When considering any job, people must make sure it isn’t something they will dread doing everyday. Work at home jobs are getting more…

Economists, politicians, and executives from both parties have promised American families that “free” trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO/CHINA would accomplish three things:

• Increase wages
• Create trade surpluses (for the US)
• Reduce illegal immigration

Well, their trade policies have been in effect for about 15 years. Let’s review the results:

• Declining real wages for 80% of working Americans (while healthcare, education, and childcare costs skyrocket)
• A record-high 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance (due in part to declining wages and benefits)
• Illegal immigration out of control
• Soaring trade deficits, much with countries that use slave and child labor
• Personal and national debt both out-of-control
• Global environments threatened by lax trade deal enforcement

Economists Keep Advocating Policies That Aren’t Working

Upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of these negative trade agreement results, economists continue with Pollyannish blather. Some say, “Cheer up! GDP is up and the stock market’s doing fine.” Others say, “Be patient. Stay the course. Free trade will raise all ships.”

Even those economists who acknowledge problems with trade agreements offer us only half-measures—adjusting exchange rates, improving safety nets, and providing better job retraining. None of these will close the wage gap in America—and economists know it.

Why Aren’t American Economists Shouting From Street Corners?

America needs trade deals that support American families and businesses in terms of wage, environmental, and intellectual property abuses. Why aren’t economists demanding renegotiation of our trade deals? There are three primary reasons:

• Economists are too beholden to corporations and special interests that provide them with research grants.
• Economists believe—but refuse to admit—that sacrificing the American middle class is necessary and appropriate to generate gains in third world economies.
• Economists refuse to admit they make mistakes.

Economic Ambulance Chasers

Now more than ever, Americans need their economists to speak truth and stand up to their big business clients. Instead, economists sound like lawyers caught chasing ambulances: they claim they’re “doing it for our benefit”.

But there’s a simpler one. There is a universally accepted meta-ranking for wealth — how much money do you have. And yet, this does not stop people from creating wealth, and it doesn’t make wealth zero-sum.

Given some particular meta-ranking, your position on *that* meta-ranking is zero-sum. That’s true of wealth also. That just speaks to how soul-destroying it is to care more about your wealth position than what the wealth you have can do for your life. Because the last is anything but zero-sum.

So to me, talking about the meta-ranking as if it is the be all and end all just obscures the giant universe of wealth and what it means. I am in complete agreement that status works similarly, even when it comes to attracting women.

It’s interesting. Folks like Steve have been bemoaning the problem of status in social newsgroups for years (the term SMV for “sexual market value” became common currency for a while). I and many others have long had insights similar to yours but lacked the metaphor that you and David Friedman (and probably others) have hit on here. I wish I’d had the idea to explain it this way 5-10 years ago when I was still deeply involved in that conversation.

So - from the researches point of view there is an objective hierarchy btw - in which the judge is higher ranked then the quarterback.

From the subjective point of view it is different. The different combinations of the three forms of capital, constitutes a “field”. The members in that field have a certain “habitus” which they find desirable. So the carpenter e.g. don not want to immitate the judge. The carpenter finds the judge activities stupid and bloated. The judge on the other hand things the carpenter is simpleminded and coarse.

So: Bourdieu would say that from the subjective p.o.w. it fine to be a world class scrable player. The happiness is the same as the judge. However because the habitus is so dominant and effectful, the children can not escape the habitus of their parrents. And since it is the people (field) with the most symbolic capital that has the most power over society, the system reproduces it self - with a lack of social mobility as consequence.

I’m sure you all knew bourdieu… Now you do…

The interesting thing is that “X” is universal - eventually movie stars realize that their movie star status is not very meaningful compared to “the status of being a parent” or what have you.

A number of my friends have taken great pride in their status in online games, and it gives them quite a bit of positive self-image. It can also lead to weight gain, but then being a rock star can lead to heroin, being a star athelete can lead to HGH, and being a famous writer can lead to writer’s cramp.

And I think this can be inverted as well. For example, I have tremendously advanced computer skills. I can manipulate computers in ways that would cause most peoples’ heads to spin. But I don’t really draw a ton of status pride from that (I do draw quite a bit of salary) - because I see carpenters and mechanics able to build things and repair things in ways that I wouldn’t even know where to start.

Objectively, because my salary is significantly higher, I should, in theory feel that my status as a computer geek is far greater than their status as a carpenter. But I don’t feel that way. I feel midly ashamed that I don’t also hold status in carpentry and car repair.

Because there is no meta-status comparison framework.

You say “it is possible [to switch]. And it is much easier if you believe it” - but this is just to say that people will believe anything with enough CBT. Some games are of higher status than others because some things are, instinctively and in a hard-wired kinda way, more important than others. Being a scrabble champ might make you feel great in the company of lesser players, but it’s surely not qualitatively the same as the feeling of knowing that, say, people respect you because you earn well and provide a good life for yourself and your family?

If you’re right about the relative ease of switching game, it’s a bit of an empirical anomoly that “shiny, culturally salient status races” should exist at all. Could it be that they attain their position, and maintain their allure, because they have their roots in evolutionary priorities?