Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 139 | Elizabeth Anderson on Equality, Work, and Ideology

Episode Date: March 22, 2021

Imagine two people with exactly the same innate abilities, but one is born into a wealthy family and the other is born into poverty. Or two people born into similar circumstances, but one is paralyzed in a freak accident in childhood while the other grows up in perfect health. Is this fair? We live in a society that values some kind of "equality" — "All men are created equal" — without ever quite specifying what we mean. Elizabeth Anderson is a leading philosopher of equality, and we talk about what really matters about this notion. This leads to down-to-earth issues about employment and the work ethic, and how it all ties into modern capitalism. We end up agreeing that a leisure society would be great, but at the moment there's plenty of work to be done. Support Mindscape on Patreon. Elizabeth Anderson received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University. She is currently the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan. Among her honors are the MacArthur Fellowship, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was named by Prospect magazine as one of the top 50 thinkers of the Covid-19 era. Web site University of Michigan web page New Yorker profile Amazon.com author page Google Scholar publications Wikipedia

Wellness looks different at every stage. The right support makes all the difference. Power performance with vital proteins, advanced collagen peptides plus creatine. Designed to help build and maintain muscle mass in combination with resistance exercise. It also supports healthy hair, skin, and nails, strength and beauty in one scoop. So your inner harmony works with your outer wellness. Vital Proteins. Stay Vital. Visit VitalProtene's.com to get started.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, in combination with resistance exercise. I tell myself, it's not about comparing. But then I start wondering, what can they lift? Are they adding more weight to their barbell than I am? And suddenly, I'm not training. Then I realize my journey is not theirs.

I've earned every step. So I smile. My smile is the shape resilience takes to keep me moving. To put more smiles out into the world, Colgate has supported female athletes for over 50 years with the Colgate Women's Games, the nation's longest running indoor track and field series for girls and women. Colgate, is your strength.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. And increasingly, one of the things that people are talking about in the political and economic realms in the world today is the problem of equality, or the problem of inequality. I should put it that way. We live in a world where inequality is growing in poor countries and in wealthy countries. We have a bigger and bigger gap between the ultra-rich and the very poor. And some people will say, you know what, that's just how it should be. You know, Jeff Bezos, is just that much more talented than you are, he deserves all of his money. Other people will say, well, you know, he deserves to earn as much money as he can,

but we have the right to tax him. There should be a little bit of redistribution because the flow of wealth does not exactly match on to merit in some sense, so we should be able to use the wealth of the very rich people to help out those who are less well off. Maybe it would be good, in other words, to decrease the amount of inequality in a financial sense. But all that's just about the equality of resources, right? The equality of stuff, of wealth. Almost nobody thinks that you should have exactly the same amount of wealth in every person.

There might have been some sort of utopian thinkers or small-scale communes, but it's not a major position in modern political thought to say every person in the United States should have the same wealth. But what about something like equality of opportunity? The idea being we come into this world with certain capacity, and, you know, some of us are just going to be better at other things than others, but we should all have equal opportunity to let our powers and capacities flourish and be rewarded for them, right? That sounds like an attractive kind of goal.

Maybe even that's not the right goal. And my guest today is Elizabeth Anderson, who is probably the leading person in the world thinking about equality from a philosophical point of view. I'm very proud to have her on the podcast. It's not like I've discovered her or anything. anything. She is a leading person. She was the subject of a New Yorker magazine profile, but she's not nearly as well known as she could be. So I'm hoping that this is a discourse, a conversation that a lot of people haven't yet been exposed to. And Elizabeth became famous in the philosophy,

politics of equality discourse, with an article in 1999 called What is the Point of Equality, where she actually goes against the idea of equality of opportunity being the thing that we should aim for. not from a sort of conservative point of view that says we shouldn't even aim for equality, but that we should aim for a different kind of equality. And I have to read the opening of this article that she wrote because it's one of the best openings of a philosophy article I've ever read. She says, If much recent academic work defending equality had been secretly penned by conservatives,

could the results be any more embarrassing for egalitarians? Her point being that the kind of equality that the purportedly progressive side of the debate is championing, is actually a little bit not very progressive at all. It can really decrease the dignity and value of human existence. And so she is arguing not for equality of opportunity, but for equality of treatment, for a sort of democratic equality where we focus on the social roles that people have and the way that they relate to each other, trying to make each other flourish in this world in an equal way, rather than just trying to hand out money so that everyone has the same amount. I'm probably butchering that a little bit. She'll say it a lot better

than we do in this conversation. So one of the great things about Elizabeth is that she's a philosopher, but she's heavily influenced by empirical work, by history, by economics, by sociology. So we'll talk about her views on equality, but then also back up to talk about the work ethic, right? The Protestant work ethic, the free market system. Who invented the free market system? How is the meaning of how we think about the free market changed over time? And what does it mean? today compared to what it meant for Adam Smith and Thomas Payne and so forth. I think this is an eye-opening conversation because we need to be having this conversation. There's a whole bunch of people on both sides of the political spectrum who are really frustrated by the differences

between the haves and have-nots in society today. It would be a good idea to ameliorate them somehow, but if we can't even agree on what that means at the philosophical level, it becomes impossible to imagine what our political or activist goals should be. So we have a have to have this conversation. This is the right time to have it. Let's go. Elizabeth Anderson, welcome to the Mindscape podcast. It's great to be here. So I wanted, you're doing so many different things and I think it's fascinating stuff. I want to get into sort of the nitty gritty because you engage a lot with the real world by philosopher standards, right? But maybe we can start with setting the stage a little bit with some background ideas about how you go about approaching

these things. One idea I wanted to ask you about was you mentioned, I only saw a brief mention of it, but maybe you talk about it at greater length elsewhere, the idea of ideology in the intro to your book on private government. And actually, I've heard the word ideology and used it myself for many decades of my life, but I think you changed my appreciation of it because, you know, as a physicist, as a scientist, I think a lot about the fact that people have models of the world, right? And, you know, they have ideas about what's going to happen next and they update if things go wrong and stuff like that. And in some sense, am I crazy to think that you're saying that we should think of ideology as just the social version of that? I mean, an ideology is sort of... Absolutely. That's exactly right.

