Qui Genus Jactat Suum, Aliena Laudat

On Compensation

People labor for different reasons. Chief among the remunerative qualities of one's career are its material rewards (salary, benefits, etc) and the status that job provides. Why would someone work for the State department rather than be a mortgage salesman? Status compensates him for his lower salary.

Strange isn't it, then, that the two are treated so differently by society. To openly strive for wealth marks you as ambitious, if a bit crass. To court status, on the other hand, brings accusations of insecurity, self-importance and elitism. Inheritance governs the transfer of wealth that one earns to one's progeny (or whomever one wants). Formal recognition of status (titles, etc) used to be able to be transmitted similarly. Feudalism conflated status with wealth, and law enforcement authority. Those few who have titles in this modern age have no automatic wealth or power.

So then why does the world hunger for the elimination of such? When titles only indicate status that one or one's predecessors had earned, what harm do they do?

Status may seem like a silly reason to do anything, and this discussion pointless for looking at formalized status, but truly what could be more noble, in this era, than to strive for status alone? Instead of focusing on material wealth, to work for the regard of one's peers, neighbors, or co-nationals seems positively saintly.