Languish.org

I'm curious to hear the Languish take on this article. (Emphasis is mine.)

https://eand.co/this-is-how-a-society-dies-35bdc3c0b854

QuoteWhen I ask my European friends to describe us — Americans, Brits, who I'll call Anglo-Americans in this essay — they shake their heads gently. And over and over, three themes emerge. They say we're a little thoughtless. They say we're selfish and arrogant. And they say that we're cruel and brutal.

I can't help but think there's more than a grain of truth. That they're being kind. Anglo-American society is now the world's preeminent example of willful self-destruction. It's jaw-dropping folly and stupidity is breathtaking to the rest of the world.

The hard truth is this. America and Britain aren't just collapsing by the day...they aren't even just choosing to collapse by the day. They're entering a death spiral, from which there's probably no return. Yes, really. Simple economics dictate that, just like they did for the Soviet Union — and I'll come to them.

And yet what's even weirder and more grotesque than that is that...wel...nobody much seems to have noticed. There's a deafening silence from pundits and elites and columnists and politicians on the joint self-destruction of the Anglo-American world. Nobody seems to have noticed: the only two rich societies in the world with falling life expectancies, incomes, savings, happiness, trust — every single social indicator you can imagine — are America and Britain. It's not one of history's most improbable coincidences that America and Britain are collapsing in eerily similar ways, at precisely the same time. It's a relationship. What connects the dots?

Let me pause to note that my European friends' first criticism — that we're thoughtless — is therefore accurate. We're not even capable of noticing — much less understanding — our twin collapse. Our entire thinking and leadership class seems not to have even noticed, like idiots grinning and dancing, setting their own house on fire. They are simply going on pretending it isn't happening — that the English speaking world isn't fast becoming something very much like the new Soviet Union.

So what caused this joint collapse? How did the English speaking world end up like the new Soviet Union? To understand that point, consider the fact that you yourself probably think that's an overstatement. But it's an empirical reality. The Soviet Union stagnated for thirty years. America's stagnated for fifty, and Britain for twenty. The Soviet Union couldn't provide basics for its citizens — hence the famous breadlines. In America, people beg each other for money to pay for insulin and antibiotics, decent food is unavailable in vast swathes of the country, and retirement and paying off one's debt are impossibilities: just like in the Soviet Union, basics are becoming both unavailable and unaffordable. What happens? People...die.

(The same is true in Britain. In both societies, upwards of 20% of children live in poverty, the middle class has imploded, and upward mobility has all but vanished. These are Soviet statistics — lethally real ones.)

Politics, too, has become a sclerotic Soviet affair. Anglo-American societies aren't really democracies in any sensible meaning of the word anymore. They're run by and for a class of elites, who could care less, literally, whether the average person lives or dies. In America, that class is a bizarre coterie of Ivy Leaguers pretending to be aw-shucks-good-ole-boys on the one side, like Ted Cruz, and Ivy Leaguers pretending to be do-gooders on the other, like Zuck and Silicon Valley. In Britain, it's the notorious public school boys, the Etonians and Oxbridge set.

That brings me to arrogance. What's astonishing about our elites is how...arrogant they are...and how ignorant they are...at precisely the same time. Finland just elected a 34 year old woman as a Prime Minister from the Social Democrats. Finland is a society that outperforms ours in every way — every way — imaginable. Finnish happiness is way, way higher — and so is life expectancy, mobility, savings, real incomes, trust, among others. And yet instead of learning a thing from a miracle like that, our elites profess to know a better way...while they've run our societies into the ground. What the? Hubris would be an understatement. I don't think the English language has a word for this weird, fatal combination of arrogance amidst ignorance. Maybe cocksure stupidity comes close.

And yet our elites have succeeded in one vital task — what an Emile Durkheim might have called "social reproduction." They've managed to reproduce society in their image. What does the average Anglo-American aspire to be, do, have? To be rich, powerful, careless, selfish, and dumb, now, mostly. We don't, as societies or cultures, value learning or knowledge or magnanimity or great and noble things, anymore. We shower millions on reality TV stars and billions on "investment bankers." The average person has become a tiny microcosm of the aspirations and norms of elites — they're not curious, empathetic, decent, humane, noble, kind, in pursuit of wisdom, truth, beauty, meaning, purpose. We've become cruel, indecent, obscene, comically shallow, and astonishingly foolish people.

That's not some kind of jeremiad. It's an objective, easily observed truth. Who else in a rich society denies their neighbours healthcare and retirement? Nobody. Who else denies their own kids education? Nobody. Who else denies themselves childcare and elderly care? Nobody. Who else doesn't want safety nets, opportunities, mobility, protection, savings, higher incomes? Nobody. Literally nobody on planet earth wants worse lives excepts us. We're the only people on earth who thwart our own social progress, over and over again — and cheer about it.

How did we become these people? How did we become tiny microcosms of our arrogant, ignorant, breathtakingly stupid elites? Because we are perpetually battling for self-preservation. Life has become a kind of brutal combat to the death. For jobs, for healthcare, for money, for the tiniest shreds of resources necessary to live. We wake up and fight one another for these things, over and over again. That is what our lives amount to now — gladiatorial combat. Meanwhile, elites and billionaires sit back and enjoy not just the spectacle — but the winnings.

People who are battling for self-preservation can't take care of anyone else. If I ask the average Brit or American to consider paying for their society's healthcare, education, elderly care, childcare, increasingly, the answer is: LOL. In America, it always has been. Why is that? The reason couldn't be simpler. People can't even take care of themselves and their own. How can they take care of anyone else — let alone everyone else?

The average person is living right at the edge. Not at the edge of the middle class dream and an even better one. But at the edge of poverty and destitution. They struggle to pay basic bills and never make ends meet. They can't afford to educate their children, and retire, or retire and have healthcare, and so on. Let me say it again: the average person can't take care of themselves and their own — so how can they take care of anyone else, let alone everyone else?

A more technical, formal way to say that is: our societies have now become too poor to afford public goods and social systems. But public goods and social systems are what make a modern, rich society. What's a society without decent healthcare, schools, universities, libraries, education, parks, transport, media — available to all, without life-crippling "debt"? It's not a modern society at all. But more and more, it's not America or Britain, either.

What makes European societies — which are far, far more successful than ours — successful is that people are not battling for self-preservation, and so they are able to cooperate to better one another instead. At least not nearly so much and so lethally as we are. They are assured of survival. They therefore have resources to share with others. They don't have to battle for the very things we take away from each other — because they simply give them to one another. That has kept them richer than us, too. The average American now lives in effective poverty — unable to afford healthcare, housing, and basic bills. They must choose. The European doesn't have to, precisely because they invested in one another — and those investment made them richer than us.

We are caught in a death spiral now. A vicious cycle from which there is probably no escape. The average person is too poor to fund the very things — the only things — which can offer him a better life: healthcare, education, childcare, healthcare, and so on. The average person is too poor to fund public goods and social systems. The average person is too poor now to able to give anything to anyone else, to invest anything in anyone else. He lives and dies in debt to begin with — so what does he have left over to give back, put back, invest?

A more technical, formal way to put all that is this. Europeans distributed their social surplus more fairly than we did. They didn't give all the winnings to idiot billionaires like Zucks and con men like Trump. They kept middle and working classes better off than us. As a result, those middle and working classes were able to invest in expansive public goods and social systems. Those things — good healthcare, education, transport, media — kept life improving for everyone. That virtuous circle of investing a fairly distributed social surplus created a true economic miracle over just one human lifetime: Europe rose from the ashes of war to enjoy history's highest living standards, ever, period.

That's changing in Europe, to be sure. But that is because Europe is becoming Americanized, Anglicized. It has a generation of leaders foolish enough to follow our lead — now remember the greatest lesson of European history, which is one of the greatest lessons of history, full stop. That lesson goes like this.

People who are made to live right at the edge must battle each other for self-preservation. But such people have nothing left to give one another. And that way, a society enters a death spiral of poverty — like ours have.

People who can't make ends meet can't even invest in themselves — let alone anyone else. Such a society has to eat through whatever public goods and social systems it has, just to survive. It never develops or expands new ones.

The result is that a whole society grows poorer and poorer. Unable to invest in themselves or one another, people's only real way out is to fight each other for self-preservation, by taking away their neighbor's rights, privileges, and opportunities — instead of being able to give any new ones to anyone. Why give everyone healthcare and education when you can't even afford your own? How are you supposed to?

Society melts down into a spiral of extremism and fascism, as ever increasing poverty brings hate, violence, fear, and rage with it. Trust erodes, democracy corrodes, social bonds are torn apart, and the only norms left are Darwinian-fascist ones: the strong survive, and the weak must perish.

(Let me spend a second or two on that last point. As they become poorer, people begin to distrust each other — and then hate each other. Why wouldn't they? After all, the grim reality is that they actually are fighting each other for existence, for the basic resources of life, like medicine, money, and food.

As distrust becomes hate, people who have nothing to give anyways end up having no reason to even hope to give anything back to anyone else. Why give anything to those people you are fighting, every single day, for the most meagre resources necessary to live? Why give the very people who denied you healthcare and education anything? Isn't the only real point of life to show that you beat them by having a bigger house, faster car, prettier wife or husband?)

That is how a society dies. That is the death spiral of a rich society. In technical terms, it goes like this. A social surplus isn't distributed equitably. That leaves the average person too poor to invest anything back in society. He's just battling for self-preservation, and the stakes are life or death. But that battle itself only breeds even more poverty. Because without investment, nurturance, nourishment — nothing can grow. Having become poor, the average person only grows poorer — because he will never have decent public goods or social systems, let alone the rights and privileges and jobs and careers and trajectories they become and lead to.[/b]

A society of people so poor they have nothing left over to invest in one another is dying. It goes from prosperity to poverty, from optimism to pessimism, from cohesion to distrust and hate, from peace to violence — at light speed, in the space of a generation. That's America and Britain's story today, just as it was the Soviet Union's, yesterday, and Weimar Germany's, before that.

You can see how a society dies — with horrific, brutal clarity — in the self-destruction of America and Britain. The hate-filled vitriol of Trumpism, the barely-hidden hate of Brexit. Why wouldn't people who have grown suddenly poor hate everyone else? Why wouldn't they blame anyone and everyone they can — from Mexicans to Muslims to Europeans — for their own decline? The truth, as always, is harder. America and Britain's collapse is nobody's fault — nobody's — but their own.

They are in a death spiral now, but no opponent or adversary brought them there. It was their own fault, and yet they still go on choosing it. They don't know any other way now. Their elites succeeded at making the average person truly, fervently believe that battling perpetually for self-preservation was the only way a society could exist.

And though it's too late to escape for them, let us hope that the rest of the world, from Europe to Asia to Africa, learns the lesson of the sad, gruesome, stupid, astonishing tragedy of self-inflicted collapse.

I stopped reading when the writer said that the US and the UK are just like the Soviet Union. Has the writer any idea what the Soviet Union was like?