And the thing is, is that it's used for practical purpose. We have a picture of our social world, which we use to navigate our way through it. Right. And so ideology in this sense does not have to be pernicious. Yes, that's right. It's not a pejorative use of the term. Right, right. But it can become pernicious if our picture of our social world is either missing some major elements or maybe distorted in various ways that leads us perhaps to, you know, behave badly or treat other people unjustly. Right, exactly. And I think let's just emphasize this non-prejorative use. of the word, because we'll probably be using it later on, that everyone has an ideology. It's not a bad thing to be ideological in this sense, right? It's sort of how you approach the world

in terms of what you pay attention to, what you expect to see, and what it all means to you. Is that something close? That's quite right, although I wouldn't necessarily say that everyone has one ideology. Often what happens is in different social contexts, we take on different ideologies. Okay. Right. To navigate that part of the social world that we're engaging at the moment. So I actually don't think that most people have very coherent worldviews. Some people, right, philosophers are paid to have a coherent worldview, but I wouldn't even guarantee that I have such a coherent worldview in my everyday life. No, I've met some philosophers and, you know, they're no better than scientists in this regard. Yeah. Good. But, but okay, so the ideology

in that sense, I mean, it is, it is a necessary thing because there's an infinite amount of things we could pay attention to or care about and we sort of filter some things out. But let's also admit there can be a negative side to it, yes? Absolutely. Yes, because we could be missing out on major parts of our social world or just profoundly misunderstanding the nature of our social world. And that can lead to major problems in how we navigate our way through it and how we treat other people. I wish I had this word or concept available when I was talking to Paul Bloom, the psychologist at Yale. You know, he's written this wonderful book on being against empathy. He thinks that empathy is a bad idea because we tend to empathize with people like ourselves. And I was trying to say that, well, but the response to

to that should be to empathize with people not like ourselves, because otherwise we get trapped in this ideology where we think about the world in terms of what's happening to people like us. And it would be nicer if we could make more of an effort to think about what's happening to people very much unlike ourselves. You know, I think what you just said is really beautiful. And I've written about this. A paper I wrote last year called The Epistemology of Justice. And what I argue there is that the core way, that one of the main ways we have to cut through pernicious unjust ideology is because our emotion, like empathy, have natural objects. And, you know, empathy just, we can react just to the fact that somebody's suffering.

And in fact, if we look at the empathetic imagination we see in children, I mean, they have empathy towards stuffed animals. Real animals and stuffed animals, right? There's no boundaries because the natural object of empathy is any being who is able to have suffering or joy. Or even, you can even project that on to an inanimate object like a stuffed animal. Right. But our hearts go out, right? Or in movies. You know it's fiction, but your heart goes out to the characters if they are really compelling.

Yeah. Right. And it's, it's, we can, that can break, those emotional reactions can break through. It's interesting. I feel, I feel a little bit bad for Paul Bloom because, you know, he did a great podcast interview with me. And ever since then, I've been having other people in the podcast where I recall our conversation and go, don't you think I was right? So I should have him back on to, you know, defend himself from these. But good. So there's ideologies, good and bad aspects. One of the

other things I wanted to get on the stage before we dig into the nitty gritties of work and equality and things like that is this whole idea of doing historically, economically informed philosophy, right? I mean, you're not just working from your armchair. How conscious is that choice? How weird is it within the profession? You know, it's absolutely conscious. And let me tell you where I got it from. I was an undergraduate at Swarthmore College studying philosophy.

And I was an economics minor. But the most transformative course I ever took in my entire life was a course on the history and philosophy of science. And so we studied. the history of science like basically the history of astronomy and physics from the ancient Greeks to like new and it was an absolutely fascinating course and then we could see how the arguments developed right and the context of philosophical ideas and metaphysics and epistemology and it made me think why don't we ethics that way and political philosophy that is that the philosophy of science

is undertaken with engagement to metaphysical and epistemological problems that arise in those other discipline. And then, right, there are all these puzzles about how could you know, right? Or, you know, do atoms really exist or something like this, right? But these are questions that are suggested by or arising from domains of inquiry and practice outside of philosophy. Right. And it was really, that was the thing that really excited me because we could do this in moral and political philosophy too, where you take your problems from practice from the problems that people actually encounter in their lives and then start theorizing from that.

Rather than thinking, no, I'm just going to think in my head, right, and figure out like first principles of morality and politics just by sticking to ideas. in my head, and I think that's just wrong. Just as it was wrong, if you look in the history of modern philosophy, metaphysics epistemology were fundamentally engaged. Deep questions of how to make sense of the scientific revolution in this. Two discoveries that didn't make sense in the old Aristotica. Well, it's interesting because I do think that philosophy has a much stronger engagement with its own history, with the history of philosophy than let's say science does. Like, physicists don't care about the history of physics, but philosophers of physics do care about it. So you're saying that philosophers of ethics or society should care about not just the history of the philosophy of ethics,

but the history of society and economics. And that sounds great, but it also sounds like a lot more work. It is a lot more work, but it's a total blast. Yeah, okay. It does mean that you have to be a very, very heavy consumer of history and social science. I think I remember a quote from you about, you know, you wanted to go back in your, some work that you were doing to the 1700s, but then you had to go back to the Reformation, but then that was based on the Bible and you have to read the New Testament. And there's no, there's no beginning unless you go back to the Big Bang, ultimately. Yeah, yeah.

So I am working on a history of egalitarianism, and I decided I actually have to go back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Yeah, fair enough. At least you don't have to worry about the single-celled organisms. So you're drawing the line somewhere. I think that's pretty good. Yeah. And this actually, that's good because you mentioned something,

which was the final point I wanted to get on the table, which is this role of ideal theory, the idea that, you know, whether as philosophers or anybody else, one way of thinking about how to make society better is to say, well, what would the perfect society be? and then how close are we are to that and can we move in that direction? And I think that you've pushed back a little bit

on that common philosophical move. Yeah, because how are we supposed to know what the ideal is going to be? We don't even know what the normative categories are going to be like a century from now. Maybe we'll think that other things are critically important. So is it, go ahead. You know, if you look at, say,

the emergence of environmental philosophy is a thing, that's relatively new. But we do have to think about what are our ecosystems going to look like and how should we live with nature? It's going to have to be an important question for how we organize ourselves. So that's interesting because I would have thought that one of the biggest objections to being ideal theory focused is that it's a way to paper over some of the real world structural inequities or barriers in society.

But you're just... Well, that's also true. That's also true. Right. Right. I mean, that is that ideal theory can often not fail to address the problems before us. And the usefulness of non-ideal theory of starting with the problems that we're facing is that then we develop categories and concepts and tools that are appropriate for inquiry in our very non-ideal world. Right.

But you brought up a different reason. to object to it, which is more like a fallibilism kind of claim, that, you know, maybe the ideal theory is so far away that we should be more locally centered because we might discover whole new things we need to worry about as we approach the ideal theory. Or maybe moral inquiry and political inquiry just goes on forever and never stabilizes or converges on something. Because we keep on coming up with new ideas. I've been actually a very recent convert to exactly that idea. I mean, the idea that there is no perfect morality or political system out there to be found like there is a theory of everything in physics, it's more a reaction to our present circumstances and trying to make things better. We should think about the moment in our current journey rather than this ultimate imaginary destination. That's quite right. And I want to add that because I'm not doing ideal theory, it doesn't follow that I don't believe in ideals. I think ideals are really important. Yeah.

But we should treat them as error prone. But the way we find out whether our ideals are wrong is by living in accordance with them and seeing whether we like the results. Fair enough. And it's that constant learning that we have learning to live through our ideals, that we are constantly changing them and coming up with new ideals all the time. We're all writing more and more in this electronic age, and how you write matters more and more. We all want to be able to write better, right? I want to be able to write better.

