y ago
> It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any. Not really. Because the idea is "To become successful you must be hard working". And if we take that as "iff hardworking -> successful" then the reverse is true "if successful -> hardworking". That's why so many people think the rich are hardworking, even if they inherited their wealth (or a sizable portion).

kbenson 8y ago

Originally, sure, but I think it's been perverted over time (in the USA at least) to the point that it's really only applied to the destitute. Also, I think it's become enough of a cultural norm that the non-religious (or those subscribing to a different religion) still feel some pull towards the concept since they were raised where it was prevalent. It also comes down to it being easier to spot someone in poverty than to spot someone that's rich but hasn't worked for it themselves. That might explain most of it.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any. In theory, but in practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy. It's often paper thin, but as long as they make the gesture to ritually acknowledge the norm, it seems to suffice in practice. Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale.

dpwm 8y ago
> In practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy. This happens a fair bit in the UK. Due to the media's obsession with entrepreneurs, we see the wealthy gambling a bit of family wealth on a series of startup ideas that are clearly not made for the reality we inhabit but sound snappy and fin-techy (blockchain for banks, with no understanding of banks). > Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale. If you take away the spending of money bit, there is an equivalent at the other end of the economic scale. There exists some person with inherited wealth that builds a personal myth of their inherited wealth not being responsible for their current wealth. There exists some person in inherited poverty that builds a personal myth of their inherited poverty not being responsible for their current poverty. The latter does happen.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  By no parallel equivalent I mean that there is in practice no equivalent method for someone in overt poverty to fake virtue under the particular model of virtue being discussed as there is a wealthy person whose wealth is inherited rather than earned. (It is sometimes possible for a person who is not wealthy to fake wealth to fake virtue under the system, though it's more common for a person who is wealthy to fake greater wealth for that purpose—Donald Trump is, interestingly enough, an example of both this and the pretending inherited wealth is earned methods of faking the virtue of earned wealth.)

godelski 8y ago

> It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any. Not really. Because the idea is "To become successful you must be hard working". And if we take that as "iff hardworking -> successful" then the reverse is true "if successful -> hardworking". That's why so many people think the rich are hardworking, even if they inherited their wealth (or a sizable portion).