This is how society dies

[The Brain]

When I was in school it was my responsibility to make sure I achieve a degree. Not the teachers'.

And it was the teachers' responsibility to guide you to your goal. As CC said, it's not a black/white situation at all.

Oh, I thought you were saying something related to what Yi said.

[merithyn]

If it's someone else's responsibility to make sure you achieve it seems like that eliminates the meaning of achievement, the pride of accomplishment.

Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree? 

When I was in school it was my responsibility to make sure I achieve a degree. Not the teachers'.

When I was in school, my teachers made it their responsibility to make sure I learned in order to get my degree.

[Monoriu]

I rarely spoke with my teachers while at school.  They marked my assignments, gave lectures.  But there was little interaction.  I can't imagine placing responsibility on them.  All my failings are on me and me alone. 

[Josquius]

It's interesting many of those who object to helping others frame this in terms of all the responsibility being on the helper.

[Malthus]

Fundamental disagreement with the article. The problem is not that people are too poor!

We are wealthier now, even for the average person, even for the median person, than we have ever been. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189

The problem is that, in the US in particular and in many other places as well, the nation as a whole has grown far more wealthy, and a disproportionate amount of that increase has gone into the hands of the super-rich. Society has become much more unequal. Growth in real median income has occurred, but very slowly.

At the same time, the public perception of how the average person is supposed to live reflects the lifestyle of the wealthy, social mobility has become far more difficult, and they feel like they live in an era of decreasing opportunity. They feel more "poor" even if, in absolute terms, they are not.

[Zanza]

I understood the article as lamenting the decline of public services, infrastructure and social state with the cause being a breakdown of social cohesion and too much focus on individual wealth. So stating individual wealth indicators went up does not address the point if the article as I understood it.

[Malthus]

I understood the article as lamenting the decline of public services, infrastructure and social state with the cause being a breakdown of social cohesion and too much focus on individual wealth. So stating individual wealth indicators went up does not address the point if the article as I understood it.

Way I read it, the article is claiming that the average person has gotten more poor, can't take care of basic needs, and that this is something that has developed over time - meaning that presumably people in the past were less poor and more able to take care of basic needs.

I do not dispute that there are problems, I just think the article focuses attention, in part, in the wrong place. Leaving aside the off-putting comparison to the Soviet Union.

Example quote:

" just like in the Soviet Union, basics are becoming both unavailable and unaffordable. What happens? People...die."

The idea expressed is that basics *were* available and are *becoming* unavailable - in short, that people are becoming poorer (to the point where they will begin to die).

The problem with this narrative is that it simply is not true, by any measure. Poverty was highest towards the end of the 1950s (ironically enough, the decade in which Americans felt most wealthy). It sharply declined, then flatlined (not great, but not in accordance with this article).

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

Historically, the official poverty rate in the United States had ranged from a high of 22.4 percent when it was first estimated for 1959 to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973. Since its initial rapid decline after 1964 with the launch of major War on Poverty programs, the poverty rate has fluctuated between around 11 and 15 percent.

[Admiral Yi]

Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree? 

Having teachers and mentors who's responsibility it is to make sure you achieve?  Sure, I think so.  That formulation renders me a passive recipient, takes away my agency.

[crazy canuck]

Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree? 

Having teachers and mentors who's responsibility it is to make sure you achieve?  Sure, I think so.  That formulation renders me a passive recipient, takes away my agency.

The options are not limited to an individual having total responsibility for their own success and others having total responsibility for that success.  It is also highly unlikely either of those two extremes is possible.

[Iormlund]

I understood the article as lamenting the decline of public services, infrastructure and social state with the cause being a breakdown of social cohesion and too much focus on individual wealth. So stating individual wealth indicators went up does not address the point if the article as I understood it.

Way I read it, the article is claiming that the average person has gotten more poor, can't take care of basic needs, and that this is something that has developed over time - meaning that presumably people in the past were less poor and more able to take care of basic needs.

I do not dispute that there are problems, I just think the article focuses attention, in part, in the wrong place. Leaving aside the off-putting comparison to the Soviet Union.

Example quote:

" just like in the Soviet Union, basics are becoming both unavailable and unaffordable. What happens? People...die."

The idea expressed is that basics *were* available and are *becoming* unavailable - in short, that people are becoming poorer (to the point where they will begin to die).

The problem with this narrative is that it simply is not true, by any measure. Poverty was highest towards the end of the 1950s (ironically enough, the decade in which Americans felt most wealthy). It sharply declined, then flatlined (not great, but not in accordance with this article).

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

Historically, the official poverty rate in the United States had ranged from a high of 22.4 percent when it was first estimated for 1959 to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973. Since its initial rapid decline after 1964 with the launch of major War on Poverty programs, the poverty rate has fluctuated between around 11 and 15 percent.

As someone whose job includes using statistics to confirm whatever is convenient in a given moment, I'd be wary of dismissing those claims based on standard measurements alone.

For example, in Spain the official inflation index gives a low weight to housing (about 14%). Yet most working and middle class households have to dedicate a lot more of their income than that. If you weighted inflation by net worth you might actually find that middle and working class income has indeed fallen in the last 20-25 years.

A similar analysis in the US should probably look into the evolution of healthcare (or lack of thereof) and education costs (access to which is quite important for social mobility).

Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree? 

Having teachers and mentors who's responsibility it is to make sure you achieve?  Sure, I think so.  That formulation renders me a passive recipient, takes away my agency.

What Tyr and CC said. Part of my job is training other engineers and tech staff. What would definitely take their agency away would be me not doing my part, leaving them to sink or swim by themselves.

[Valmy]

Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree? 

Having teachers and mentors who's responsibility it is to make sure you achieve?  Sure, I think so.  That formulation renders me a passive recipient, takes away my agency.

Don't all teachers get held accountable to some extent by how well their students do?

[Admiral Yi]

What Tyr and CC said. Part of my job is training other engineers and tech staff. What would definitely take their agency away would be me not doing my part, leaving them to sink or swim by themselves.

Yes, your job is to convey information, and if you fail to do that you would be failing your responsibility.  But that's not the statement I took exception to.

Do you think that "train" is synonymous with "assume responsibility for making sure they achieve?"  I personally think you can do your job perfectly and a trainee can say fuck this noise I don't give a shit.  That's not your responsibility.

[Oexmelin]

Why is the notion of responsibility so important?

[Valmy]

That's not your responsibility.

It is though. If enough of his trainees say fuck this noise I am listening to this punk, he will eventually lose his job as a trainer. A trainer who fails to train anybody will not be a trainer for long.

[Admiral Yi]

It is though. If enough of his trainees say fuck this noise I am listening to this punk, he will eventually lose his job as a trainer. A trainer who fails to train anybody will not be a trainer for long.

And if only one trainee says that, who's responsibility is that?