Well, Grammarly Premium is here to help us along. The way that I personally use Grammarly Premium is just to improve the strength of my writing. You know, we all have ruts we fall into. We have favorite words, favorite constructions. And Gramerly doesn't just check your spelling or check your grammar. it actually gives you suggestions for different vocabulary words, ways to have your writing be more exciting, be more memorable, get the point of cross that you actually want to get across rather than having it be lost in your verbiage.

And you can use Gramerly Premium to improve your writing on all your favorite sites and apps, from Gmail to Twitter, blogging, whatever you do. So do more than just spell check. Say what you really mean with Grammarly Premium. Get 20% off Grammarly Premium by signing up at Grammarly.com Mindscape. That's 20% off at GRAMMMARLY.com slash mindscape. Good, good. And that's a perfect segue into the sort of nitty-gritty about what you've been talking about, what you've been working on

for a number of years now. By the way, I wonder if we overlapped on the main line. I was an undergraduate of Villanova. You just said you were an undergraduate at Swarthmore. So, we were probably nearby each other. Oh, yeah, yeah. So when did you graduate? I graduated in 88 from Villanamo. Oh, no, no, no, I'm older than you. I graduated in 81 from Swarthmore College. All right, okay. Well, all right, still nearby.

I visited Swarthmore while I was there. Let's think about equality. You talked a lot about equality. And I think that you're at a slightly higher level than many of us here because I think as soon as the word equality comes up, the immediate dichotomy that comes to many people's minds is sort of equality of opportunity

versus equality of outcome, right? Like, do you want a society where everyone has the same amount of stuff, or do you want a society where everyone has the same opportunities to get stuff? And you don't want either one of those, but maybe you could say a little bit about whether those are, you know, two sensible prevailing notions that we should be thinking in the back of our minds. Yeah, I'm that keen on either. Right.

Both of them have their flaws. It's not that distributive justice is not important. I do think it is very important, but I want to embed it in a broader understanding of what egalitarianism is about. And in my view, it's about how we relate to each other. It's about human relationships. So just as sort of a quick note against like a purely distributive understanding of equality, separate but equal. Suppose it had literally been the case that in the Jim Crow era, blacks really got exactly the same material.

goods that whites did. Nevertheless, the very fact of segregation inherently an insult and a form of stigmatization of black people, right? Because what it was doing was white people saying blacks are untouchables. They're not fit for social engagement with white people. That's what Jim Crow is saying. And so that's why I think you can't just look at distribution. You have to look at what the meanings of various practices are, and these relationships of stigmatization and exclusion and marginalization, right? These are the way people relate to each other. And that's why I find that fundamental. And it's not just a distinction between economic goods and social goods. It goes a little bit deeper than that. Is that fair to say? Well, I would say that concerns about distributive justice

are going to follow from the demands of relating to each other as equal. And in fact, they could be quite stringent demands, although they wouldn't entail exact material. And the reason for that is that if you try to achieve exact material equality at all times, you're going to have to have basically a totalitarian system. Right. But still, you can put parameters on how big the distance is between the top and the bottom, and those could be pretty stringent. You know, don't want the inequalities to be so extreme that you have desperate people who are begging mercy from people who have all the wealth. I mean, maybe you don't want that, but we have it. So maybe somebody wants it. Yes, in our plutocracy today, where Mark Zuckerberg decides,

you know, what we're going to see in our, you know, what information we get, right? That is a problem, I think. Well, good. But I mean, there's it. There is, I just want to sort of be very crude about it to start, because there is this cartoonish straw man that says, oh, you want equality, that means that you want just what you said would be a totalitarian terrible thing, where literally everyone has the same amount of stuff, right? So just to get on the table, nobody's really in favor of that, right? That's not exactly what any equality theorist has in mind. Not today. I mean, back in the day, if you look at a famous French revolutionary, gracuspa buff, He tried to overthrow the French directory, the ruling clique at the time.

And he actually did advocate absolutely strict material equality. But his way to getting at it was a totalitarian communist state, where not only did everyone wear identical clothing. But they were all directed by these cadres and assigned to their job. and their thought was controlled. It's a pretty repressive regime. And he understood that if you let people think for themselves and they're not necessarily going to be thinking thoughts, genial to strict material equality.

But I think that the difficulty here is that he's pursuing material equality, but the only way he sees to achieve this is by some people dominating other people and ordering them what to think and what to do. And I'm thinking, well, that's an inequality right there, inequality of relationships where some people get to issue orders and other people just have to follow them. So he didn't actually achieve equality in this broader relational sense. And it does sound like that kind of system would be hard to sell in the modern era outside of maybe a tiny commune here or there. But this other idea of equality of opportunity might be considered popular. though. Like, that's an easier cell in our modern era. I mean, how can you argue against the idea

that everyone should have equal opportunity? How can you argue against that, Elizabeth Anderson? Not exactly going to argue against it so much as question some of its premises. So how do we even determine when opportunities are equal? And one formulation, which is very popular in philosophy, is take people of equal underlying potential, genetic potentials, and structure opportunities in such a way that they have exactly equal chances of achieving, say, certain positions in society or getting access to certain career. And I do have something of a problem with that because in its background, it assumes that we should all be happy with a natural aristocracy, sort of promoting itself genetically through time.

And I really don't want to buy into that picture. So I do think it's very important to have open opportunity. And by that I mean many, many pathways, you know, a choice of occupation. But we shouldn't at all be confident that we have any idea whatsoever how to measure inner merit or inner potential or inner merits or something like that. I don't think we can. And education and society should be seen as the place where people develop capabilities. And we should be focused on developing everybody's capabilities and cultivating multiple pathway success. So just as a non-expert, I want to sort of make sure I

understand the most charitable interpretation of the equality of opportunity position here. I mean, is the idea that, look, some people are going to be born better basketball players than others. That's okay. The good basketball players, the taller and more athletic people will become better basketball players, but as long as they get the same chance to try out, is that basically the sort of equality of opportunity idea? Well, you do want to make sure that children as they grow up have ample opportunities to develop their talents, whatever they might be. Right. But you can't say at birth, who's going to be like the best basketball player?

So much of that is a product of development and also of the cultivation of interest depending on, you know, who they're around. So that's why I say it's very important to have open opportunity. But we can't really define equality of opportunity, at least not. in the conventional sense as relativized to some background innate talent or something like that. And this is also sometimes called luck egalitarianism because it, so why is it called luck egalitarianism? I was never able to quite suss that out. It's we're supposed to correct for being lucky and unlucky in the- Right.

So the idea is that of luck egalitarianism is that people should have exactly equal opportunity and the only inequalities that arise should be things that they either deserve or are responsible. But differences in luck, sheer luck, any inequalities arising from pure luck should be. Okay. Does being born into a very wealthy family count as luck? Absolutely, it does. Yes, from a lucky gallantarian point of view. And I'm definitely not in favor of a self-reproducing plutocracy either. So, you know, I would share with the lucky galitarian an interest in not giving such advantages people who have been supposedly well-born in this way.

