Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 4: Vivek vs. Irwin
Respecting the least among us. A classy guy.
August 30, 2023
The Gold Standard for detecting bullshit sophistry emanating from any politician is to compare the actual content of their language (rather than its delivery) to the late Professor Irwin Corey’s stand-up act.
Back in 2005, 20-year-old Harvard undergraduate Vivek Ramaswamy authored a piece in the college’s Crimson newspaper, titled “Uncounted Costs of a Living Wage.” The subject was “living-wage campaigns” at Harvard, periodic efforts by wealthy, entitled students to advocate for higher wages for Harvard’s lowest-paid employees. There is a great deal of fat in the salaries of Harvard’s highest-paid staff, some of whom receive total compensation packages north of $1 million, which could be redistributed to the lowest-rung employees, Soviet style. This idea apparently never occurred to the altruistic students.
Ramaswamy’s point (beyond attempting to convince his audience of his brilliance in economic matters, along with his debating acumen) was not a free-market one, but one based upon “respect.” Paying employees above the market rate would come at the cost of their respect. Such a proposal would need to be
“done . . . at the cost of respect that the rest of the Harvard community has for these workers—a cost that, no matter how high the wage increase, is too high to pay.”
What a heart! I don’t know about you, but if I was cleaning rich kids’ toilets for minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet, I would trade respect for a raise every day of the week. Respect does not buy much at a supermarket or gas pump. But it sure warms your heart when you finally lay your head down on the pillow after working two shifts, knowing you are bursting with respect. But this is only a “thought experiment.” So if anyone challenges him on it, he can disown it as he tried with Hannity. Of course he can also use the youthful indiscretion excuse. Whether anyone might believe he has experienced a 180° conversion is questionable. It should be noted that Ramaswamy did not obtain his first job until two years later, a factor which may have impacted his thinking. Or maybe not, seeing how the position was at a hedge fund and he was soon pocketing millions annually.
However, let’s examine the first two sentences— of each of his final seven paragraphs — for their content. Once you penetrate past his impassioned delivery, and focus on his content (even content from 18 years ago), clarity ensues. Then we will subject these passages to the Professor Irwin Corey bullshit sophistry evaluation.
1. The campaign’s flaw, however, lies in the consequences that follow should it ever become successful. Its flaw is not simply the substitution effect—the economic consequence of shifting labor demand curves—or anything else that we may have learned in Ec10.
2. It might seem presumptuous to criticize a living-wage campaign on the grounds of lost respect for those whom the campaign is intended to help. Perhaps there is actually a more monetarily selfish reason to be resistant to such a wage increase.
3. But herein lies the dilemma. At the start of a living-wage campaign, all of its proponents agree that the monetary worth of Harvard’s poorest workers is entirely unrelated to their fundamental human worth.
4. The notion is more intuitive than the formal argument makes it seem: when a Harvard student knows that the University has allocated a greater portion of his or her fees to pay the wage of a janitor (at a higher level than the laws of supply and demand would require), a condescending strain of sympathy subtly yet naturally replaces the mutual human respect that otherwise would have existed. The higher level of Harvard fees allocated to paying the higher wages is the price paid to purchase a right to condescend—a “right” that Harvard has no prerogative to sell in the first place.
5. The natural reply of living-wage advocates might be that, even though all members of the community are entitled to the same level of respect, the bottommost members require a baseline level of monetary worth, because their poverty results from arbitrary factors beyond their control. That our society chooses to monetarily reward certain talents (intelligence, for example) over others is inherently arbitrary.
6. If it is arbitrary, however, that Harvard’s poorest workers happen to not possess the talents our society prizes, then it is also arbitrary that these workers should be the prime beneficiaries of a campaign to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is, the poorest workers in parts of the world outside Harvard live on wages that make Harvard’s janitors’ expenditures seem luxurious, yet living-wage campaign proponents at Harvard focus primarily on achieving a higher level of equity within their own community.
7. This criticism against living-wage campaigns does not mean that Harvard should avoid taking a stance on this issue. To the contrary, supporting a higher wage would simply be taking the wrong stance.
If you are still conscious, any dispassionate reviewer would be hard put to conclude #4 was not lifted straight out of an Irwin Corey monologue.
#2 also approaches peak Corey, to a lesser extent.
The thrust of his intent behind #5 is similar to an argument in favor of slavery: the gods of arbitrariness condemned you to a life of servitude, no human is to blame. You were born a slave because your ancestors were slaves. You shall die a slave. Nothing to see here, it’s not my problem.
#6 of course does not take into consideration the local cost of living.
Do you get the feeling this guy is not a big tipper?
