The Inequality Map, a Rebuttal

David Brooks vs. Destor23

DB: Foreign tourists are coming up to me on the streets and asking, “David, you have so many different kinds of inequality in your country. How can I tell which are socially acceptable and which are not?”

D23:  There is no way this has actually happened to you.  Try again.

DB: This is an excellent question. I will provide you with a guide to the American inequality map to help you avoid embarrassment.

D23: We’re all thrilled, really!

DB: Academic inequality is socially acceptable. It is perfectly fine to demonstrate that you are in the academic top 1 percent by wearing a Princeton, Harvard or Stanford sweatshirt.

D23:  Can I wear one of those sweatshirts if I haven’t attended those schools?  What if I just really love Crimson?  What if I wear my UNM Lobos jersey?  I understand that it wasn’t a tough school to get into but I had a scholarship and many Harvard educated professors.  Or do I just suck?  Also, how long can you fall back on “I went to an Ivy League School?”  At a certain point of adulthood, doesn’t that get a little ridiculous?

DB: Ancestor inequality is not socially acceptable. It is not permissible to go around bragging that your family came over on the Mayflower and that you are descended from generations of Throgmorton-Winthrops who bequeathed a legacy of good breeding and fine manners.

D23: Okay, people who think their “breeding” matters are annoying, no doubt.  But you know what’s more annoying?  People who, by dint of winning a genetic lottery, have both social and financial advantages over the rest of us.  Your gag about the Mayflower kind of obfuscates the point.

DB: Fitness inequality is acceptable. It is perfectly fine to wear tight workout sweats to show the world that pilates have given you buns of steel. These sorts of displays are welcomed as evidence of your commendable self-discipline and reproductive merit.

D23: Well, sure.  But it’s not okay to demonstrate your physical superiority by, say, beating up people who are less fit.  That’s why this doesn’t matter to us while economic inequality, where people of means take advantage of people without, does.

DB: Moral fitness inequality is unacceptable. It is out of bounds to boast of your superior chastity, integrity, honor or honesty. Instead, one must respect the fact that we are all morally equal, though our behavior and ethical tastes may differ.

D23:  This is silly.  People boast about these kinds of thing all of the time.  Frankly, I don’t see anything “superior” about chastity, but whatever floats your boat (or not). 

DB: Sports inequality is acceptable. It is normal to wear a Yankees jersey, an L.S.U. T-shirt or the emblem of any big budget team. The fact that your favorite sports franchise regularly grounds opponents into dust is a signal of your overall prowess.

D23:  Right.  Because, really, who cares?  Of course, it’s not okay to put on a Yankee’s Jersey and beat up Red Sox fans.  It’s just like with your physical fitness example.  If you want to flaunt these things, fine.  Just don’t take advantage of other people the way the rich in America take advantage of everyone else.

DB: Church inequality is unacceptable. It would be uncouth to wear a Baptist or Catholic or Jewish jersey to signal that people of your faith are closer to God. It is wrong to look down on other faiths on the grounds that their creeds are erroneous.

D23:  What country do you live in?  Atheism is the most unacceptable belief system in America.  Christians go around claiming the superiority of their religion all of the time and they are typically unchallenged when they make such assertions.  This is why some nitwits believe that chastity is a superior virtue.

DB: Income inequality is acceptable. If you are a star baseball player, it is socially acceptable to sell your services for $25 million per year (after all, you have to do what’s best for your family). If you are a star C.E.O., it’s no longer quite polite to receive an $18 million compensation package, but everybody who can still does it.

D23:  It’s also acceptable to be richer than even a top tier CEO or baseball player just for being born Paris Hilton.  It’s a crazy world.  What’s not acceptable is how quickly things drop off when you rank income by percentile and how slowly the hardest working masses are able to accumulate wealth of their own, even if they’re morally superior and chaste.

DB: Spending inequality is less acceptable. If you make $1 billion, it helps to go to work in jeans and black T-shirts. It helps to live in Omaha and eat in diners. If you make $200,000 a year, it is acceptable to spend money on any room previously used by servants, like the kitchen, but it is vulgar to spend on any adult toy that might give superficial pleasure, like a Maserati.

D23:  This is a really funny one.  If you’re a billionaire you don’t go to work in jeans and a t-shirt to look like a poor.  You go to work in jeans and a t-shirt because that’s what you want to wear and you have achieved a station in life where pretty much no one  can force you to do anything that you don’t want to do.  You think Steve Jobs wanted to look poor?  He wanted to look how he wanted to look.  Warren Buffett’s folksy demeanor may or may not be something of a character (and business tactic) but he doesn’t exactly have to do anything that he doesn’t want to do anymore.  What sucks is a job where you have to adopt a style or uniform handed down from on high and you can’t complain or rebel because the kids have got to eat.  Where are your priorities, David Brooks.