But I have a different way of understanding that, in that any society that creates a self-reproducing insulated elite is going to be fundamentally unjust. Right. I mean, it'll be oppressive. And right, you're going to have like this elite that can't even, you know, why do we even have an elite anyways in the sense of people who are occupying positions of high responsibility and power? It's because they're supposed to be serving everybody else. But they can't do that if they're a self-segregated, self-perpetuating group. This does get into philosophical issues of another dimension in something.

sense. I recently talked to Robert Sapolsky, a neuroscientist, who traces all the reasons why you do what you do and behave the way you do in the capacities you have. And, you know, all of them can be given these reductionistic explanations in terms of biology and genetics and heritage. So does it even make, you know, sort of, is it even logically coherent to separate out as a luck egalitarian would want us to do the luck of our situation that we're born into, but then say let our natural capacity flourish as they will if our natural capacities are also a matter of luck just as much. Yeah, I mean, I think in the end, the distinction that lucky gallantarians draw between outcomes that are due to luck and outcomes that are due to our choices for which we're

responsible, that is a distinction that's being asked to bear far too much weight. Right. Okay, good. So the idea, I mean, it's a free will question in some sense. Like at some point, the idea would be that we need to assign blame or responsibility to choices people make. And the anti-free will people would say, well, you can never do that. So that doesn't help us very much. I'm not actually advocating any position here. I'm just trying to sort of understand all the burdens that the luck egalitarians are placing themselves under. I mean, I think that's one question that could be asked.

But I think there's even a more fundamental question about justice. And that has to do with the structure of opportunities. So think about it this way. Suppose you're structuring an athletic competition and will award prizes at the end. Okay. Now, should the first place winner get twice as much money as the second place winner or a million times as much? Okay. And that's a question about how you structure the stakes in the competition.

Right. And that's a question that arises prior to any question of who is more meritorious, who ran the fastest or whatever. You've already decided it. And it's necessary that the infrastructure of opportunities is determined prior to and independently of any particular individual's performance. You see what I mean? And so the question arises, how should you structure those opportunities and the rewards that are attached to different entities? you know, end place. And that's completely independent of what people deserve. It exists prior to that. Right. You know. And that's really where I really think questions of justice and equality.

They're at the structural level, not at the level of individual performance or choice. That's like a secondary consideration of who gets what in particular. But prior to that, you have to know, well, what's the structure of opportunities? Right. And your alternative is, you called it democratic equality? And it's more focused on, just like what you just said, the social conditions and the relationships between people, putting equality on those terms, I guess. That's right. And that's going to affect the structure of opportunities. So here's just another metaphor. You know, you could think about inequality like a ladder, right? There are rungs on the ladder and their top rungs and bottom rung. And you can imagine different rungs are going to have

different width depends depending on how many people are going to be on that rung. You can imagine the whole distribution of opportunities along this latter metaphor. And my point is that how you structure, say, the distance between the top rung and the bottom run is going to be independent of anybody's choice or merit or how wide the rungs are going to be. Or whether, say, if we look over time within in the United States since the 1970s, the structure has been ripping out the middle rungs of the ladder and fattening the top and the bottom. But that makes it much more difficult for people at the bottom

to ascend to the top because there's no middle rungs to hang on to anymore, right? That seems pretty problematic. Well, so, but I have this question about the sort of boots on the ground implementation of your version of equality. If I'm just sort of cold-blooded redistribunist, I can imagine sending out money to everybody. But you sort of have a more warm-hearted version of equality where we give people equal dignity, and I'm not quite sure how to implement that in practice as much.

So dignity is one aspect of equality. But it's not the whole thing. So one way to think about this is just in terms of social theory. So sociologists think in terms of three dimensions of equality or inequality. So you have relationships of domination and subordination, like who gets to order who around. And, you know, there has to be something of that, right, in the sense that, say, within any large organization, there's going to be a hierarchy of where managers are going to be setting some priorities and then telling subordinates what to do, right?

And then you have hierarchies of honor and stigmatization. That's a second dimension. And then you have hierarchies of what I call standing, which has to do with how much your interests count in the deliberations of third party, and especially the state. So, you know, when people in Congress are deliberating about legislative, whose interests are they really have in mind and interest did they give weight to, okay? And egalitarians say is, you know, we want equality on all three dimensions, not absolutely strict equality, but we'd like to flatten these hierarchies and make sure that they don't interact in such a way that they're all,

all three of them are all constantly aligned and rewarding the exact same people. Right. So if you think, say of stigma and honor as one dimension. One useful egalitarian strategy is to proliferate the dimension of things that are admired. And that's what you get in a pluralistic society. Right? Different people value different things. And, you know, there's nobody who's a winner on all dimensions, you know, who's both the most beautiful and the smartest and the most athletic. And, you know, right, the most pious. Right. No, you have different communities that value different things.

Yeah. Right. And that's good. Good, good. That makes a lot of sense. And it does resonate with especially this standing dimension, which maybe I have not really known about before, but that does resonate with complaints on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum with the current system where people just don't feel like they

do have a voice, right? People just don't feel like their needs are being heard. in Washington or in Brussels or wherever it is, and it leads to this kind of populist backlash in various manifestations in various different circumstances. Oh, you're totally right about that. I mean, populism is always a reaction to the feeling that one is not being effectively represented in the political system. But again, how, I mean, maybe you said this and maybe I missed it.

How do we bring this about? What laws do we pass to make people more equal along all these dimensions at once? So, you know, there's no simple formulas. Instead, what one has to do is examine particular ways in which problematic inequalities are manifesting and drill down and figure out like, how is that working? Yeah. And that requires some causal analysis. So in my book, the imperative of integration, I'm looking at particular at racial inequality

and specific inequality between blacks and whites, because although I think it does generalize to a certain degree for other racial groups in the United States. And what I argue is that racial segregation, by which I mean the self-segregation of white people, where they're hoarding opportunities to themselves, is really a critical and central feature of all three dimensions of racial hierarchy. Yeah, okay. So you have the hoarding of economic opportunities, which generates inequality of standing. But then when blacks are put into much less advantageous, say, educational settings,

neighborhoods of concentrated poverty twice as much unemployment rates as whites for as long as we've measured this because there's no job opportunities in the neighborhoods where they live then people develop stereotypes about them which hook into old rationales for slavery

you know, well they must not be worked hard. So there's a feedback loop, yeah. And those stereotypes are stigmatizing, right? So then you get stigma. And also blacks have worse opportunities. So they're going to be at the bottom of the job hierarchy and taking orders from everybody else. And also politically, too. Right.

