Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Note, I had previously also seen this and I think it is not a coincidence that those attributes often match up with who we talk about as currently disaffected.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/

[crazy canuck]

Okay but that seems like an awfully narrow point - especially given there doesn't appear to have been anything special about mobility in the 70s - just another part of the downward slope.

For people in poverty it is not a narrow point.  You are showing your privilege 

I wouldn't be part the share of children making more than their parents unless we are comparing my current income to my retired parents.

Yes, and that is my point.  You never had to worry about upward mobility because your parents had already made it into a comfortable life style.  You were already above poverty.  For me upward mobility was critically important.

Its one of the things DEI got terribly wrong.  Not all people of colour are disadvantaged as compared to all white people.  But that is how the vast majority of DEI programs were structured.

[garbon]

Yes, and that is my point.  You never had to worry about upward mobility because your parents had already made it into a comfortable life style.  You were already above poverty.  For me upward mobility was critically important.

Yes my parents had already done the hard work. I don't worry about myself but my extended family.

Its one of the things DEI got terribly wrong.  Not all people of colour are disadvantaged as compared to all white people.  But that is how the vast majority of DEI programs were structured.

I'm actually bit flabbergasted that you would suggest DEI was just some sort of competition of who is the most disadvantaged.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, and that is my point.  You never had to worry about upward mobility because your parents had already made it into a comfortable life style.  You were already above poverty.  For me upward mobility was critically important.

Yes my parents had already done the hard work. I don't worry about myself but my extended family.

Its one of the things DEI got terribly wrong.  Not all people of colour are disadvantaged as compared to all white people.  But that is how the vast majority of DEI programs were structured.

I'm actually bit flabbergasted that you would suggest DEI was just some sort of competition of who is the most disadvantaged.

That is not what I am suggesting.  DEI was supposed to remove barriers to entry for everyone but in the rush to create DEI programs, skin colour became an easy proxy for measuring diversity and that became the main metric.  What that meant in practice is that people who had more barriers to entry (white, disabled, poor man) would not be able to compete against an able bodied man of colour who came from a wealthy family.

I heard DEI consultants tell companies that no matter what other factors were present, a white person always had an advantage over a person of colour and so the person of colour should always be preferred when hiring.

[garbon]

Okay, I don't think we need to continue this conversation.

[Barrister]

I'm actually bit flabbergasted that you would suggest DEI was just some sort of competition of who is the most disadvantaged.

So I'm not in the Trumpy "all DEI is evil and must be abolished", and those kind of efforts from governments and business were quite varied...

but since you use the word "just" perhaps you'll agree that it some instances it was a "competition of who is most disadvantaged"?

[crazy canuck]

Okay, I don't think we need to continue this conversation.

What part of that do you disagree with?

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure economic mobility is the only (or key) way to measure quality of life.

Note this chart below would suggest America has been on a decline in absolute mobility for a long time?

There was a really interesting study on economic mobility in the UK.

Basically the 40s-70s is seen as a bit of a golden age. In the discourse on the right it's normally associated with grammar schools (selective academic state schools and broadly abolished in the 70s) providing a better quality of education for any smart kid which enabled them to compete with people with more entrenched privilege/opportunities who could afford public school - basically the argument is that ending selection was basically a leveling for most people while the posh re-asserted their privilege.

There's some decline but not quite like in the US:


But the really interesting thing about the study was that it actually said a lot of it was to do with the war and expansion of post-war economy. It was less that the people coming up had forced their way in through their talent (and the grammar school system) but that there was, for a period, room at the top - and there is less of that now.

[crazy canuck]

But the really interesting thing about the study was that it actually said a lot of it was to do with the war and expansion of post-war economy. It was less that the people coming up had forced their way in through their talent (and the grammar school system) but that there was, for a period, room at the top - and there is less of that now.

Yeah, the opportunity to move up is the essential part - if there are no opportunities, there is no economic mobility for those in poverty, no matter how bright they are.  As I have often commented, I was by no means the brightest of my friend group - who generally stayed in the same socio economic level as their parents.  But I was the only kid who was 6'7" and could play round ball - and that was my ticket to educational opportunities which led to a much better socio economic level for me.

[frunk]

I'm confused by this chart.  All US adults is at +3, so if we take a selection including roughly everybody there should be at least one part of that selection that has a positive shift.  Men and Women, +2 and +4, great.  If we look at Less than high school, high school graduate only, some college, and bachelor's degree+ they are all negative.  How is that possible?

[HVC]

They didn't get educational data on the old people?

[mongers]

Re: the expenses, Rachel Reeves is toast.

[Sheilbh]

At this point, perhaps not the worst thing in the world if there was a scandal that forced Starmer to get rid of her (Dreadful politically - but I think she's been a bad Chancellor and that matters.)

[mongers]

At this point, perhaps not the worst thing in the world if there was a scandal that forced Starmer to get rid of her (Dreadful politically - but I think she's been a bad Chancellor and that matters.)

I'm neutral, but that seems a reasonable assessment of The calculation that's likely to be made.

[Josquius]

Bit by bit minor things against Reeves do seem to have been building.
The picture of her before hand was one of "wow finally, a chancellor who actually knows their stuff with a financial background!" now the picture is increasingly "So she was like...an HR person for a bank or  something?"

Well of course people who had been effectively excluded from society had more opportunities when in the 60s they were given rights by the government.

I'm not sure economic mobility is the only (or key) way to measure quality of life.

Note this chart below would suggest America has been on a decline in absolute mobility for a long time?

On this...not to say that things are healthy as they aren't.
But wouldn't around 50/50 doing better/worse than their parents be a sign of a society in a good situation with a great meritocracy?