Quote from: merithyn on January 05, 2020, 02:21:28 PM
I'm curious to hear the Languish take on this article. (Emphasis is mine.)

https://eand.co/this-is-how-a-society-dies-35bdc3c0b854

Quote...snip... .

Thanks for that Meri, some interesting points, though I'm not sure I'd agree with all of them.

Though there's certain something to be said for not giving the whip-hand to intentionally ignorant, self-destructive people who can't see much in the world to be positive about.

The  historical comparisons are off, especially the Soviet Union, Europe is seen with way too rosy glasses, there is some considerable hyperbole. That said, some of what the article is about matches my impression. I don't really understand the deep mistrust of the state in the US and why people seem to be willing to vote for even less public good compared to private wealth aggregation. 

I don't really understand the thesis. We are poor so we lashed out and elected Trump? I mean it wasn't the poorest who elected him. The divide is cultural, not really a class one.

Having said that my faith in my country and its people have declined dramatically over the past five years. Why Syt's relatives and company act and think like they do is a mystery to me but I don't think it is the anguished cry of the underclass. But hey I could be wrong.

There's an increasing trend for people to not only be uncaring about other people but actively hostile to them.
Even if somebody else having a slightly better life doesn't hurt you in any way it is still to be stopped as you don't benefit.

I do despair for the country.  As in most things its far easier to destroy than to rebuild. And that's assuming everyone is pushing the same way. Most worrying is I strongly suspect the Conservatives have realised poverty and a lack of opportunity in small towns is a great way to breed supporters.

The young generation at least seem to have their heads largely screwed on right. But it'll be a long time to wait for the boomers to die.

Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2020, 02:32:33 PM
I don't really understand the thesis. We are poor so we lashed out and elected Trump? I mean it wasn't the poorest who elected him. The divide is cultural, not really a class one.

Having said that my faith in my country and its people have declined dramatically over the past five years. Why Syt's relatives and company act and think like they do is a mystery to me but I don't think it is the anguished cry of the underclass. But hey I could be wrong.

Right, I think it was Bill Maher who pointed out that the median income for a Trump voter was like $75,000/yr, which is still a decent chunk higher than the U.S. average. In his words "they aren't poor, they just make poor decisions."

I think his comparison to the Soviet Union is ridiculous. Maybe it's the propaganda of my age, but I don't remember the USSR ever being strong economically. The bread lines were always there. The lack of public support was always there. It was never some economic powerhouse.

Additionally, his lack of understanding of the US shows. He doesn't mention our "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. Even at our richest in the 1950s, the US refused the concept of universal healthcare that other countries took on without blinking. We added support for the very sick, the very poor, and the very old, but no one else "deserved" that kind of support.

Then the US took away the springboards that gave people the opportunity to actually be strong enough, smart enough, and capable enough to actually rise about their backgrounds. College became impossible for most. Healthcare can - and does - destroy families. Food is plentiful, but the cheapest food makes us the sickest.

This article strikes me as a great place to start this conversation, but it's rather simplistic in its conclusions.

Quotepull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality.

The original (and literal) meaning of that idiom is to attempt something impossible. 

It's just my outsiders look, but it looks to me like most Americans have resignated and accepted the huge disparity in chances and outcomes in their society and don't do anything about that. That is hardly pulling yourself up by your bootstraps - at least not at a societal level.

Valmy's point to start with.  The angry and mean-spirited underclass might explain BoJo and Brexit but it doesn't really apply to Donald and general US retardation.

Then when the author started on "social surplus" I reached for the channel changer.  "Society" doesn't create wealth and "society" doesn't collectively decide how it gets distributed.  Millions of individuals make personal choices on how to spend their money and time, and that's how "that idiot billionaire Zuckerberg" got rich.

With the Soviet Union comparison the main thing I can see is the lack of trust in the system.
It's just insane how much gammon take for granted that there's massive corruption and back handers at every layer of government and there's just no point in politics. Whenever the council makes a decision they don't like its because someone was bribed.

More than actual economic decline or any of that this was what ultimately did it for the Soviets. Everyone regarded the whole thing as a joke. There was just no faith. Communism was spoken of only in snarky tones.

Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:52:41 PM
The original (and literal) meaning of that idiom is to attempt something impossible. 

My understanding is it was (is?) a trick used by telephone linemen to climb up poles.  So tedious and slow but still possible.

I could be wrong.

edit: Google seems to be backing you up.

Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:52:41 PM

Quotepull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality.

The original (and literal) meaning of that idiom is to attempt something impossible. 

It's just my outsiders look, but it looks to me like most Americans have resignated and accepted the huge disparity in chances and outcomes in their society and don't do anything about that. That is hardly pulling yourself up by your bootstraps - at least not at a societal level.

Here's a weird, but I think accurate, example of what I mean by that. In the historical group that I'm part of, it's possible to be "knighted" for service. The local group in Portland believes that it's the responsibility of those who have already been knighted to help those who have not become the best that they can be. They may not all be knighted, but it our responsibility to help them reach their potential, whatever that may be.

When I brought this up to my friend in the Midwest, he was appalled. He felt that it was 100% the responsibility of the person who wasn't yet knighted to figure out what they're missing, make the effort to fix those things, and then wait patiently for the already-knighted folks to accept them as their own. The onus fell on the person who wasn't part of the group to figure out how to be part of that group.

My friend's comments show what I mean by "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". It's no one else's responsibility to help you be the best you can be. That's entirely on you to figure out for yourself. The rest of us will decide when or if you've reached our expectations.

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.

The USSR comparison reminds me of Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire. He predicted the fall of the USSR in the mid-70s based and then followed up in the mid-00s with that book predicting the decline of the US. Both were based on similar factors such as infant mortality increasing and mistaking increasing military activity as continuing/increasing strength rather than a cover for decline. It's worth a read - also some interesting stuff on how historic family structure affects modern societies.

QuoteThe young generation at least seem to have their heads largely screwed on right. But it'll be a long time to wait for the boomers to die.

The hippies went on to be the core of the Thatcher and Reagan revolutions. The younger generation are always more left-wing and more internationalist. It'll be interesting to see if it lasts.

But I think part of the challenge for society is how do we deal with the demographics. I think Italy and Japan are the most extreme where the over 65s are very close to being the largest single age cohort, which I think changes democratic politics. I don't know how you address it (I've read in Japan some people have proposed basically allowing young people to have two votes).

I often think about a vox pop from the 2017 election of two elderly people who complained that "they're all talking about spending money on education and schools - well that's nothing for us old folks" - and worry :ph34r:

QuoteValmy's point to start with.  The angry and mean-spirited underclass might explain BoJo and Brexit but it doesn't really apply to Donald and general US retardation.

I don't know that it's mean-spirited.

Also it's a cliche just as it is in the US. Those voters mattered and were the difference betwen Brexit or not/Johnson or not/Trump or not. But the core in each case is the well off. I'd like to read a lot more about why traditional stock-broker belt communities went that way - despite their comfort and affluence.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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.

Very alien attitude to me - though I've never been big on that sort of stuff :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 03:34:43 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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.

Very alien attitude to me - though I've never been big on that sort of stuff :mellow:

I'm sure one day you will achieve something. :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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.

There is a lot of space between the individual being solely responsible for their own success (the view expressed by Meri's Midwest friend) and individual success being responsibility of someone else.   The American ethos of rugged individualism seems to reject the middle ground of providing assistance for an individual to succeed for too readily.

From personal experience my sense of achievement and pride of accomplishment of coming from a poor family to where I am now is not diminished in the slightest by having public health care, a subsidized university education and all kinds of moral and practical assistance along the way.

How did the English speaking world end up like the new Soviet Union?


Answer, it didn't.  Look at Canada and New Zealand....  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2020, 03:50:32 PM
How did the English speaking world end up like the new Soviet Union?


Answer, it didn't.  Look at Canada and New Zealand....  :P

Yeah I mean I don't even recognise much of the stuff about the UK given, you know, the NHS, state education etc which are all very popular and funded by tax. The stuff about life-crippling debt for example is also just not true.

I think he's writing from the US and doing the whole Trump = Brexit thing and then saying the underlying cause and issues must be the same. Which I don't think is terrifically accurate.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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.

Does it really, though? I mean, you still have to do the work. You still have to make the changes. You still have to be the one to make things happen. You're just not doing it completely alone. There's support, help, and guidance.

I don't think that diminishes the sense of accomplishment. I think it enhances it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2020, 03:56:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2020, 03:50:32 PM
How did the English speaking world end up like the new Soviet Union?


Answer, it didn't.  Look at Canada and New Zealand....  :P

Yeah I mean I don't even recognise much of the stuff about the UK given, you know, the NHS, state education etc which are all very popular and funded by tax. The stuff about life-crippling debt for example is also just not true.

I think he's writing from the US and doing the whole Trump = Brexit thing and then saying the underlying cause and issues must be the same. Which I don't think is terrifically accurate.

He's a Brit with Pakistani parents. It's clear from his writing that he really doesn't understand the US at all. I'd hoped he had more insight in the UK. Guess not.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2020, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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.

There is a lot of space between the individual being solely responsible for their own success (the view expressed by Meri's Midwest friend) and individual success being responsibility of someone else.   The American ethos of rugged individualism seems to reject the middle ground of providing assistance for an individual to succeed for too readily.

Exactly.

Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:32:09 PM
The  historical comparisons are off, especially the Soviet Union, Europe is seen with way too rosy glasses, there is some considerable hyperbole. That said, some of what the article is about matches my impression. I don't really understand the deep mistrust of the state in the US and why people seem to be willing to vote for even less public good compared to private wealth aggregation.

It does seem to undermine the argument that nobody notices what is destroying Anglo-American society when the author ignores or doesn't know about the same problems that plague Europe.

The US has faced these problems before, in the late 19th century and the early 20th century.

Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2020, 02:32:09 PM
The  historical comparisons are off, especially the Soviet Union, Europe is seen with way too rosy glasses, there is some considerable hyperbole. That said, some of what the article is about matches my impression. I don't really understand the deep mistrust of the state in the US and why people seem to be willing to vote for even less public good compared to private wealth aggregation.

I think there's a bit of a shift in the US? I've read about people voting for higher taxes to pay teachers for example and understand there's been a huge reaction against the extreme anti-statist politics in places it's actually been implemented - like Kansas(?).

Canada is too French to count as part of the Anglosphere I guess. :bowler:

As to achievement, everyone has teachers, coaches, mentors, guides, parents ... Except for Randian midwesters, who do everything themselves.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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?  :huh:

QuoteThe hippies went on to be the core of the Thatcher and Reagan revolutions. The younger generation are always more left-wing and more internationalist. It'll be interesting to see if it lasts.

Hippies are a pretty exagated part of the 60s though, especially in the uk.
Even if we stretch the definition to people with hippyish tendencies I don't think you'd be looking at even half the age group in the US.

Younger people have always historically tended to be more left wing. It's why things generally keep moving left. Though I don't think the divide was ever to the level we see today. I would absolutely love to see actual days from elections 50 years ago on breakdown by age.