And so all these things are interacting, but segregation really lies at the core. But if you look at other kinds of inequality in society, you might. find other factors at work. As a scientist, I know how important it is to choose the best people to work with, whether it's accepting students, hiring postdocs, choosing new colleagues. In the business world, that means it's important to hire the right people for your company. And Indeed.com is the hiring site that helps you find quality candidates with Indeed instant match. What Indeed does is it searches through millions of resumes in their database to help show you the best candidates for you,

instantly. It's the fastest way to find the people you're looking for. And there are no long-term contracts. You can pause your account at any time. In other words, you're only paying for what you need. And with instant match, you get that list of great candidates with zero weight. You can start hiring the right people right away. So if you want your quality shortlist fast, you need Indeed. Right now, our listeners get a free $75 credit to upgrade your job post at Indeed.com slash mindscape. This is Indeed's best offer anywhere. Get a free $75 credit at Indeed.com slash mindscape. Offer valid through March 31, terms and conditions apply. And this brings us to what of this other dimension that you mentioned about the who gets to order who around, right, the domination submission, because you were in this whole

book about private government where you, I mean, well, I'll let you tell the story, but I guess the story begins with the idea of the free market and Adam Smith and his friends. And it, it changes from then? Yeah. So I'm trying to explain why it is that stories about the free market are so appealing, especially in American discourse. And this gets us back to the question of ideology. And the social map we have of the American institutional landscape, right? And so we see in political discourse talk about markets all the time, but not really talk. very much talk about the internal organization of firms or businesses where we work. And my argument is that this goes back to the original free market ideology at the founding

of the American Republic, where the ideal put forth that was eagerly taken up by Americans was universal self-employment. Everybody stakes out their own homestead or their farm. Why do I have to answer to a boss at all? Isn't that kind of the ideal? And even today, if you ask Americans, what would be ideal? Many of them say, I don't want to have to answer to a boss. I want to be self-employed. And now that people are putting out, you know, being an Uber driver or an independent contractor or a gig worker.

Or maybe, you know, getting involved in some multi-level marketing scheme where they're selling vitamins or something because they're chasing this dream of self-employment. Having a podcast. Yeah. Right, exactly. Yeah, or having your own YouTube channel. Yeah, there you go. And Americans have always chased the dream of self-employment. And in that picture, if everybody were self-employed and just working their own capital, whatever it might be, like the Uber driver owns their own car, you can easily see that that could be a plausible picture of how we could also have a society. So a free society and a society of equal to be the same.

because nobody, you know, one individual cannot work a huge capital stock, right? An Uber driver cannot be personally driving a million cars, right? Only one car at a time. So everyone's basically equal, roughly seeing. And, you know, back of the day, it was farming. But one person can't farm that much more than another, right? So you'd have broad equality. And we'd all be in competitive markets, trading our,

goods and services, everybody perfectly competitive. And so you can see everybody would get, you know, an economic theory in a perfectly competitive market where everybody has pretty much equal capital. We're all going to be facing each other as equals, nobody with monopoly power, nobody able to order anybody else around, everybody enjoying the dignity of self-employment and property ownership, and you'd have a society of equals. So that is sort of the seduction of the, the market ideology. And what I argue is historically, Americans, in a way, we have a kind of massive cultural lag and that we continue to talk as if this market ideal that really was forged prior to the Civil War is still a realistic prospect. When in fact, we live in a lot in a world,

very complex division of labor, where we're working in these organizations called firms, or sometimes nonprofits like you and I, right? But still big organizations, right? And, you know, we're not, we're not, in a way, academics are the most privileged of all employees. Like, our life is incredible because we're granted so much autonomy, right? We get to think about whatever we like. But that's, of course, extraordinarily rare.

Even most other professionals don't have that kind of incredible freedom. You know, a lawyer, they have clients and they just take cases. Yeah. Right. It's a very rare and privileged lawyer who can just turn down cases because they don't want to work on those problems or they don't find them interesting. I mean, if they did have their own shingle out there, then they could. But you're saying that most lawyers work for law firms and they're told, you know, take this case, right? Well, they also just have to generate enough revenues so they can stay partners to be ejected from the partnership.

And so then that's a world of bosses and employee. It's a very different world from the free market world because then you're in a hierarchy and there are people who are giving you orders. And that's a part that I think has been largely neglected in political disqual. What happens to these workers when the boss fires them because they don't like who your sexual partners are? And the original what we think of as the free market tier is Adam Smith and maybe even Thomas Payne is a name that comes up when I read your stuff. So the free market they conceptualized as free for these individual contractors.

And also they were happy with something like a social safety net, right? Like they didn't mind it if you had the equivalent of welfare or social security. Like that was not something they were against, which might be different than how we think about it in our current discourse. Oh, yeah. So Tom Payne was the first person to envision how poverty be abolished with a universal social insurance system. And he actually costed out a universal social insurance system using numbers from the British Treasury and showed it was completely feasible to do this through and funded through an inheritance tax. It does sound very current, these debates. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, Payne was a very forward-looking thinker.

And Smith, too. You know, I've read Smith's works, a lot of them, most of them, I would say. I haven't plowed through all of his correspondence, but his major works. And he only said one thing against the poor laws. So England was the first country in Europe to recognize, care for the poor. as a state responsibility, well, a responsibility at least of local government. Okay. But all the poor had to be taken care of.

And Smith only had one criticism ever of the poor laws. And that was an aspect of the poor laws known as the law of settlement, which meant that if you needed help, welfare support, you had to go back to the hometown of your birth. And he said that's like really stupid because it inhibits labor mobility. Yeah. Right. If your job opportunity is somewhere else, you might be afraid to move there because you wouldn't get any assistance if something goes bad, right, in your life. And he, you know, he did favor labor mobility so people could take advantage of opportunities

all over the country. And so he didn't like the law of settlement, but otherwise he had nothing at all against the police. Plan B made over-the-counter emergency contraception legal more than 20 years ago. It's a safe, effective backup birth control option that helps prevent pregnancy before it starts by temporarily delaying ovulation. Plan B is the number one OBGYN recommended brand and the only one that you can find at all major retailers in all 50 U.S. states. There's no minimum age requirement and you don't need an ID to buy it. You can order it through DoorDash and other major delivery platforms too. That's freedom to be.

Use as directed. Love bread, bake goods and pasta, but not the way they make you feel? What if I told you there are macro-friendly options that don't taste like sawdust and sadness? Satisfying sandwiches, fully loaded bagels, noodles, noodles that can stand up to your favorite chunky sauces. All delicious. Craveworthy and smart, each serving of hero bread has up to 19 grams of protein and 32 grams of fiber, and just 0 to 5 grams net carbs and 0 grams sugar. Hero Bread bakes with heart-healthy olive oil and delivers the soft, fluffy, flavorful experience you love.

Breakfast burritos, smear-loaded bagels, real mac and cheese. Hero bread bakes loaves, bagels, and tortillas that don't taste or feel like cardboard. Noodles that don't fall apart in hearty sauces. Plus, limited edition small batch bakes like the 2 grams net carb hero croissant or 1 gram net carb hero cheddar biscuit, handmade in a Sonoma-based French bakery. Shop now on hero.co. Use code iHeart for 10% off. That's hero.co.

