------------------------------------

We start with 20 people who make up "society", or, for that matter, "the world". Each of these people gets a perfectly equal amount of "good stuff" during a year, let's say 10 units:

20 People 10 Units

Now, half of those people are "men" and half "women". Each of the women has to give half her income to a man:

10 Men 15 Units
10 Women 5 Units

Again, half of the people (both genders) are "white" and half "non-white". Each of the non-white people has to give half their income to a white person of the same gender:

5 White Men 22.5 Units
5 White Women 7.5 Units
5 Non-White Men 7.5 Units
5 Non-White Women 2.5 Units

Next, one of the white men is "rich" and everyone else is "poor". All of the poor people have to give half their income to the rich one:

1 Rich White Man 111.25 Units
4 Poor White Men 11.25 Units
5 Poor White Women 3.75 Units
5 Poor Non-White Men 3.75 Units
5 Poor Non-White Women 1.25 Units

Finally, the rich white man picks one of the white women to be "rich" with him and gives her 10 units of good stuff:

1 Rich White Man 101.25 Units
1 Rich White Woman 13.75 Units
4 Poor White Men 11.25 Units
4 Poor White Women 3.75 Units
5 Poor Non-White Men 3.75 Units
5 Poor Non-White Women 1.25 Units

This is, of course, a simple model. Gender, race and class are each complicated, internally differentiated categories, and there are other dimensions of analysis that aren't dealt with here. The proportions, of population and of oppression/privilege, are chosen for simplicity, not accuracy - the exact numbers aren't particularly important, only their relative magnitudes.

These results are produced by the introduction of three simple binary distinctions, each accompanied by a transfer of good stuff from those categorized one way to those categorized the other. Each such distinction and transfer is a dimension of privilege/oppression (depending on which side of the transfer one looks at).

Note that most people benefit from at least one dimension of privilege - even though nearly everyone is oppressed. If people identify with their privilege, it's 15 against 5, the privileged win. If people identify with their oppression, it's 19 against 1, the oppressed win. If some go each way, the result is up in the air.

Note that most of the men can accurately say that there are women better off than they are, and men as badly off as women. The poor white men's net privilege is pretty much cancelled out - they end up barely changed from the starting point. Poor white women and poor non-white men end up at the same level. The poor non-white women lose on every count, even conceding benefit to other women. But, even the rich white woman is only rich at the discretion of the rich white man.

I'd suggest picking one White and one Non-White Man to be 'rich', and giving each a 'wife'. That's perhaps too much complication, and I haven't worked out the figures, but it could capture the class struggle aspect of privilege better.

Put another way: Robert Mugabe is richer and wields more influence than I do, as a poor white man. Someone's bound to bring up an example like that in class as a counterargument to the model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
I'd suggest picking one White and one Non-White Man to be 'rich', and giving each a 'wife'. That's perhaps too much complication, and I haven't worked out the figures, but it could capture the class struggle aspect of privilege better.

---

You're right. I had figured that it was best to only have one independently "rich" person, given the population. But that meant that there was no non-white person who was better off than some white person, which goes against the purpose of the model. So ...

One of the white men and one of the non-white men are "rich" and everyone else is "poor". Each of the poor people have to give half of their income to the rich person of the same race:

1 Rich White Man 86.25 Units
1 Rich Non-White Man 32.5 Units
4 Poor White Men 11.25 Units
5 Poor White Women 3.75 Units
4 Poor Non-White Men 3.75 Units
5 Poor Non-White Women 1.25 Units

Each rich man picks one of the women of the same race to be "rich" with him and gives her 10 units of good stuff:

1 Rich White Man 76.25 Units
1 Rich Non-White Man 22.5 Units
1 Rich White Woman 13.75 Units
1 Rich Non-White Woman 11.25 Units
4 Poor White Men 11.25 Units
4 Poor White Women 3.75 Units
4 Poor Non-White Men 3.75 Units
4 Poor Non-White Women 1.25 Units

This means that most white people can now accurately say that there are non-white people better off than they are, and whites as badly off as non-whites. If people identify with their privileges, it would now be 16 to 4, but note that, if people identify with their oppressions, it remains 19 to 1.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Chris Borst ]

In your model, you start with a fixed pie and then cut the pie in different ways. That may work for dessert but it entirely misses the point of economics.

IMV, the traditional left too often views life as a zero-sum game. I don't know what your political beliefs are Chris but your example certainly suffers from that myopia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by August1991:
Chris, the fundamental error with your "model" is that it is based on zero-sum thinking. ... That may work for dessert but it entirely misses the point of economics.

---

Actually, Mr. August, this model is based (as DrConway realized) on a perfectly orthodox economic model. This is a model of a "rent". Now, for simplicity, it is expressed in total rather than marginal utility, which eliminates the deadweight loss, and in static rather than dynamic terms, which eliminates the losses due to contention over the rents (though my final "consideration" about solutions raises these implicitly). Such models are, in fact, the basis for the Public Choice school of far Right "libertarian" political economy.