Now, let’s go down the income scale to the guy who makes $200,000 a year and can’t buy his Maserati.  The sticker price on the 2011 Maserati  Quattroporte is a buck and a quarter.  That’s right, more than half of this person’s income.  If there’s a mortgage or kids involved, this $200K a year loser can’t afford a flippin’ Maserati.   Besides, the deal just sold the last one to a dude in jeans and a t-shirt who paid cash.

DB: Technological inequality is acceptable. If you are the sort of person who understands the latest hardware and software advances, who knows the latest apps, it is acceptable to lord your superior connoisseurship over the aged relics who do not understand these things.

D23: This is the least important kind of technological inequality.  The most important, which is unacceptable, is access to Wi-Fi and broadband in poorer communities where you wouldn’t want to park your Maserati.  Let’s talk about that.

DB: Cultural inequality is unacceptable. If you are the sort of person who attends opera or enjoys Ibsen plays, it is not acceptable to believe that you have a more refined sensibility than people who like Lady Gaga, Ke$ha or graffiti.

D23:  Sure it is.  Are you paranoid or something?  It’s just that if you like things that are less accessible to a wide range of people (and believe me, I do) you won’t always find people who want to discuss your interests with you.  But, you know what’s really cool, David Brooks?  Being able to like both opera and pop music is cool.  Being able to appreciate both Old Masters and street art is cool.  I don’t get your dysfunction.  You were alive for Warhol, man.  Did you learn nothing?

DB: Status inequality is acceptable for college teachers. Universities exist within a finely gradated status structure, with certain schools like Brown clearly more elite than other schools. University departments are carefully ranked and compete for superiority.

D23:  I mentioned before that I went to a public university.  My professors were superb and I had a scholarship and graduated without debt.  Clearly the status that you describe is prevalent but whether or not it’s a good reason to pay $50,000 a year in tuition will vary by user.

DB:  Status inequality is unacceptable for high school teachers. Teachers at this level strongly resist being ranked. It would be loathsome to have one’s department competing with other departments in nearby schools.

D23:  Oh, I see what you’re doing here and it’s very silly.  College-level professors are judged on more than just teaching.  They’re judged by their research and their publications and their general contribution to scholarship and industry.  High school teachers are in a different world.  See, they don’t get to pick their students.  But people like you want to judge them by the way their students perform.  If somebody tried to rank me based on the performance and abilities of somebody else, I’d resist as well.

DB: Beer inequality is on the way down. There used to be a high status difference between microbrews and regular old Budweiser. In academic jargon, beer had a high Gini Coefficient. But as microbrews went mainstream, these status differences diminished.

D23:  No, you’re wrong.  But I’m more of a wine drinker anyway.

DB: Cupcake inequality is on the way up. People will stand for hours outside of gourmet cupcake stores even though there are other adequate cupcakes on offer with no waiting at nearby Safeways.

D23:  Ewww. Supermarket cupcakes.  Flavor matters, David.  But it seems based on your beer observation that you have no palate.

DB: Travel inequality is acceptable. It is perfectly normal to have separate check-in lines and boarding procedures for airline patrons who have achieved Gold, Platinum, Double Ruby or Sun God status.

D23:  What’s not acceptable are separate security procedures, as if wealthier patrons are somehow less likely to commit an atrocity.  You know who was part of the world’s wealthiest 1%?  Osama bin Laden.  Just sayin’.

DB: Supermarket inequality is unacceptable. It would not be permissible to have separate checkout lines at the grocery store for obese frequent buyers who consume a lot of Twinkies.

D23:  David Brooks has never been to a supermarket and apparently doesn’t know about express lanes or even self check-out kiosks.  His ignorance here is somewhat endearing.

DB: Jock inequality is unacceptable if your kid is an average performer on his or her youth soccer team. If your kid is a star, then his or her accomplishments validate your entire existence.

D23: Okay, you just put this part in because otherwise your column would be 33 words short.

DB:  Vocation inequality is acceptable so long as you don’t talk about it. Surgeons have more prestige than valet parkers, but we do not acknowledge this. On the other hand, ethnic inequality — believing one group is better than another — is unacceptable (this is one of our culture’s highest achievements).

D23:  David’s never worked a service job, clearly.  Try dealing with customers during a busy week and then tell me that people don’t go around flaunting what they believe is their superior prestige.  As to your second point, it needs some work.  Try it this way, “ethnic inequality — believing one group is better than another should be unacceptable (achieving this is will be one of our culture’s highest achievements, particularly when we can extend this to women and homosexuals as well as all ethnicites).”  Better?  Good.  It’s also longer, which means you’d be able to take out that crud paragraph about the soccer team.

DB: Dear visitor, we are a democratic, egalitarian people who spend our days desperately trying to climb over each other. Have a nice stay.

D23:  I think we’re already established that no tourist has ever tried to have this conversation with you, ever.  Right?