Per serving, not a low-calorie foods and products contain allulose, see nutrition info on hero.co for sodium and sugar content. And that actually leads right into one of the things you bring up in your book, which is that there's this myth or story around the modern free market where, you know, if the workers being exploited, they can quit and go somewhere else. But in fact, this freedom to exit your job and just get another job in reality is much less in the modern world that we might like to pretend it. Yeah, so here's something that I learned by looking at labor conditions.

Tipped restaurant workers are subjected to extraordinarily high rates of sexual harassment. They're so high that if you quit one restaurant and enter another restaurant, you're just as likely to suffer sexual harassment. It's so pervasive. So, you know, where is a server to go? Right. It's kind of like you're in Eastern Europe. Imagine Eastern Europe had its own version of the EU and you had free migration, you know, behind the Iron Curtain back of the day when Eastern Europe was all communist. Okay, so you could go from Poland to Hungary, but it's still communist. You're not going to be more free. So freedom of a moment doesn't necessarily help you that much. And as you point out, we seed to our employers in the modern world an enormous amount of control over our lives. I mean, maybe academics, like you say, are a little bit privileged here, but this is why the label private government makes sense.

You're analogizing the control that employers have over their workers' lives to the control that we think should be the providence of the government. But the firms actually are the ones who are wielding it. And in fact, yes. And the thing is that bosses, employers, have extraordinary powers that even the government doesn't have. So, for instance, during the pandemic, you saw a lot of doctors and nurses complaining that their hospitals were not supplying adequate personal protective equipment. And some of them were fired for saying this. Yeah. You know, the government's not allowed to fire you because you're complaining.

In fact, under American labor law, you actually, workers are supposed to have rights to free speech to complain about bad working. But in practice, those laws are not really enforced, and they're very difficult. Well, this does bring up the analogous question to before, you know, how are we supposed to change this? I mean, if the Industrial Revolution flipped on its head the idea of the free market to go from freedom of the workers to more freedom of the firms to set prices and things like that, what kind of system or organization would give workers back something closer to that freedom of movement and choice and living their lives without their bosses telling them what they can tweet about? Yeah, so I do think that we could do several things. One thing is to draw sharper lines between workers off-duty lives and their on-duty lives.

So it does make sense that there has to be some order-giving within the organization. just to make sure that the work gets done. Sure. And there is some degree of open-endedness to the tasks which you can be assigned. So, you know, if you're, say, scooping out ice cream cones for customers at an ice cream shop and a little kid accidentally spills the ice cream cone on the ground on the floor, the boss has to be able to say, you know, Mary, go clean that up. Right. And that's fine. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. Unless it's always Mary that's getting picked on and it's inequitable, right? You know, you want to make sure there's an equitable sharing of tasks, especially unpleasant tasks. But it doesn't mean that the boss should be able to interfere with, say, Mary's off-duty life, like who her sexual partners are or her recreational activities or her lifestyle.

It's really none of the boss's business, how she leads her life off duty. You know, if she's not performing on duty, then you can raise some complaints. But off duty, really bosses shouldn't have that power. Under American law, though, we have a system known as employment at will, which means that bosses can fire workers for any or no reason at all. With only a few exceptions carved out, mostly having to do with discrimination, You can't fire somebody's gender and so forth, right? But I think there should be stronger protections for workers off-duty lives.

Okay. That actually does make sense. That's a pretty, when you put it that way, who could object maybe other than the bosses, I guess? Well, the bosses, some of the bosses would object. But part of it is it just means that you move closer to unemployment regime. where the employer would actually have to show cause to fire somebody. Because you always wonder, is it that they don't like by, you know, who I voted for or who I'm, you know, which candidate? So you could see why the bosses would be against that.

And probably given our previous conversation, those bosses have a lot more say amongst the legislators than the workers do. To be sure. And that was something even Adam Smith noted in his day. Yeah. That the legislators are always listening to what he called the mass. That is the employers. Okay, very good. That brings up the fact that, you know, part of this ideology that we have in the Western

world and the United States and elsewhere is the idea of the work ethic, right? The idea that it is somehow good and valorous for a human being to want to work really, really hard. And you could clearly see why this might be something that the boss class would encourage. But I like how you dug back into it. way back into the beginning of the Reformation, I suppose. That's right, yes. So I dug back into the original texts, the founding text of the work ethic, which was an ethic

that was invented by Puritan ministers in England in the middle of the 17th century. And what I found was that there's really two work ethics that were already there in the mid-17th century and held by the same people. that is they actually had kind of contradicted views about work. So one view, remember these Puritans, they're all advocates of a kind of ascetic morality, of self-denial, right? Not too much indulgence out there because that's the way of sin. And from that perspective, they saw work as a kind of ascetic discipline.

You know, if your nose is to the grindstone, then your mind will not wander off to like sinful thoughts of lust and so forth. Right. And they also thought that if you work like crazy, that would be your best evidence that you're saved. Right. And if you slack off, that's a sign that you really don't have faith in God. And so you'll be damned ever. And that would also make people out of anxiety for their future in the next slide. They would work really hard. So those tend to, those ideas tend to incline a view of work that capitalists, can easily exclude. Very little surprise.

All these anxious workers, right? Desperate for salvation, nose to the grindstone. But there's another vision of work that these Puritan ministers had, which was that work is sanctified. Because when you work, you are performing God's will. And what is God's will for human? that we all work promote the welfare of our fellow human. All of them without exception. Everyone counts.

And so work becomes sacred and honored. And they stress that even the most menial worker was doing socially necessary, be honored and respected and treated and paid decent and afforded safe working. And treated with dignity and respect. Yeah. And both of those ideas. over time get developed into two very different work ethic. One that rationalizes the subjection of workers to relentless labor at very low wages. But another that exalts workers and say, hey,

you know, we're the ones who are holding up society, right? We're the ones who are taking care of people and doing all the work. We should, you know, get rewarded for that. It shouldn't just be the lazy landlords who are collecting the rents. I have to ask because maybe I'm just so embedded in the American culture or whatever, but did people not have an ethic to work before the Protestant Reformation? Was this something that would have been unheard of? I mean, I would think that some people, you know, just felt that dignity, whether or not their theological betters told them to. You know, let me illustrate this different. I do think that the work ethic represents a major revaluation of values. The valorization of work really was a new thing in the mid-17th century,

because before then, people valued leisure. And that is the leisure of the independently wealthy. So before then, the dominating value system was that of the landlords, the aristocracy, right? The best life is the life where you don't have to work. You want to be the idle rich. That's your goal. Correct. Yes. And have other people work for you. Yeah, okay. And the Puritans turned that around. And, you know, their favorite metaphor was of a bees' nest. Society, you know, bees have their own society. And you have the worker bees who are doing all the work and making all the honey. And then you have the queen. And then you have the drones. Those drones in the nest, those were the idle landlords. Because what are they doing? They're not doing any work. They're just having sex with the Queen. Right. And so the parents said, these, they should be cast out of the nest. Yeah. Got it. Very, very good. It's interesting because there's this parallel, I guess, and I'm sure it's intentional, or at least it's explicable, between the two notions of the free market and the two notions of the work ethic, right? I mean, there's sort of a worker-centered version of each and a boss-centered

version of each. Exactly right. Yes. And so Payne, Tom Payne, who wanted everybody to be self-employed, he's part of what I call the pro-worker worketh. Right. This is a way to uplift now they can have freedom and equality if everybody gets to work their own capital and has social insurance so that if they, some accident and disabled, they'll survive. And that goes, Yeah, so that goes hand in hand with some kind of social safety net, but then it goes right into modern arguments about should we give social benefits to people who aren't working. So we just give welfare versus work fare, I suppose. Like, are we removing the dignity of work by making it possible to live and survive without necessarily doing your job? Ah, well, so I just want to insert a feminist observation here.