I think what we are seeing now with the millenials to some extent and very definitely the digital nomads is a completely different over-generation to what came before.
Just as there was a radical break several generations ago with the very emergence of teenagers as a separate thing, today we are seeing a similarly huge transformation.

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:42:02 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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?  :huh:

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

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2020, 07:48:55 AM
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.

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:59:00 AM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2020, 07:48:55 AM
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.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2020, 07:48:55 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:42:02 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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?  :huh:

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2020, 10:37:55 AM
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

QuoteHistorically, 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.

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:42:02 AM
Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree?  :huh:

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2020, 01:21:37 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:42:02 AM
Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree?  :huh:

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.

Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2020, 10:45:15 AM

Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2020, 10:37:55 AM
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

QuoteHistorically, 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).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2020, 01:21:37 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:42:02 AM
Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree?  :huh:

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2020, 01:21:37 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 07:42:02 AM
Having teachers and mentors robs you of the pride of getting a degree?  :huh:

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?

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 01:49:27 PM
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.

Why is the notion of responsibility so important?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2020, 02:04:16 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2020, 02:06:04 PM
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?

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 06, 2020, 02:05:16 PM
Why is the notion of responsibility so important?

It's an aspect of virtue.

How so?

Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2020, 01:49:27 PM

Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2020, 10:45:15 AM

Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2020, 10:37:55 AM
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

QuoteHistorically, 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).

If you follow the links, you will see that they discuss that. They talk about something known as the "Supplemental Poverty Measure". Here's an article linked to the second one, which is entitled "The Supplemental Poverty Measure: A Better Measure for Poverty in America?"

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/supplemental-poverty-measure-better-measure-poverty-america

An extract:

QuoteThe official measure has further been criticized for not considering the significant demographic, economic, and welfare policy changes that have occurred over the past five decades. Food, for example, comprised about a third of the average family's budget when the official measure was instituted in the 1960s. Today it comprises less than half of that.

The official thresholds are also left insensitive to other expenditures such as housing, health care, and child care that today make up a larger percentage of a typical family's budget than it did before. The measure also does not account for the increasing number of poverty alleviation programs that have been launched to help low-income families since the 1960s that provide in-kind or after-tax benefits (Blank, 2008).

Point being that the whole reason why poverty advocates liked this measure is that it showed considerable improvements as a result of new programs in the US, improvements which were not tracked by the "official" poverty line:

QuoteThe Supplemental Poverty Measure

Although Orshansky developed her measure of poverty based on the best data available at that time, the question is if it provides a clear picture of how economic, social, and policy changes affect economic need in the United States today. The official poverty rates may in fact lead us to believe that "public spending on the poor had little effect" (Blank, 2008, p. 238).

In the early 1990s, Congress commissioned a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address key shortcomings of the official measure. In early 2010, the Obama administration adopted the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that largely follows the methods recommended by the NAS Panel.

Following the Panel's recommendations, the SPM defines poverty as the lack of economic resources for consumption of basic needs such as food, housing, clothing, and utilities (FCSU). To determine family resources, gross money income from private and public sources is supplemented with benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and tax credits. Deducted from family income are medical out-of-pocket expenses including health insurance premiums, income and Social Security payroll taxes, child support payments, work-related expenses and child care costs.

Instead of using a food plan, the SPM poverty thresholds are based on expenditures on FCSU plus a small amount to allow for additional expenses. These thresholds are further adjusted for different family sizes and compositions, housing status, and geographic differences in housing costs (Short, 2012).

- Emphasis added.

A more nuanced understanding of poverty was created to actually track the impact of various poverty alleviation programs in the US, to avoid reaching the conclusion that they did not impact on poverty, which conclusion could be rationally reached based on the old stats. Some expenses, like housing and health care, have increased over time, while others (namely, food) have radically decreased (which is in part why the US can have simultaneous poverty and obesity among the same population).

I agree that social mobility is a huge problem in the US, which is exactly why I believe the article has put the emphasis in the wrong place. Poverty is not radically increasing in the US; it has largely decreased since the 1950s. Nor have people in the US grown more 'cruel and uncaring', whatever that means. The problem is that social mobility has become much more difficult and the classes more static. This will not, contrary to the article, result in people dying in large numbers, but it will lead to (and has lead to) all sorts of social ills.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 06, 2020, 02:52:16 PM
How so?

I don't understand the question.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2020, 02:15:03 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2020, 02:06:04 PM
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?

GM: coach, the team did not do well this year

Coach: Yeah, but I was great.  My game plans and practices were amazing.  That was my responsibility.  How the players performed on the field was their responsibility.

GM: but this is a team sport!

Coach: you don't get it.  If I help them to achieve greatness it will undermine their sense of self worth.  It is important that the players succeed on their own.

GM: I am beginning to realize why this team performed so poorly. 




Insert society for team.

Does anyone actually read these days?

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2020, 03:58:08 PM
Does anyone actually read these days?

Why do we have to accept Yi's false dichotomy.

Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2020, 10:37:55 AM
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.

Yeah, same. And in particular the the erosion of the common good has reached the point that basic services people need are no longer being delivered.

I think there is some truth to that in the UK case (mainly due to austerity's focus on local government).

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2020, 10:37:55 AM
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.

Yeah, same. And in particular the the erosion of the common good has reached the point that basic services people need are no longer being delivered.

I think there is some truth to that in the UK case (mainly due to austerity's focus on local government).

I wonder how much urbanization plays a role.  Think about the bystander effect.  If many people see someone who needs help it is very unlikely anyone will help.  If there are few people around the chances of any of those people helping goes up dramatically.  Perhaps in smaller communities there is a greater sense of the over all social good and helping someone out is not viewed as something that will harm them or society.  But in a more anonymous large urban environment people may be more apt to only think about themselves?

I think the opposite though in terms of urban/rural. I think there's far less sense of rugged individualism in a city. There may be less individual philanthropy/charitable efforts to help people in cities (though that might be wrong), but I think cities tend to support (and pay for) government providing basic services, the more rural a community the more likely they are to oppose (and rely on) those basic services.

Willing to bet on a per capita basis that rural US residents receive more public money and subsidies then urban residents.  Especially when farm subsidies are taken into account.  Of course the perception - and the self-perception in particular - may diverge significantly from the reality.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2020, 10:37:55 AM
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.

Yeah, same. And in particular the the erosion of the common good has reached the point that basic services people need are no longer being delivered.

I think there is some truth to that in the UK case (mainly due to austerity's focus on local government).

The problem with the article is that it is largely fact-free and based on purely subjective impressions. Many of them are incorrect (as in, that poverty is getting worse; as already stated, this is untrue - it got much better in the early 1960s and has stagnated since).

My guess is that if you polled people as to who spent a greater percentage of their GDP on social spending of the following nations - the Netherlands, Canada, and the US - most people would say the Netherlands spend the greatest percentage, followed by Canada and lastly, the USA. The truth is that the order is exactly the opposite. The USA spends most, followed by Canada, and lastly, the Netherlands.

https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm

the UK is almost exactly at the OECD average (and higher than the US).

Sure, but that's not quite what I mean and it can be misleading - the US government spends more on healthcare than the UK government does. Also, obviously, a large and increasing chunk of "social spending" is pensions. So to take the UK examples there's a triple lock on state pensions - they will increase annual by the highest of: inflation, wage growth or 2%. There are also other benefits for the elderly which tend not to be means tested (free TV licence, fuel etc).

In the UK the coalition decided to cut local government spending hugely, on average by 20%. But they did in a way that was meant to be "fair" but actually cut budgets for poor council areas a lot more. So on average it's 20% but there's a lot of variation. Basically it was a political play - austerity by stealth because they'd just be cutting the local government budget, it would be up to all of those councils to make the difficult choices.

Councils in the UK mainly spend money on education, roads, social care (adults and children), environment, public health, housing, plus culture (typically libraries, parks, playgrounds etc) - most of this is for services they are legally required to provide, but that central government isn't legally required to fund. Because they've had their budget cut so much councils used up their reserves pretty quick and had to make fairly deep cuts. Generally they understandably chose to protect children's social care, but every other category has been cut on average from about 10% (adult social care) to over 50% of the budget. And these cuts are affecting things that people think are really basic government services: collecting the bins, maintaining the roads, environmental stuff (like street cleaning, preventing fly-tipping), providing shelters for rough sleepers (which has increased by over 150% since 2010).

When those sort of basic universal services fray I think that has an impact on social cohesion, which is distinct from overal social spending which tends to be far more noticed by affected people.

What does social care mean?

Loads of different things. For children's social care it's stuff like child placement through fostering or adoption, support etc for kids taken into care, support (outside of schools) for kids with physical or mental disabilities, social workers for families.

For adults it's similar so support for people with physical or mental disabilities, social workers, support for carers, support for women (and children) escaping domestic violence and also caring for the elderly, especially if they have dementia, this is a big growing cost pressure on councils.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2020, 03:12:15 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 06, 2020, 02:52:16 PM
How so?

I don't understand the question.

How is it an aspect of virtue?

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 06, 2020, 11:08:45 PM
How is it an aspect of virtue?

Because fulfilling one's responsibilities leads to positive outcomes.

I don't follow.

Are you talking about duty (I have a responsibility towards my children, my hierarchy, my students) or are we talking responsibility as in, I am responsible for my fate?

Quote. In the UK the coalition decided to cut local government spending hugely, on average by 20%. But they did in a way that was meant to be "fair" but actually cut budgets for poor council areas a lot more. So on average it's 20% but there's a lot of variation. Basically it was a political play - austerity by stealth because they'd just be cutting the local government budget, it would be up to all of those councils to make the difficult choices.

And get all the blame.
It's truly insane how much shit gets thrown at councils for everything that's wrong. This was one of the major factors in labours fall at the last election, along with Corbyn the major factor.
It really has me considering whether the smart thing is  to vote tory at the local elections. If they run a Council then at least then the blame would go towards the right party. Though their taking control would probably coincidentally align with an uptick in funding. Sigh.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 02:06:41 AM
I don't follow.

Are you talking about duty (I have a responsibility towards my children, my hierarchy, my students) or are we talking responsibility as in, I am responsible for my fate?

The former, though one could argue the latter is a subset of the former.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 07:26:21 PM
Sure, but that's not quite what I mean and it can be misleading - the US government spends more on healthcare than the UK government does. Also, obviously, a large and increasing chunk of "social spending" is pensions. So to take the UK examples there's a triple lock on state pensions - they will increase annual by the highest of: inflation, wage growth or 2%. There are also other benefits for the elderly which tend not to be means tested (free TV licence, fuel etc).

In the UK the coalition decided to cut local government spending hugely, on average by 20%. But they did in a way that was meant to be "fair" but actually cut budgets for poor council areas a lot more. So on average it's 20% but there's a lot of variation. Basically it was a political play - austerity by stealth because they'd just be cutting the local government budget, it would be up to all of those councils to make the difficult choices.

