The ViewLetter to my daughter on modern economies
Modern-day aristocrats can monetise their legacies by attracting large followings on social media
Dear daughter, this column is for you. I am sorry that I hissed when you asked for a US$29 Posie K liquid lipstick + lip liner duo by Kylie Jenner (shipping not included). I am sorry for spewing obscenities and calling you a chump.
If I could explain. First, I was taken aback by the news that an 18-year-old had developed her own line, Kylie Lip Kit, or that you found no reason to doubt the testimonials on her Instagram fan page.
I was also upset that this junior sister in the reality-TV Kardashian clan did not have to pay anything to get your custom. She did not have to take out an ad, which supports jobs and spreads the wealth, because you and your friends choose to follow her around on social media. This is an illustration of the effects of technology on inequality.
These days aristocracies are advanced by our obsessions with the offspring of the glitterati
In the modern knowledge economy, there is something called a “winner-take-all” phenomenon that has been attributed to hi-tech innovation. Smart and talented people – whether Lady Gaga or a McKinsey financial consultant – can sell their talents far and wide through high-speed networks and digital dissemination. In this way, the rich get richer.
This phenomenon is occurring simultaneously with declining social mobility. Widening wealth gaps mean those who start off ahead often finish ahead, in part because wealthy parents can invest heavily in their offspring’s education and networks. And also because, according to the economist Greg Mankiw, children inherit their parents’ success genes. This is obvious almost immediately, as they hit the ground running even as toddlers, elbowing themselves into the best pre-schools. Fifteen years later, they’re at Harvard.
It could be worse. Imagine if hierarchies were so entrenched that the wealthy did not have to push their kids, that their children could just coast through with “gentlemen’s Cs”, then still get to be the boss. If a rich kid works hard and is talented, we should accept whatever contributions he or she can make to society or economies. It would be bad principle, and wasteful, to eschew their talents.
On the other hand, there are cases where children can trade on their family’s brand name, and thereby displace more talented individuals. This is when the brutality of meritocracy gives way to the banality of aristocracy.