Please. And that is that this obsession that people on welfare benefits have to work is downgrading the value of women's dependent care of labor, taking care of children and ill people within their household. And in fact, if you look at the history of welfare in the United States before the welfare reform under President Clinton in 1990s, and you look at the labor force participation of very poor women. What you find is that they were in and out of the workforce that is the wage labor force. And a lot of that was because they're taking care of children or ill and disabled

people within their families. And they couldn't devote full time to work because they had dependent care responsibility. Now, if you look back at the original work ethic that the Puritan came up with, they recognize that dependent care work is socially necessary. Children need they need to be cared for. And so, you know, this obsession that, that poor women have to be working for wages, grossly undervalues, the importance of dependent care work within the family. I mean, this is all evidence for the point of view that moral and ethical philosophy should be not focused on finding the perfect answer but responsive to the moment. Because what we're seeing over and over again here is, you know,

some kind of values are promulgated and absorbed and recognized, but then the system changes and the words that we attach to the values don't. And so the outcomes become very different. I mean, I don't know if it's just the industrial revolution or things much, much later that cause some of the problems you're talking about. You mentioned in the 70s, we saw this divergence between wages and productivity, for example. So the 1970s, not the 1870s or the 1770s. So something is still changing now that separates out the work we do from what we earn from it, right?

Yeah. So in fact, there's a remarkable parallel between the 19th century and recent history from the mid-70s on. So if you look at the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, there was a period in basically the first half of the Industrial Revolution until right through the mid-19th century, where GDP per capita was just growing very, very quickly, but wages were stagnant, right? Workers were working harder than ever, but they weren't getting any of the gains. Then around mid-century, you enter a period of wage gains. A lot of that propelled. by worker mobilization, both for democracy.

They get a more responsive government because you have a widened franchise. And also labor organization. There was a lot of agitation of workers for benefits, right? And it worked. Worked. Democracy works. Sometimes. Democracy, both in the sense of electoral democracy, but also, you know,

worker organization and getting out in the streets and so forth, of protesting, social movements work. And what we find is, starting around the mid-1970s, a similar divergence took place where GDP per capita is galloping ahead, that is labor productivity is galloping ahead, but workers' wage is stagnant. And we're still in that era now. Well, no wonder a lot of people are really angry, especially working class people. Now, you know, contemporary populism in the I do think has a misapprehension of causes, right? And so a lot of working class white people think that what's getting them down is all those immigrants.

Yeah. And it's actually not true. But of course, you can't necessarily blame them in the following sense. I mean, it actually takes a lot of social scientific research to find out social causes. You can't just look out there and see causes. Well, you know that as a physicist, right? Right. Takes a lot of hard data crunching to figure out what's going on. But so, you know, I'm not blaming them for not knowing because they've been told some bad stories.

Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. About social causes and what are the causes of their distress. But the distress is real. I do want to get on the table, to be fair, you make one point, which I thought was very interesting. It's sort of obvious in retrospect that to the boss's credit, there's not as many idle rich around anymore as there were. It's not just the workers who are working really hard, but the CEOs these days tend to work really, really hard. It's unbelievable how many hours they put into their labor. So you might have noticed Elon Musk when he was called up by some journalists

who announced to him which he wasn't tracking that he was now the richest man in the world, at least for a little bit. And he says, oh, how strange. Well, back to work. No, but I do have to say that while it is true that the richest people are working like crazy in the sense that they're working very hard to make a lot of money, it doesn't follow from that, that they're working in the original work ethic puritan sense where work means actually promoting the welfare of your fellow human beings.

So if you look, say, at Big Pharma, pushing all the Oxycontin and other opioids on Americans and turning millions of Americans into addicts, yeah, they were really, really busy selling these drugs. They put in a lot of hours. But this is not productive labor. It's very awful, horrible labor. Right. And so I think we have to question in many cases, not all cases, but in many cases how this money is. And the other thing that you highlight is David Graber's point about the bullshit jobs, which, let's try to get this exactly right, because a bullshit job is not just a bad job. It's not cleaning toilets or whatever, because those obviously have good impacts. We want the toilets to be clean. They're socially necessary labor. That's right, right.

But so the bullshit jobs are sort of- The toilets must be cleaned. What makes a job bullshity is that it doesn't really do any good for society. You might not even be a CEO. There's plenty of middle management that is not doing any good for society either. That is correct. And so David Graber, who unfortunately died, but he wrote this fun book called Bullshit Jobs, in which he defined a bullshit job as a job that is so pointless or pernicious that even the person

doing the job can't feel that it's justified, although they have to pretend that it is. And so I actually taught a course a couple years ago on work, ethical issues and political issues surrounding work in which we took a look at David Graber's book, Bullshit Jobs. And in that book, Graber estimated that 40% of jobs in rich capitalist economies are bullshit jobs. And so I decided I would just, before we entered into a discussion in the book, I would just take a Paul of my students, how many of you have worked at a bullshit job? Believe it or not, 40% of them raised their hands. It must be true. And so I wanted examples. It's like, what made it a bullshit job? Yeah. And here's my favorite example of a bullshit job. A student was working at this firm and he had to write reports about, you know, the performance of the

firm or whatever, that he had to upload to, you know, a site that was accessible to all the other workers in the firm. And the site let you see how often the report was downloaded. And his report got zero downloads. And he realized that his job was to write reports that nobody read. Yeah. Okay. That's a bullshit job. Can't argue with that one. Yeah. And it's an important thing because, exactly because of this idea that the work ethic was originally tied into, or at least in some formulations of it, the idea that you were doing work for some good purpose, for something meaningful. It wasn't just to earn a wage. It's not just that I work hard and I provide. I work hard and I provide to society as well, right? Correct. And, you know, I mean, what is a meaning? Fundamentally,

it has to be something that's helping other people and not just help. Yeah. Yeah. And, And so is this, why is it like this? Is it an inevitable thing that happens when society becomes big and complicated and bloated and bloated and bureaucratic? Or is it a matter of ideology where we just talked ourselves into it? Should we have seen this coming? You know, I think we've talked ourselves into a lot of things. And in a way, I do see this as a manifestation of this negative. work ethic that treats workers very harshly and this internalized sense that so many Americans have

that, well, I got to be work all the time, like a lot. And that's a very American attitude. You know, if you go to Europe, first of all, one thing that's very strange and I think Americans don't appreciate is that we're the only rich country in the world that does not by law guarantee paid vacations to everybody. You go to Denmark and everybody gets five weeks of paid vacation and then a whole bunch of paid holidays on top of that. Yeah. It's almost unimaginable, right?