Councils in the UK mainly spend money on education, roads, social care (adults and children), environment, public health, housing, plus culture (typically libraries, parks, playgrounds etc) - most of this is for services they are legally required to provide, but that central government isn't legally required to fund. Because they've had their budget cut so much councils used up their reserves pretty quick and had to make fairly deep cuts. Generally they understandably chose to protect children's social care, but every other category has been cut on average from about 10% (adult social care) to over 50% of the budget. And these cuts are affecting things that people think are really basic government services: collecting the bins, maintaining the roads, environmental stuff (like street cleaning, preventing fly-tipping), providing shelters for rough sleepers (which has increased by over 150% since 2010).

When those sort of basic universal services fray I think that has an impact on social cohesion, which is distinct from overal social spending which tends to be far more noticed by affected people.

Again, it is also important to look at overall facts. Fortunately this site breaks these down somewhat.

Pension spending:

https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/pension-spending.htm#indicator-chart

UK is below the OECD average (remember that as a total of spending, it was average). The nations truly hammered by pension spending are Greece and Italy.

Social spending:

https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm#indicator-chart

UK is slightly above OECD average.

No doubt you are correct and the devil is in the details of how these pies are sliced as between various layers of government ... but these facts do not support the thesis in the OP, namely that the Anglo nations are uniquely cruel in terms of overall social assistance.

Again, in my opinion, the true problem lies elsewhere: in stagnation of social mobility, in the upper class seizing almost all of the increase in wealth, etc.

The article is also a bit too harsh on the USSR.  Soviet citizens didn't have access to lots of consumer choices and snazzy brands but it did a pretty good job of supplying basics like shelter, food, public transport. The USSR did have problems with scarcity of goods and rationing by queuing but the postwar state avoided actual famines.  Life expectancy did dip slightly in the late 70s but it was trending back up under Gorby before taking a nose dive after the collapse.  The USSR even displayed some institutional flexibility with two major political transitions in 40 years - first from the Stalinist terror state to the Brezhnevian bureaucratic state and then again with the Gorbachev reforms, although the latter ultimately resulted in the system's dissolution.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2020, 06:18:34 PM
I think the opposite though in terms of urban/rural. I think there's far less sense of rugged individualism in a city. There may be less individual philanthropy/charitable efforts to help people in cities (though that might be wrong), but I think cities tend to support (and pay for) government providing basic services, the more rural a community the more likely they are to oppose (and rely on) those basic services.

Interesting point.  We don't see that effect as much here because much of what is done at the local level in the UK is the responsibility of the Provinces in Canada.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 09:44:55 AM
The former, though one could argue the latter is a subset of the former.

Both seem to bleed into one another quite a bit, which is, I suppose, why this notion to me is highly problematic. The reason I ask is because ascribing responsibility to one's isolated success seems a fraught proposition; but associating such responsibility to virtue allows one to feel either smug about one's own chance, or to be indifferent to the suffering of others.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 11:40:05 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 09:44:55 AM
The former, though one could argue the latter is a subset of the former.

Both seem to bleed into one another quite a bit, which is, I suppose, why this notion to me is highly problematic. The reason I ask is because ascribing responsibility to one's isolated success seems a fraught proposition; but associating such responsibility to virtue allows one to feel either smug about one's own chance, or to be indifferent to the suffering of others.

One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

Indeed, but it seems a core tenet in certain political outlooks.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 11:40:05 AM
Both seem to bleed into one another quite a bit, which is, I suppose, why this notion to me is highly problematic. The reason I ask is because ascribing responsibility to one's isolated success seems a fraught proposition; but associating such responsibility to virtue allows one to feel either smug about one's own chance, or to be indifferent to the suffering of others.

Ascribing responsibility to one's isolated success may indeed be a fraught proposition but I'm very unsure of how you got there from what I said.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 11:57:52 AM
Ascribing responsibility to one's isolated success may indeed be a fraught proposition but I'm very unsure of how you got there from what I said.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
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.

It seems as if it's very important that the responsibility to one's success be correctly ascribed, lest it eliminates the meaning of achievement, the pride of accomplishment. Or that someone' failures becomes your cross to bear - you failed in your duty. Thus, it seems a lot hinges upon the notion of responsibility - despite the fact that it appears quite difficult to ascribe properly.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, my comment is not simply directed at you. I agree with you: my responsibility - my duty - to my students, is to teach them, at the best of my ability. Their success is out of my hands - because some of it is in theirs. But some of it lies in all sorts of other circumstances upon which they have no control, some quite favorable (born in affluent families), some over which they have some measure of control (prepare for a stupid certification exam). In these circumstances, ascribing responsibility may be an interesting exercise, and one that social scientists do all the time ("society" vs "individual"), but it's become more than an interesting exercise: it's become a core tenet of political ideology, one that determines how resources are distributed, and in which what remains quite uncertain, and philosophically delicate, has become expressed with the language of self-evident certainty.   

Sure, people can commit the error of being born on third base and thinking they hit a home run, but that's not intrinsic to the belief that people should fulfill  their responsibilities.  And the possibility that people will commit this error has to be weighed against the pathology of thinking that everything is someone else's fault.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 11:40:05 AM
Both seem to bleed into one another quite a bit, which is, I suppose, why this notion to me is highly problematic. The reason I ask is because ascribing responsibility to one's isolated success seems a fraught proposition; but associating such responsibility to virtue allows one to feel either smug about one's own chance, or to be indifferent to the suffering of others.

It may well be that an individual has no responsibility for their own success, whether assisted or not, but it is human nature to ascribe more virtue to the individual who succeeds in a given situation than one who fails in the same position.  The kid from the slums who gets the Harvard scholarship and earns a law degree is generally considered, for better or worse, more virtuous than her identical twin who gets the same scholarship, fails to work as hard, and flunks out.

It certainly speaks well for your egalitarianism that you would disassociate virtue from effort and accomplishment, but I think you are rowing against the tide on that one.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

That's probably why that strawman argument is so unpersuasive; no sane person thinks that they can ascribe their success entirely to themselves, nor do that for others.

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:44:30 PMit is human nature to ascribe more virtue to the individual who succeeds in a given situation than one who fails in the same position.

Arguments of human nature have a habit of changing substantially according to time and place. Which tends to undermine their... nature.

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:49:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

That's probably why that strawman argument is so unpersuasive; no sane person thinks that they can ascribe their success entirely to themselves, nor do that for others.

And yet Yi did

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:49:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

That's probably why that strawman argument is so unpersuasive; no sane person thinks that they can ascribe their success entirely to themselves, nor do that for others.

50% of your countrymen think that way.

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:44:30 PM
but it is human nature to ascribe more virtue to the individual who succeeds in a given situation than one who fails in the same position. 

True but definitions of what constitutes success are not historically invariant.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 12:42:00 PM
Sure, people can commit the error of being born on third base and thinking they hit a home run, but that's not intrinsic to the belief that people should fulfill  their responsibilities.  And the possibility that people will commit this error has to be weighed against the pathology of thinking that everything is someone else's fault.

Why is one a pathology, and one simply is an error? Research has shown that affluent people have succeeded in convincing themselves that their affluent position is due to their own efforts, and the failures of other, of their own damn fault. Worse, they have succeeded in convincing poorer people of the same. Even in laboratory games when this affluence was artificially created through a totally random lottery.

People sure should fulfill their responsibilities. If everyone did, all the time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem is when we do not, or cannot, or when we have contradictory responsibilities, which is almost all the time. Add then, the additional problem of when people fail, whether from their own mistakes or from collective failures. What are we to do then? It seems to me that we want to ascribe responsibility to assign support to the worthy, rather than the needy. But then, we run back into the problem of ascribing said responsibility correctly.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 07, 2020, 12:57:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:49:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

That's probably why that strawman argument is so unpersuasive; no sane person thinks that they can ascribe their success entirely to themselves, nor do that for others.

50% of your countrymen think that way.

That's generous. I'd argue far more than 50% think this way. Probably closer to 75%. Even Democrats can - and do - have this attitude.

One thing that I think is getting lost in the weeds is that the individual is the focus in all of these discussions, when what we really want to see is society as a whole to do better.

Maybe it is better for the individual to achieve success entirely on their own, but society succeeds when more people reach their fullest potential. So, as in my example, when the goal is to get the most people going as far as they can in order to better everyone, allowing those who can't do it on their own for whatever the reason fail, society as a whole suffers. That's the point of the article, as I understand it, nitpicks ignored.

In the US and UK, the overriding belief that people should rise or fall on their own merits doesn't actually benefit all of society, which leads to more and more people unable to rise. It becomes a death spiral, which is exactly where we are right now. That prevailing attitude isn't seen in most of Europe, and so as a society, they've managed to lift more people up, creating an environment that allows others to go higher.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 01:05:51 PM
Why is one a pathology, and one simply is an error? Research has shown that affluent people have succeeded in convincing themselves that their affluent position is due to their own efforts, and the failures of other, of their own damn fault. Worse, they have succeeded in convincing poorer people of the same. Even in laboratory games when this affluence was artificially created through a totally random lottery.

I'm not terribly invested in the terminology.  Call them what you want.

QuotePeople sure should fulfill their responsibilities. If everyone did, all the time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem is when we do not, or cannot, or when we have contradictory responsibilities, which is almost all the time. Add then, the additional problem of when people fail, whether from their own mistakes or from collective failures. What are we to do then? It seems to me that we want to ascribe responsibility to assign support to the worthy, rather than the needy. But then, we run back into the problem of ascribing said responsibility correctly.

I see the problem of when we do not (choose to) and the problem of when we cannot as two distinct problems.  A deadbeat dad drinking and gambling away child support and a quadriplegic dad unable to work are not the same problem.

What we do when people fail is surely ground we've already covered with respect to safety nets and income transfers etc.

"Assign support" makes sense in K-12.  Empirically I'm not sure which is true, whether the high achiever nerds or the don't give a fucks get more resources.  In college, yeah, higher achievers get more subsidies.  Do you think that's a bad idea?  Outside of academics I don't know what "assign support" means, unless it's an oblique socialist humanities way of discussing pay.

You seem to be only focused on school. I sought to broaden the conversation. Thus, "ascribe support" is a generic term for all the ways we presume to reward worth. Pay is one way, of course. But there is charity, medicare, social democracy, tax cuts, whatever you can think that is aimed at sustaining people. There is a strong undercurrent of "worth" in any discussion about redistribution of wealth.