Taken together and combining these 14 sentences from this turkey, minus the stuffing in between, could substitute for a fine Professor Corey soliloquy. Let’s do that, combining these together into a single piece. Concision, compared to the original. Let’s see how it now reads:
The campaign’s flaw, however, lies in the consequences that follow should it ever become successful. Its flaw is not simply the substitution effect—the economic consequence of shifting labor demand curves—or anything else that we may have learned in Ec10. It might seem presumptuous to criticize a living-wage campaign on the grounds of lost respect for those whom the campaign is intended to help. Perhaps there is actually a more monetarily selfish reason to be resistant to such a wage increase. But herein lies the dilemma. At the start of a living-wage campaign, all of its proponents agree that the monetary worth of Harvard’s poorest workers is entirely unrelated to their fundamental human worth. The notion is more intuitive than the formal argument makes it seem: when a Harvard student knows that the University has allocated a greater portion of his or her fees to pay the wage of a janitor (at a higher level than the laws of supply and demand would require), a condescending strain of sympathy subtly yet naturally replaces the mutual human respect that otherwise would have existed. The higher level of Harvard fees allocated to paying the higher wages is the price paid to purchase a right to condescend—a “right” that Harvard has no prerogative to sell in the first place.
The natural reply of living-wage advocates might be that, even though all members of the community are entitled to the same level of respect, the bottommost members require a baseline level of monetary worth, because their poverty results from arbitrary factors beyond their control. That our society chooses to monetarily reward certain talents (intelligence, for example) over others is inherently arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, however, that Harvard’s poorest workers happen to not possess the talents our society prizes, then it is also arbitrary that these workers should be the prime beneficiaries of a campaign to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is, the poorest workers in parts of the world outside Harvard live on wages that make Harvard’s janitors’ expenditures seem luxurious, yet living-wage campaign proponents at Harvard focus primarily on achieving a higher level of equity within their own community. This criticism against living-wage campaigns does not mean that Harvard should avoid taking a stance on this issue. To the contrary, supporting a higher wage would simply be taking the wrong stance.
Viola! A result Professor Corey would have been proud of. In fact, this could probably work just as well using any random arrangement of these 14 sentences.
It is in such tidbits as this that we begin to glimpse the moral (indeed, spiritual) development of the young god-king presidential aspirant. (The word moral appears frequently in his act, alongside family and God. He’s one moral dude — just ask him.)
While ensconced at the planet’s most elite university, surrounded by scions of great wealth, young Vivek took time from his busy schedule to advocate on behalf of respecting those on society’s lowest rungs. What a guy. There’s not a commie bone in that boy’s body.
Who knew respect and rate of pay were in a zero sum relationship to each other? One goes up, the other goes down. Someone earning $15/hour would experience a significant diminution in respect if they were paid $20/hour. He’s right — it would not be worth the cost. Now his title makes sense: “Uncounted Costs of a Living Wage.” You can live, you can have respect, but not both. This is as American as apple pie. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Respect.
Following this logic out to its conclusion, the less workers are paid, the greater their self-respect. Those misguided students advocating for wage increases should actually be working to lower wages.
It now becomes clear those million-dollar Harvard staff members must be experiencing a significant respect deficit. It’s unfortunate there is currently no way for public donors to offer some of their respect to these others. Especially to the poorest among us, who at least maintain their respect. Everyone else was worried about transferring wealth. What is actually needed is a respect transfer. Only Vivek understood that those of us hungry for meaning, living empty lives and having lost our sense of meaning, in search of how to redefine our national identity, seek moral guidance as we join him in our second revolution, a true 1776 moment. A revolution based on morality, God, and the two-parent family (not necessarily in that order).
If 20-year-old Ramaswamy came across as a cold, heartless individual, the question is has he changed over the past 18 years? Apparently not, according to
seven people who worked with Ramaswamy at Roivant Sciences and Strive Asset Management . . . told Insider that the real Vivek's self-assuredness comes with an entitled edge in private. . . . Some of these former employees said he can be a neurotic, mercurial, and paranoid leader. . . . a person who worked closely with Ramaswamy said, "He thinks people are put on this earth to serve him." . . . [he] insist[ed employees] follow an often bizarre laundry-list of rules and procedures to suit his every need. Chief among them: A relentless fixation on temperature. . . . he dictated that the office thermostats at Roivant and Strive had to be set to 64 degrees or below.
In a blog devoted to exploring the nature of class warfare, would it be out of line to mention Mr. Ramaswamy hails from a Brahmin family? Does that fact, combined with insights gleaned above — dating from his tenure at the pinnacle of the world’s elite universities — assist in better understanding his mindset? Would someone from a family of Shudras (outcasts) have written the same article?
Evidence suggests the 38-year-old retains the values of the 20-year-old. Once you understand how he acquired his wealth, and observe how he talks down to all of us with his vapid Happy Talk, it begins to become clear that he
a) conceives of himself as superior to the rest of us; and
b) has no compunction in bending the rules to attain his objectives.
To be continued . . .
LEARN MORE:
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 1: Red flags
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 2: Have you ever wanted to be a billionaire? 11 easy steps to immense wealth.
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 2.1: Vivek responds to Kevin's allegations.
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 2.2: 2015 Happy Talk vs. 2023 Sad Talk
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 3: Levin & Hannity August interviews
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 4: Vivek vs. Irwin; Respecting the least among us. A classy guy.
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 5: The Murdoch connection; friends in high places
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up— Part 6: Numbers which don't add up