Crazy talk, right. Yeah, it's difficult. And in France, you know, practically everyone takes all of August off. And they're paid. Whereas in America, only about half of workers get paid vacation through the employment contract. right. And the other half don't get any paid vacation. And even if you look at those who are entitled to paid vacation, most American workers do not take all of the vacations. They're entitled. Even the ones doing bullshit jobs? Yeah, even doing bullshit jobs, yes. So I do think Americans could

work less. It would be good for us. Good. And so that is maybe not so much a structural thing. as an ideological thing. Like we've sort of let ourselves be talked into the fact that there is virtue in working hard and not vacationing, whatever it is the job might be. Well, but I also think that there's a lot of fear of getting fired if we're not. Yeah, okay. Right. Being visibly being in front of our bosses.

So how do we make the world a better place? I mean, I know that there's been increasing talk about universal basic income, things like that. And I know that there's been pushback against that, both on practical grounds, but also on surprisingly moral grounds, right, or ethical grounds, the idea that it would remove the dignity of work, that, you know, if you're not working, if you're just enjoying your life, you're less fulfilled as a person. Is that something we can talk ourselves out of, maybe? Well, I don't, look, I do think it's very meaningful to contribute to the welfare of others. And wage labor is one place, but not the only place to be doing that.

You know, there's also dependent care labor within the family. But often if you want to make a bigger impact, it's helpful to be part of an organization that extends, right, that has impacts beyond the family. And there could be something that's very fulfilling about that and very meaningful. So I'm all in favor of non-bullshit jobs. Like jobs that actually have. help people. Yeah.

And I think the vast majority of people do find that meaningful. So I don't think we're going to be at a loss for motivation to work, even if people also at the same time get a lot of free stuff. Right. But I don't necessarily think that the universal basic income is the best way to package benefits. I think that requires a lot, a deep dive in looking into the details of different ways of packaging. So when you say that, it's not the...

you're necessarily against it. It's just that, you know, this is a complicated empirical social question and we don't know the answer yet. The devil's in the details. There's so many different ways to package a universal basic income. Sure. Okay. We really have to see that proposals spelled out in detail and then compare it to other proposals. But you do make the point that maybe the state that the world is in is one where we're not ready to aim for a leisure society just yet because you didn't put it in these words, so let me put words in your mouth and you can correct me, there's too much work to be done, like saving the planet. I agree, yeah, I do think that that's right. I don't think we're quite ready for it. Look, I mean, we're facing global climate change. Yeah. At, you know, at catastrophic,

you know, levels. We have to roll up our sleeves to get to work on that problem. Right. There's plenty of work to be done. Right. I mean, socially necessary, socially urgent work that we have to be Yeah, I mean, there's plenty of places in the world that don't have good infrastructure in health care and things like that. I mean, there's more than enough. Well, look, even American infrastructure is falling in pieces. It's not good. It's not good. I mean, I'm probably just going to, I've already asked this and it's going to be repeating myself.

But it's from a different angle since you just brought up the fact that infrastructure is failing. I mean, is it that we're entering as society the bread and circuses stages of our advanced democracy? Have we just sort of lost our edge a little bit? You know, I really do worry, yeah, that we're past peak America. Right. We're not willing to do the work to make the sacrifice. I do find it worse. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Any advice for making the world a better place? I mean, what is your practical? I know you're philosopher, that's okay, but you're much more practical than most of the philosophers I talk to. Just had a discussion about the philosophy of math. It was very, very different than this one. what should we be doing to make the world a better place for work and dignity and equality and things like that? I think we have to work at improving democracy. And that requires communication with our fellowship.

I think the quality of public disciplines and political dissuance is really, really bad. There's a lot of insults, trolling, mass shaming. It's very unhealthy and toxic. There are better ways that we have to communicate with each other. And it's only that that will enable us to pull together, cooperate, and solve the problems that climate change, the biggest one. And if I put on my free market to your hat a little bit for the moment, what I would respond is, but you know,

what is the incentive structure that would lead to better communication and better political outcomes? I mean, right now we have a system where you get a lot of clicks and you get a lot of views from saying outrageous things, right? I mean, that sounds like a hard thing to change structurally. Well, you know, I think the social media companies bear a lot of responsibility for this. There was a study that was reported on in the New York Times about how people are, you know, on social media like Facebook and they're getting almost no clicks because they're just posting on innocuously.

And then they happen to post on, you know, Q&N or so crazy thing. And they don't even necessarily believe, but suddenly they have thousands of followers. And that's very seductive. So they post more and more extreme views. And pretty soon they're talking about lizard people. Right. And then suddenly they have like, you know, hundreds of thousands of followers and they're making a lot of money. I think this is a very perverse incentive structure.

And similarly for people who go around trolling and insulting and be people, I do think social media companies are not. behaving well, and the algorithms appear to be structured to reward the worst possible behavior. So this might be a case where the case could be made for raining in the free market a little bit because we need companies, again, I'm putting words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong, companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, or whatever, have so much power and influence. And they got it so quickly in sort of an almost unanticipated way that we need to sort of, there's at least an argument to be made for giving them incentives other than just maximizing the number of clicks, right, to make them more responsible social actors. Yeah. And so here's where we can come back to the issue of empowering workers within the workplace.

So just getting back to that, what we do find is a lot of these companies have very socially conscious engineers, software engineers. Like, they don't, often they don't really like what their bosses are doing. And there's been a lot of pushback within the tech companies on this. And I do think that introducing co-determination at the big corporations, that is where workers have a say in management, could be one way to make these companies more socially responsible. And this gets back also to the issue of meaningful work. Yes, there are some people who all they want to do make tons of money. they don't care how socially destructive they are. But most people aren't so keen on that.

You know, they have an ethical core. They want to be doing for work and not just work that makes a ton of money, even though it's spreading social toxicity. So most people, right, if you empower them within the firm, they can move it in better direction. So I do think in this case, worker empowerment will probably be one way to solve the problem because I don't necessarily think that the government that is the state, I don't want them necessarily to be imposing regulations that has dangers of its own.

There are problems there. That's right. Yes. But there are other ways to empower other forces to create better tech companies. That is good. I'd like if possible to end each podcast on an optimistic message. And I think we finally got there. There's a lot of pessimistic messages we had to get through to get there. But Elizabeth Anderson, thanks so much for being on the Mindscape podcast. It's a pleasure. Thanks for inviting me.