But if you want to return to the school example, yes, I think it's a bad system. "Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly. What have students in my - or any elite institution - achieved? They achieved being born in affluent families, and they get the education intended for the affluent, having had all the opportunities for achievement that are afforded to affluent families. So, they got unpaid internships, traveled the world, have a cosmopolitan worldview, were trusted with access to laboratories where their parents worked, had access to whatever books they wanted, the help of private tutors when they encountered difficulties at math, and the guidance of people who knew how to craft their college admission -- all of which made them legible to admission officers who more or less lived the same life. And within that system, some of them thrived, and others did not. Sure, there are a few symbolic poor students that allow administrators to craft beautiful speeches to donors, and sleep at night, all of them contented by their liberal politics or their compassionate conservatism. But the games have been played long before: kids who don't give a fuck from affluent background will still get their 19th second chance - and yes, they may still mess up - and those beautiful souls who are "high achievers" from poor background may end up with a Harvard education, forever to be touted as the living proof that everything is working as intended.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
You seem to be only focused on school. I sought to broaden the conversation. Thus, "ascribe support" is a generic term for all the ways we presume to reward worth. Pay is one way, of course. But there is charity, medicare, social democracy, tax cuts, whatever you can think that is aimed at sustaining people. There is a strong undercurrent of "worth" in any discussion about redistribution of wealth.

But if you want to return to the school example, yes, I think it's a bad system. "Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly. What have students in my - or any elite institution - achieved? They achieved being born in affluent families, and they get the education intended for the affluent, having had all the opportunities for achievement that are afforded to affluent families. So, they got unpaid internships, traveled the world, have a cosmopolitan worldview, were trusted with access to laboratories where their parents worked, had access to whatever books they wanted, the help of private tutors when they encountered difficulties at math, and the guidance of people who knew how to craft their college admission -- all of which made them legible to admission officers who more or less lived the same life. And within that system, some of them thrived, and others did not. Sure, there are a few symbolic poor students that allow administrators to craft beautiful speeches to donors, and sleep at night, all of them contented by their liberal politics or their compassionate conservatism. But the games have been played long before: kids who don't give a fuck from affluent background will still get their 19th second chance - and yes, they may still mess up - and those beautiful souls who are "high achievers" from poor background may end up with a Harvard education, forever to be touted as the living proof that everything is working as intended.

I'm not only focused on school.  I'm trying to follow your argument.  As I've already said "we" do in fact "assign support" to students in school so I can easily discuss that in that context.  In the world of work we don't assign anything, so I reject your premise.  You and I and the rest didn't assign any support to Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos.

Your major point seems to be that suburban upper middle class families are gaming the college admissions system.  I'm with you.  Come up with something better that actually measures the relevant function of innate ability and effort and I'll back you 100%.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 03:23:12 PMYou and I and the rest didn't assign any support to Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos.

Oh, but we do - you and me both. You think tax cuts are a feature of the State of Nature? A favorable environment for the sort of investment that these guys do? The sort of infrastructure that allow them to hire people with marketable skills designed especially for their businesses? The sort of whoring out of cities to Amazon we saw recently? These are all features of political systems which, at least in the way we promote things, is supposed to be you and I and everybody else.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:27:59 PM
Oh, but we do - you and me both. You think tax cuts are a feature of the State of Nature? A favorable environment for the sort of investment that these guys do? The sort of infrastructure that allow them to hire people with marketable skills designed especially for their businesses? The sort of whoring out of cities to Amazon we saw recently? These are all features of political systems which, at least in the way we promote things, is supposed to be you and I and everybody else.

OK, if you want to really, really stretch the meaning you can say that we "assign support" to capital through the protection of property rights.  But you and I certainly didn't assign any support to Warren and Jeff the individuals in recognition of their commendable sense of responsibility, or for any other reason relating to them as individuals.

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 01:51:38 PM
In the US and UK, the overriding belief that people should rise or fall on their own merits doesn't actually benefit all of society, which leads to more and more people unable to rise. It becomes a death spiral, which is exactly where we are right now. That prevailing attitude isn't seen in most of Europe, and so as a society, they've managed to lift more people up, creating an environment that allows others to go higher.

Again I'm not convinced that's a UK thing. We're a monarchy with hereditary peers and five of our post-war Prime Ministers are Old Etonians. We may not do enough to fix it, but I don't think we can be seen as a country that is ignorant of the advantages of birth/effect of class.

As the late Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster and one of the richest men in the country put it when asked if what advice he'd give a young entrepreneur: "Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2020, 03:39:35 PM
OK, if you want to really, really stretch the meaning you can say that we "assign support" to capital through the protection of property rights.  But you and I certainly didn't assign any support to Warren and Jeff the individuals in recognition of their commendable sense of responsibility, or for any other reason relating to them as individuals.

I don't think that is such a stretch as you make it to be. Concepts of property are hopelessly embedded in notions of the collective and the common good - lest you simply want to make it rely solely on might. 

And yes, neither you or I as an individual send a check to Bezos or Buffett. And therein lies the whole issue, does it not? These are people that are incredibly wealthy -- successful by most of the important metrics of a capitalist society. How do we justify such discrepancy in wealth? The argument usually rests on merit: that these people are ultimately responsible for their own success - which in turn ought to justify that they should be the sole judges of their property's use. But if we allow that some of the responsibility for their wealth comes from an apparatus over which they, themselves had little control - what happens to the argument? Which part of their wealth do their own agency cover? Which part do the agency of countless others?

Conversely, the argument is often made that people who are down on their luck are usually reaping the rewards of their shortsightedness. Didn't have tornado insurance? Though luck, should have thought about that. Don't have medical insurance? Let him die.

And so the notion that people are responsible for their successes and mistakes is intimately tied to the notion of responsibility per se - i.e., people being good, responsible citizens, worthy, virtuous, and all that. But we slip from one version of responsibility-as-agency into responsibility-as-virtue so easily as to stretch circumstances and wealth into virtue. By focusing on the individual responsibility of people in their own circumstances, we allow ourselves to be more indifferent to our fellow citizens in need, yet we tout the words of the Bezos and Buffetts as the expression of considerable wisdom.

It's getting to the point where I'm having difficulty following your train of thought.  I can the little islands of conclusion sticking out of the sea, but the water between them is very murky and unclear.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2020, 04:17:50 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 01:51:38 PM
In the US and UK, the overriding belief that people should rise or fall on their own merits doesn't actually benefit all of society, which leads to more and more people unable to rise. It becomes a death spiral, which is exactly where we are right now. That prevailing attitude isn't seen in most of Europe, and so as a society, they've managed to lift more people up, creating an environment that allows others to go higher.

Again I'm not convinced that's a UK thing. We're a monarchy with hereditary peers and five of our post-war Prime Ministers are Old Etonians. We may not do enough to fix it, but I don't think we can be seen as a country that is ignorant of the advantages of birth/effect of class.

As the late Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster and one of the richest men in the country put it when asked if what advice he'd give a young entrepreneur: "Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror."

Fair enough. I thought the UK still believed - lords and ladies notwithstanding - that anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough. I'm comfortable admitting that I don't have enough information on that point.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 07:59:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you. :secret:

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 08:08:55 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 07:59:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you. :secret:

I actually don't think that is his point.

I think his point is that there is so much that goes into success (and failure) that is largely beyond our control, that putting too much "virtue" into the degree to which anyone achieves, or fails to achieve success isn't really that interesting.

I agree with him nearly completely. I don't think there is much of any useful measure of anyone basic virtue can be ascertained from looking at how successful they are, or lack of success for that matter.

There are *practical* reasons we want to encourage people to achieve greatly, because in most cases society benefits from that achievement. So we should strive for a system where the people who increase our productivity with the latest new tech, or enrich our lives through their athletic endeavors, or art, or just straight out popular culture entertainment, should be rewarded in order to encourage others to strive for that reward as well. But there isn't anything instrinsically based on some moral evaluation of their virtue tied to that.

Why is this important? Because if the reason we want the Bezos of the world, or the Michael Jordans, or the Tom Hanks or the Elon Musks is simply utilitarian, rather than emotive, then it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that there is some kind of limit to that reward, some point beyond which the societal benefit is no longer being served by them becoming one more dollar richer. I think it is perfectly defensible, for example, to say that if Bezos is worth, let me check....116.2 billion today, then if we had a system in place where today he was only worth 1/4 that, so say $30 billion, because the other $80 billion of the wealth he created went to his employees, his other stakeholders, and into society in the form of taxes on Amazon's profits, then we could safely say that Bezos would still have done everything he actually did do - it was never the drive to make that extra $80 billion on top of the first $30 billion that was the key to his success.

IMO, Elon Musk or Bill Gates or any of them - none of them could have a tiny fraction of the wealth they have *except* that they are social human creatures who thrive in social systems that do an amazing job of allowing them to leverage their brilliance against billions of other humans output and consumption. None of them, no matter how "virtuously" exceptional, would be any better that a near starving ape in the woods without being part of the human social group. I want Bezos to be rich because I want the next potential Bezos to want to be rich. But I know that the next Bezos will be some human who exists in a social construct, and there are probably a thousand or a million other humans who COULD have been Bezos, but were not for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their intrinsic virtue.

Now, if you believe that Bezos success is in fact a measure of his virtue (this is the new Christian prosperity gospel) then in fact society has no more call on this 116th billion dollar than they had on his first - he "earned" it by his virtue, and while we might tax it, we do so with great regret and realization that we are doing him a wrong, and evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 08:08:55 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 07:59:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you. :secret:

Maybe in some great metaphysical sense they are no better human being than myself. In the sense of being better at Electrical Engineering school though they have me there.

Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2020, 09:14:04 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 08:08:55 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 07:59:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you. :secret:

I actually don't think that is his point.

I think his point is that there is so much that goes into success (and failure) that is largely beyond our control, that putting too much "virtue" into the degree to which anyone achieves, or fails to achieve success isn't really that interesting.

I agree with him nearly completely. I don't think there is much of any useful measure of anyone basic virtue can be ascertained from looking at how successful they are, or lack of success for that matter.

There are *practical* reasons we want to encourage people to achieve greatly, because in most cases society benefits from that achievement. So we should strive for a system where the people who increase our productivity with the latest new tech, or enrich our lives through their athletic endeavors, or art, or just straight out popular culture entertainment, should be rewarded in order to encourage others to strive for that reward as well. But there isn't anything instrinsically based on some moral evaluation of their virtue tied to that.

Why is this important? Because if the reason we want the Bezos of the world, or the Michael Jordans, or the Tom Hanks or the Elon Musks is simply utilitarian, rather than emotive, then it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that there is some kind of limit to that reward, some point beyond which the societal benefit is no longer being served by them becoming one more dollar richer. I think it is perfectly defensible, for example, to say that if Bezos is worth, let me check....116.2 billion today, then if we had a system in place where today he was only worth 1/4 that, so say $30 billion, because the other $80 billion of the wealth he created went to his employees, his other stakeholders, and into society in the form of taxes on Amazon's profits, then we could safely say that Bezos would still have done everything he actually did do - it was never the drive to make that extra $80 billion on top of the first $30 billion that was the key to his success.

IMO, Elon Musk or Bill Gates or any of them - none of them could have a tiny fraction of the wealth they have *except* that they are social human creatures who thrive in social systems that do an amazing job of allowing them to leverage their brilliance against billions of other humans output and consumption. None of them, no matter how "virtuously" exceptional, would be any better that a near starving ape in the woods without being part of the human social group. I want Bezos to be rich because I want the next potential Bezos to want to be rich. But I know that the next Bezos will be some human who exists in a social construct, and there are probably a thousand or a million other humans who COULD have been Bezos, but were not for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their intrinsic virtue.

Now, if you believe that Bezos success is in fact a measure of his virtue (this is the new Christian prosperity gospel) then in fact society has no more call on this 116th billion dollar than they had on his first - he "earned" it by his virtue, and while we might tax it, we do so with great regret and realization that we are doing him a wrong, and evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

:yes:

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:49:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
One needs to be have an extreme egocentric view of the world to ascribe their success entirely to themselves - unless they live alone, on an island, without any contact with anyone, from birth.

That's probably why that strawman argument is so unpersuasive; no sane person thinks that they can ascribe their success entirely to themselves, nor do that for others.

And yet the President is not in an asylum.

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 05:27:45 PM
Fair enough. I thought the UK still believed - lords and ladies notwithstanding - that anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough. I'm comfortable admitting that I don't have enough information on that point.

I don't know I think that sort of hope and confidence is fairly American :lol:

This is a couple of year's old - also why I just struggle with the guy's description of people's attitudes:

QuotePoll: half of Brits believe background determines success

Social mobility barometer exposes pessimism among young people and stark geographical divide.
Published 15 June 2017

The scale of Britain's 'us and them' society is laid bare today (15 June 2017) in a new report which finds that nearly half of people (48%) believe that where you end up in society today is mainly determined by your background and who your parents are. This compares with 32% who believe everyone has a fair chance to get on regardless of their background.

The social mobility barometer uncovers feelings of deep social pessimism among young people with half (51%) of 18- to 24-year-olds agreeing with this statement, compared with 40% of those aged 65 and over.

The new poll, published by the Social Mobility Commission, will gauge public attitudes to social mobility annually over the next 5 years. It finds that half of young people think the situation is getting worse with only 30% of 18- to 24-year-olds believing it is becoming easier to move up in British society.

Meanwhile, only a fifth of 18- to 24-year-olds believe they have a better level of job security compared with their parents, and only 17% say they have better job satisfaction.

The poll of nearly 5,000 people, carried out by YouGov before the general election, finds that 4 in 5 people (79%) believe that there is a large gap between the social classes in Britain today. A large majority of people believe that poorer people are held back at nearly every stage of their lives - from childhood, through education and into their careers.

Over three-quarters of people (76%) say poorer people have less opportunity to go to a top university. Meanwhile 66% say poorer people have less opportunity to get into a professional career.

It finds that nearly half of all Brits (49%) consider themselves working class and just over a third (36%) think of themselves as middle class with just one per cent identifying as upper class. Interestingly, 78% of those who grew up in a working class family classify themselves as this now.

A quarter (23%) of people who say that their family was working class when they were growing up, said that their social background has held them back in their working life.

One key finding is that the public believe a geographical divide exists in Britain today with nearly three-quarters of people (71%) say there are 'fairly or very' large differences in opportunity depending on where you live in the country.

Those living in Scotland (75%), Wales (75%) and the North East (76%) are most likely to think that differences in opportunities exist. Around 47% of those who moved from where they grew up say if they had stayed where they were, they would not had as many opportunities in life.

The Social Mobility Barometer also explores public attitudes to individuals own past social mobility experiences as well as their expectations for future generations.

The barometer finds that people believe that more needs to be done to help those at the bottom of society. Over 6 in 10 people feel that those who are 'just about managing' are not getting enough support from government (61%), while 49% say the least well off are not getting enough support.

Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2020, 09:14:04 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 07, 2020, 08:08:55 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2020, 07:59:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2020, 03:12:48 PM
"Higher achievers" mean almost nothing in my experience, quite frankly.

Damn well you must think I am a piece of shit then. I practically destroyed my health achieving mediocrity.

I think his point is that they are no better than you. :secret:

I actually don't think that is his point.

I think his point is that there is so much that goes into success (and failure) that is largely beyond our control, that putting too much "virtue" into the degree to which anyone achieves, or fails to achieve success isn't really that interesting.

I agree with him nearly completely. I don't think there is much of any useful measure of anyone basic virtue can be ascertained from looking at how successful they are, or lack of success for that matter.

There are *practical* reasons we want to encourage people to achieve greatly, because in most cases society benefits from that achievement. So we should strive for a system where the people who increase our productivity with the latest new tech, or enrich our lives through their athletic endeavors, or art, or just straight out popular culture entertainment, should be rewarded in order to encourage others to strive for that reward as well. But there isn't anything instrinsically based on some moral evaluation of their virtue tied to that.

Why is this important? Because if the reason we want the Bezos of the world, or the Michael Jordans, or the Tom Hanks or the Elon Musks is simply utilitarian, rather than emotive, then it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that there is some kind of limit to that reward, some point beyond which the societal benefit is no longer being served by them becoming one more dollar richer. I think it is perfectly defensible, for example, to say that if Bezos is worth, let me check....116.2 billion today, then if we had a system in place where today he was only worth 1/4 that, so say $30 billion, because the other $80 billion of the wealth he created went to his employees, his other stakeholders, and into society in the form of taxes on Amazon's profits, then we could safely say that Bezos would still have done everything he actually did do - it was never the drive to make that extra $80 billion on top of the first $30 billion that was the key to his success.

IMO, Elon Musk or Bill Gates or any of them - none of them could have a tiny fraction of the wealth they have *except* that they are social human creatures who thrive in social systems that do an amazing job of allowing them to leverage their brilliance against billions of other humans output and consumption. None of them, no matter how "virtuously" exceptional, would be any better that a near starving ape in the woods without being part of the human social group. I want Bezos to be rich because I want the next potential Bezos to want to be rich. But I know that the next Bezos will be some human who exists in a social construct, and there are probably a thousand or a million other humans who COULD have been Bezos, but were not for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their intrinsic virtue.

Now, if you believe that Bezos success is in fact a measure of his virtue (this is the new Christian prosperity gospel) then in fact society has no more call on this 116th billion dollar than they had on his first - he "earned" it by his virtue, and while we might tax it, we do so with great regret and realization that we are doing him a wrong, and evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.

If success or failure is due mainly to factors beyond an individual's control, there is no point to "encouraging" them to succeed, though, as whether they will succeed or not is not due to choices they make, but merely to circumstances. 

This whole debate is just the ancient 'free will vs. predestination' thing all over again, with the case being made for 'predestination'. 

I would agree that you can't determine whether someone is virtuous by whether they have achieved success or failure - but that is because our societies are not set up in such a manner that virtue is automatically rewarded with success and lack of virtue with failure. However, on average, in a just society people ought to increase their chances of success by displaying a bunch of boring old virtues, such as hard work, inventiveness, relative temperance, delay of gratification in the form of saving money, and the like. Of course no society is ever fully just, but that is something to strive towards - balancing justice with an acknowledgement that success breeds a certain amount of inequality.

To my mind, the real problem with our societies is that, increasingly, the deck is becoming stacked in favor of the wealthy and their children - thus making it more "predestined" than it has to be, in the form of fossilizing social mobility; where boring virtues such as hard work and the like are no longer rewarded for the average person as they ought to be. In short, that our societies are becoming ever more unjust.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2020, 04:17:50 PM
As the late Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster and one of the richest men in the country put it when asked if what advice he'd give a young entrepreneur: "Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror."

Well that is just not true. William the Conqueror himself is a direct ancestor of mine, and almost certainly yours, and yet I have reaped very few rewards from this pedigree.

Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2020, 03:43:40 PM
To my mind, the real problem with our societies is that, increasingly, the deck is becoming stacked in favor of the wealthy and their children - thus making it more "predestined" than it has to be, in the form of fossilizing social mobility; where boring virtues such as hard work and the like are no longer rewarded for the average person as they ought to be. In short, that our societies are becoming ever more unjust.

Yes and I think that can be shown statistically to be the case.

That doesn't mean I will stop being impressed by somebody getting a 3.8 or better GPA in Engineering School having experienced that gauntlet, I don't care what Oex says.

You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

I'm happy that there are people who don't judge me for my lack of accomplishments. :)

Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2020, 06:20:23 PM
I'm happy that there are people who don't judge me for my lack of accomplishments. :)

Ditto. :hug:

Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2020, 06:20:23 PM
I'm happy that there are people who don't judge me for my lack of accomplishments. :)

:thumbsup:

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 04:41:38 PM
You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

I admire anybody who even attempts that program. I certainly don't shit on people like you do. Besides how would I even know their circumstances?

Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2020, 06:20:23 PM
I'm happy that there are people who don't judge me for my lack of accomplishments. :)

I admire all kinds of things, like fighting the neverending battle of Facebook. That is certainly more than I could do.

Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2020, 08:58:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 04:41:38 PM
You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

I admire anybody who even attempts that program. I certainly don't shit on people like you do. Besides how would I even know their circumstances?

Wtf are you talking about? You didn't get what I was saying at all.

Yeah, I don't get Valmy's comment either  :hmm:

Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2020, 08:58:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 04:41:38 PM
You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

I admire anybody who even attempts that program. I certainly don't shit on people like you do. Besides how would I even know their circumstances?

:blink:

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 09:32:10 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2020, 08:58:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 04:41:38 PM
You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

I admire anybody who even attempts that program. I certainly don't shit on people like you do. Besides how would I even know their circumstances?

Wtf are you talking about? You didn't get what I was saying at all.

Yes, weird, I'd guess some internal/home/external stress caused him to fly off the handle at a random target.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 09:32:10 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2020, 08:58:00 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 08, 2020, 04:41:38 PM
You can be impressed with whoever you want. Maybe extend some of your awe to people who get marginally less awesome GPA while having to deal with strained circumstances?

I admire anybody who even attempts that program. I certainly don't shit on people like you do. Besides how would I even know their circumstances?

Wtf are you talking about? You didn't get what I was saying at all.

It just seems like you are taking an opposite position to what Yi was saying earlier. You had that huge screed of bitterness about high achievers. I think that was really unfair. Especially the part about attacking University administrators and wondering how they can sleep at night. I mean I totally get being frustrated that more people are not getting opportunities and trying to make a more just society but taking it out on individuals just trying to do their best seemed unwarranted. I would certainly never express the same level of contempt towards people doing their best under adverse circumstances that you seemed to express towards others under more favorable circumstances. We typically are not responsible for our circumstances and as such they don't really say much about us.

Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2020, 09:19:05 AM
Yes, weird, I'd guess some internal/home/external stress caused him to fly off the handle at a random target.

You can always ask me instead of talking about me like I am not here :lol:

Anyway I took exception to his post and have for a few posts now.

You are missing the point.

I'll let Oex speak for himself, but it sounded to me like he was saying something that I've long thought. We give a lot of respect to "high achievers" when a lot of the time the reason they are high achievers is because they have nothing impeding their successes.

In your case, you were working a full-time job, raising small children, supporting a partner and paying for college on your family budget all while working on your degree. That you graduated at all is a significant accomplishment.

Someone who went to university with no concerns over money, jobs, or family, and gets straight As is definitely an accomplishment, but I don't think it warrants more accolades than your "mediocre" grades.

No, we can't know every situation of every student. But to issue a blanket "Wow, those high achievers are incredible!" is no better than issuing a blanket "Wow, those underachievers really aren't very bright" either. It's a non-entity, or should be.

Quote from: merithyn on January 09, 2020, 11:49:29 AM
I'll let Oex speak for himself, but it sounded to me like he was saying something that I've long thought. We give a lot of respect to "high achievers" when a lot of the time the reason they are high achievers is because they have nothing impeding their successes.

In your case, you were working a full-time job, raising small children, supporting a partner and paying for college on your family budget all while working on your degree. That you graduated at all is a significant accomplishment.

Someone who went to university with no concerns over money, jobs, or family, and gets straight As is definitely an accomplishment, but I don't think it warrants more accolades than your "mediocre" grades.

No, we can't know every situation of every student. But to issue a blanket "Wow, those high achievers are incredible!" is no better than issuing a blanket "Wow, those underachievers really aren't very bright" either. It's a non-entity, or should be.

Yes, and all in the context of adoring high achievers in an increasingly unequal society.  A kid from a privileged background has no excuse not to be a high achiever all other things being equal.

Quote from: merithyn on January 09, 2020, 11:49:29 AM
I'll let Oex speak for himself, but it sounded to me like he was saying something that I've long thought. We give a lot of respect to "high achievers" when a lot of the time the reason they are high achievers is because they have nothing impeding their successes.

In your case, you were working a full-time job, raising small children, supporting a partner and paying for college on your family budget all while working on your degree. That you graduated at all is a significant accomplishment.

Someone who went to university with no concerns over money, jobs, or family, and gets straight As is definitely an accomplishment, but I don't think it warrants more accolades than your "mediocre" grades.

No, we can't know every situation of every student. But to issue a blanket "Wow, those high achievers are incredible!" is no better than issuing a blanket "Wow, those underachievers really aren't very bright" either. It's a non-entity, or should be.

Precisely.

I also think this concern over grades as proxy for worth  is highly detrimental to the students themselves. I care a whole lot about my students, but, as I tell them frequently, I care a lot more about them as human beings and citizens than I care about their "accomplishments" especially when the measure of their accomplishments is often some kind of highly problematic metric. I find it sad that this is not a message they have often received from adults - and it shows.

EDIT: Indeed, that Valmy reads my post as if such a stance equals contempt for students seems indicative of my whole issue with the notion of achievement.

How many people realistically fit the pool of no concerns over family, jobs or money?

Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2020, 12:38:40 PM
How many people realistically fit the pool of no concerns over family, jobs or money?

34.5% of people who attended an Oxbridge college.  :bowler:

Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2020, 12:38:40 PM
How many people realistically fit the pool of no concerns over family, jobs or money?

I would argue that enough do that to use grades as a major success measure is to seriously undervalue a whole lot of really good students working under very difficult circumstances.

Full disclosure: I was a first-gen college student who struggled significantly during college because I didn't have family support. Not because they didn't care, but because they has zero idea what I was dealing with. That lack of support definitely had an impact on my ability to succeed.

And again, I'm not saying that those who do incredibly well in college shouldn't be celebrated. I'm saying that it should only be one factor in what's considered a "successful" college experience.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 09, 2020, 12:23:57 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 09, 2020, 11:49:29 AM
I'll let Oex speak for himself, but it sounded to me like he was saying something that I've long thought. We give a lot of respect to "high achievers" when a lot of the time the reason they are high achievers is because they have nothing impeding their successes.

In your case, you were working a full-time job, raising small children, supporting a partner and paying for college on your family budget all while working on your degree. That you graduated at all is a significant accomplishment.

Someone who went to university with no concerns over money, jobs, or family, and gets straight As is definitely an accomplishment, but I don't think it warrants more accolades than your "mediocre" grades.

No, we can't know every situation of every student. But to issue a blanket "Wow, those high achievers are incredible!" is no better than issuing a blanket "Wow, those underachievers really aren't very bright" either. It's a non-entity, or should be.

Precisely.

I also think this concern over grades as proxy for worth  is highly detrimental to the students themselves. I care a whole lot about my students, but, as I tell them frequently, I care a lot more about them as human beings and citizens than I care about their "accomplishments" especially when the measure of their accomplishments is often some kind of highly problematic metric. I find it sad that this is not a message they have often received from adults - and it shows.

EDIT: Indeed, that Valmy reads my post as if such a stance equals contempt for students seems indicative of my whole issue with the notion of achievement.

This is in reply, to some extent, with Malthus response to my post.

I think the issue is not that I don't believe that being "virtuously high achieving" is irrelevant. Quite the opposite - I think being smarter, more hard working, more "virtuous" in however we define that is hugely important to an individuals results when compared against someone else in the exact same environment lacking those virtuous attributes.

My point is that having those attributes is a good predictor of the person relative success against others in the same environment. But it is NOT a very good predictor of their success compared to the general populace, because there are just too many other factors involved, many of which are pretty measurable, but a LOT that are not. Hell, some of the inate factors are so poorly understood that it seems dubious to apply much "virtue" measurement to them.

I think that if you gave me a set of say 100 people who all have a somehow magically defined and created "similar" background, I can reasonably predict that the ten smartest will end up with a better outcome than the ten least smart, however that is measured.

What I do NOT think I can do is take 100 random people, rank them by their outcomes, and then back into any kind of meaningful evaluation of their "virtue". The background factors are so varied that without actually digging into the individuals themselves, I don't think there is much correlation between their achievements and their inate virtue that can be reasonable measured.

I would love it if we achieved a society where we've succeeded at true equality of opportunity such that "virtue" did in fact consistently result in achievement without needing to normalize for environment. But while western liberal society as a whole is probably the best it has ever been in that regards throughout human history, I don't think we are really that close in any absolute, objective sense.

An example of an "innate" attribute that we don't understand well and don't account for well is mental illness.

You can score 10/10 on whatever virtue attributes we might consider critical and laudable for human achievement. You could be wicked smart, super hard working, ambitious, empathetic, charismatic. All of it. The person who god blessed with all the very top attributes. The dice came up 6,6, 5 on all your virtue attribute scores. You are 1 in 10,000 bestest of the best.

But....you have a serious condition of clinical depression. You got screwed on that cosmic dice roll, and no matter how smart you are, you are cursed with this mental illness that in many ways makes all that so much less useful. It is an illness, and not really under your control, you were just not lucky.

Or even something more extreme, bi-polar or some kind of psychosis. As a society, we suck at recognizing these things as illnesses, rather we just lump them in with your general attributes, but we know that in reality they are an illness, not an attribute. It is not fundamentally different than being born missing a foot or being in a car accident as a infant that blinds you. But we look at someone born blind and think "Hey, we have to help them because that isn't their fault, and we should try to make their opportunity NOT be limited by this thing beyond their control!". Someone born with a serious mental illness? Fuck 'em, they can be homeless, because clearly they lack "virtue".

Having grown up around the mentally ill, and having been married to someone whose full time job was advocating for them, I've always considered being born with a serious mental illness one of the worst forms of just straight out bad luck.

Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2020, 02:41:21 PM

This is in reply, to some extent, with Malthus response to my post.

I think the issue is not that I don't believe that being "virtuously high achieving" is irrelevant. Quite the opposite - I think being smarter, more hard working, more "virtuous" in however we define that is hugely important to an individuals results when compared against someone else in the exact same environment lacking those virtuous attributes.

My point is that having those attributes is a good predictor of the person relative success against others in the same environment. But it is NOT a very good predictor of their success compared to the general populace, because there are just too many other factors involved, many of which are pretty measurable, but a LOT that are not. Hell, some of the inate factors are so poorly understood that it seems dubious to apply much "virtue" measurement to them.

I think that if you gave me a set of say 100 people who all have a somehow magically defined and created "similar" background, I can reasonably predict that the ten smartest will end up with a better outcome than the ten least smart, however that is measured.

What I do NOT think I can do is take 100 random people, rank them by their outcomes, and then back into any kind of meaningful evaluation of their "virtue". The background factors are so varied that without actually digging into the individuals themselves, I don't think there is much correlation between their achievements and their inate virtue that can be reasonable measured.

I would love it if we achieved a society where we've succeeded at true equality of opportunity such that "virtue" did in fact consistently result in achievement without needing to normalize for environment. But while western liberal society as a whole is probably the best it has ever been in that regards throughout human history, I don't think we are really that close in any absolute, objective sense.

I think we are on the same page with that.

What worries me is that our societies are becoming places in which 'virtue' is rewarded less - as in, social mobility is becoming more difficult, that the better predictor of success is not 'virtue' but a fortunate choice of parents.

I do think though in society at large that the debate is becoming unfortunately polarized, between the 'prosperity gospel' types on the one hand (for whom success = virtue) and the 'progressives' on the other hand (for whom success = wholly predestined by circumstances). Neither position encourages progress towards a just society, in which virtue and success ought to be ever more closely correlated. If virtue already equals success, no change is needed; if success is wholly a creation of circumstances, then virtue is unnecessary and rewarding it is pointless - what is required is to change the circumstances.   

I believe that both a knowledge of circumstances and encouraging virtue are important - one must do the best with the hand that is dealt, while recognizing some are dealt much better hands than others. The job of a just society is to try to even the odds to the extent possible.

Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2020, 03:00:07 PM
the 'progressives' on the other hand (for whom success = wholly predestined by circumstances).

I don't think there are a lot of those - and I certainly don't see them as having any sort of defining role in the political polarization. One of the central hesitation of the current left is precisely to reconcile the heavily prescribed celebration of individual accomplishment (which gains a lot more shine if the deck is stacked against you), with a desire to upend the systemic causes of the deck being stacked. One of the reasons why "virtue-signalling" often works as an accusation is precisely because people want to be individually irreproachable, even as they argue for the weight of a system constraining their own (or perhaps more frequently, the others'...) actions and belief.

This is even leaving aside the thorny problem of what virtue is, and which ones should be encouraged. I find it interesting that you mentioned thriftiness and hard work as old virtues in need of celebration - rather, than, say, forgiveness and cooperation. In many human societies, mediocrity used to be a highly emphasized virtue: pride, and thus selfishness lies in the path of those who want to achieve extraordinary success. Thriftiness and hard work are the virtues of an already quite unequal world...

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 09, 2020, 12:23:57 PM
Precisely.

I also think this concern over grades as proxy for worth  is highly detrimental to the students themselves. I care a whole lot about my students, but, as I tell them frequently, I care a lot more about them as human beings and citizens than I care about their "accomplishments" especially when the measure of their accomplishments is often some kind of highly problematic metric. I find it sad that this is not a message they have often received from adults - and it shows.

EDIT: Indeed, that Valmy reads my post as if such a stance equals contempt for students seems indicative of my whole issue with the notion of achievement.

To an extent it's the rise of the meritocracy point:

QuoteDown with meritocracy
The man who coined the word four decades ago wishes Tony Blair would stop using it
Michael Young
Fri 29 Jun 2001 02.59 BST
First published on Fri 29 Jun 2001 02.59 BST

I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair.

The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033.

Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating.

Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.

Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable.

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education.

A social revolution has been accomplished by harnessing schools and universities to the task of sieving people according to education's narrow band of values.

With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before.

The new class has the means at hand, and largely under its control, by which it reproduces itself.

The more controversial prediction and the warning followed from the historical analysis. I expected that the poor and the disadvantaged would be done down, and in fact they have been. If branded at school they are more vulnerable for later unemployment.

They can easily become demoralised by being looked down on so woundingly by people who have done well for themselves.

It is hard indeed in a society that makes so much of merit to be judged as having none. No underclass has ever been left as morally naked as that.

They have been deprived by educational selection of many of those who would have been their natural leaders, the able spokesmen and spokeswomen from the working class who continued to identify with the class from which they came.

Their leaders were a standing opposition to the rich and the powerful in the never-ending competition in parliament and industry between the haves and the have-nots.

With the coming of the meritocracy, the now leaderless masses were partially disfranchised; as time has gone by, more and more of them have been disengaged, and disaffected to the extent of not even bothering to vote. They no longer have their own people to represent them.

To make the point it is worth comparing the Attlee and Blair cabinets. The two most influential members of the 1945 cabinet were Ernest Bevin, acclaimed as foreign secretary, and Herbert Morrison, acclaimed as lord president of the council and deputy prime minister.

Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union.

Herbert Morrison was in many ways an even more significant figure, whose rise to prominence was not so much through the unions as through local government.

His first job was also as an errand boy and assistant in a grocer's shop, from which he moved on to be a junior shop assistant and an early switchboard operator. He later became so influential as leader of the London county council partly because of his previous success as minister of transport in the 1929 Labour government.

He triumphed in the way Livingstone and Kiley hope to do now, by bringing all London's fragmented tube service, buses and trams under one unified management and ownership in his London passenger transport board.

It made London's public transport the best in the world for another 30-40 years and the LPTB was also the model for all the nationalised industries after 1945.

Quite a few other members of the Attlee cabinet, like Bevan and Griffiths (miners both), had similar lowly origins and so were also a source of pride for many ordinary people who could identify with them.

It is a sharp contrast with the Blair cabinet, largely filled as it is with members of the meritocracy.

In the new social environment, the rich and the powerful have been doing mighty well for themselves. They have been freed from the old kinds of criticism from people who had to be listened to. This once helped keep them in check - it has been the opposite under the Blair government.

The business meritocracy is in vogue. If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve whatever they can get.

They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side.

So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.

Salaries and fees have shot up. Generous share option schemes have proliferated. Top bonuses and golden handshakes have multiplied.

As a result, general inequality has been becoming more grievous with every year that passes, and without a bleat from the leaders of the party who once spoke up so trenchantly and characteristically for greater equality.

Can anything be done about this more polarised meritocratic society? It would help if Mr Blair would drop the word from his public vocabulary, or at least admit to the downside. It would help still more if he and Mr Brown would mark their distance from the new meritocracy by increasing income taxes on the rich, and also by reviving more powerful local government as a way of involving local people and giving them a training for national politics.

There was also a prediction in the book that wholesale educational selection would be reintroduced, going further even than what we have already. My imaginary author, an ardent apostle of meritocracy, said shortly before the revolution, that "No longer is it so necessary to debase standards by attempting to extend a higher civilisation to the children of the lower classes".

At least the fullness of that can still be avoided. I hope.

• Michael Young, when secretary of the policy committee of the Labour party, was responsible for drafting Let Us Face the Future, Labour's manifesto for the 1945 general election

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2020, 03:42:25 PM
...snip ...

• Michael Young, when secretary of the policy committee of the Labour party, was responsible for drafting Let Us Face the Future, Labour's manifesto for the 1945 general election

[/quote]

Thanks for that, Shelf, an interesting read.

Old guy supported nepotism almost 20 years ago. Film at 11.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 09, 2020, 03:35:05 PM
I don't think there are a lot of those - and I certainly don't see them as having any sort of defining role in the political polarization. One of the central hesitation of the current left is precisely to reconcile the heavily prescribed celebration of individual accomplishment (which gains a lot more shine if the deck is stacked against you), with a desire to upend the systemic causes of the deck being stacked. One of the reasons why "virtue-signalling" often works as an accusation is precisely because people want to be individually irreproachable, even as they argue for the weight of a system constraining their own (or perhaps more frequently, the others'...) actions and belief.

This is even leaving aside the thorny problem of what virtue is, and which ones should be encouraged. I find it interesting that you mentioned thriftiness and hard work as old virtues in need of celebration - rather, than, say, forgiveness and cooperation. In many human societies, mediocrity used to be a highly emphasized virtue: pride, and thus selfishness lies in the path of those who want to achieve extraordinary success. Thriftiness and hard work are the virtues of an already quite unequal world...

I mention them as boring 'virtues', because they are the sort of 'virtues' that in a fair society ought to lead to worldly success, defined by worldly accomplishments.

I are not concerned with other societies in this analysis, but with our own. I know that in other societies and at other times worldly issues were of less importance. However, for this analysis I am not concerned with salvation of souls in the Christian sense, or the gaining of enlightenment in the Buddhist sense. By definition, the 'deck being stacked against people' is the worldly deck.

It is true that from a Christian theological perspective it is the rich who have the deck stacked against them, because "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" (Matthew 19:34), but I doubt many who are poor in our current society would exactly appreciate being lectured on how they are actually lucky.  :lol:

I do not agree that "Thriftiness and hard work are the virtues of an already quite unequal world...", if the implication being made is that in the preferred "equal" world, these would not be virtues. In my opinion, in the preferred equal world, thriftiness, hard work, and the like would be rewarded more and not less - rather than, say, the accident of birth.   

To an outsider Socialism is amusing. The more you even the playing field the more achievement depends on the individual's own actions, and since personal responsibility is anathema to Socialists their brave new world is found horrible.

Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2020, 03:59:50 PMI do not agree that "Thriftiness and hard work are the virtues of an already quite unequal world...", if the implication being made is that in the preferred "equal" world, these would not be virtues. In my opinion, in the preferred equal world, thriftiness, hard work, and the like would be rewarded more and not less - rather than, say, the accident of birth. 

These are your preferences, sure - they are the preferences for a certain type of justice to the detriment of another type. I mean, what sort of justice would this produce? Considering all the bad luck that can still mess with hard work and thriftiness, I'd rather we value redemption and forgiveness. Letting someone die because they were lazy may satisfy one's sense of justice, but allow rot at the heart of the collective to grow. 

When I was a kid, I hated the parable of the prodigal son, because, as a good student and a dutiful, obedient son, I totally shared the outlook of the dutiful, obedient son: why would that idiot be welcome with open arms after having squandered everything? As I aged, I became a lot more sympathetic to the core message, and especially to the delivery. It is good that someone is hardworking. I was blessed with good reasoning ability, and I did well in the sort of school system I was placed in. But it is also good that someone is forgiving - even to lazy bums, spendthrifts, and people who make horrible decisions.

And if we are simply to look at the sort of society we have now as the model from which we ought not to deviate much, then I'd suggest we'd better acknowledge that pious wishes about hard work - which have existed way longer in unequal society than in the relative anomaly of the post-war social democracy - will not do much to solve the consolidation of self-satisfied elites. We are, and will be for the foreseeable future, bombarded with message about success and achievement. I'd rather we start refusing those, in favor of alternative messages - which we can certainly draw from historical precedents and examples.

Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2020, 04:02:12 PM
To an outsider Socialism is amusing. The more you even the playing field the more achievement depends on the individual's own actions, and since personal responsibility is anathema to Socialists their brave new world is found horrible.

Your opinion is stupid and you should feel bad.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 09, 2020, 04:15:39 PM

Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2020, 03:59:50 PMI do not agree that "Thriftiness and hard work are the virtues of an already quite unequal world...", if the implication being made is that in the preferred "equal" world, these would not be virtues. In my opinion, in the preferred equal world, thriftiness, hard work, and the like would be rewarded more and not less - rather than, say, the accident of birth. 

These are your preferences, sure - they are the preferences for a certain type of justice to the detriment of another type. I mean, what sort of justice would this produce? Considering all the bad luck that can still mess with hard work and thriftiness, I'd rather we value redemption and forgiveness. Letting someone die because they were lazy may satisfy one's sense of justice, but allow rot at the heart of the collective to grow. 

When I was a kid, I hated the parable of the prodigal son, because, as a good student and a dutiful, obedient son, I totally shared the outlook of the dutiful, obedient son: why would that idiot be welcome with open arms after having squandered everything? As I aged, I became a lot more sympathetic to the core message, and especially to the delivery. It is good that someone is hardworking. I was blessed with good reasoning ability, and I did well in the sort of school system I was placed in. But it is also good that someone is forgiving - even to lazy bums, spendthrifts, and people who make horrible decisions.

And if we are simply to look at the sort of society we have now as the model from which we ought not to deviate much, then I'd suggest we'd better acknowledge that pious wishes about hard work - which have existed way longer in unequal society than in the relative anomaly of the post-war social democracy - will not do much to solve the consolidation of self-satisfied elites. We are, and will be for the foreseeable future, bombarded with message about success and achievement. I'd rather we start refusing those, in favor of alternative messages - which we can certainly draw from historical precedents and examples.

One thing I find interesting about this post.

I would never draw the conclusion from

QuoteIn my opinion, in the preferred equal world, thriftiness, hard work, and the like would be rewarded more and not less

that there is any kind of implied relative value of those things in contrast to

QuoteI'd rather we value redemption and forgiveness

IE, I don't see how you get from his post to the conclusion that he values redemption and forgiveness less because he values thriftiness and hard work period. He never drew any such comparison, rather he made a statement that we ought to value hard work, which only implies (to me) that we ought to value it over not working hard. Not that it is more important than some other value (like forgiveness). I cannot speak for Malthus of course, but I suspect that he would not consider his statement to have *any* content at all relevant to the comparative value of hard work versus some other posited value - just that is ought to be valued rather than its absence.

I think Malthus is saying:

1. Hard work is to be valued

But what you are hearing is

1. Hard work is of greater value than forgiveness.

I wonder how much of disagreement comes from these kinds of interpretations. Is there something cultural here, where there is a implication of relative valuing even when it is not stated that some others simply do not get out of the same statement?

Quote from: Zoupa on January 09, 2020, 06:59:37 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2020, 04:02:12 PM
To an outsider Socialism is amusing. The more you even the playing field the more achievement depends on the individual's own actions, and since personal responsibility is anathema to Socialists their brave new world is found horrible.

Your opinion is stupid and you should feel baaaaaaad.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2020, 01:00:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2020, 12:44:30 PM
but it is human nature to ascribe more virtue to the individual who succeeds in a given situation than one who fails in the same position. 

True but definitions of what constitutes success are not historically invariant.

I am not arguing about what should be, but what is.