A three ladder system of class in the US - and possibly globally: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/
The guy certainly has his bias - and it shows - but I think the basic classification system is pretty sound at least in broad strokes. Seems to me that pretty much everyone at languish can be placed on it
The bias - and the analysis that follows - is probably more controversial. I expect Ide is the languishite most likely to be sympathetic towards it.
If you have the time to read it, I'm curious what you think - first about the class classifications, how appropriate do you think they are; and secondly about the analysis he offers?
I need to read this later, but I am surprised and impressed that a Michael O. Church blog post made it to Languish. CdM would love some of his posts on the Gervais principle (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/page/3/?s=gervais&submit=Search).
L3 :weep:
I have the luxury of choosing not to work. I also have the luxury of choosing not to eat.
Quote from: The Brain on September 05, 2013, 12:35:51 PM
I have the luxury of choosing not to work. I also have the luxury of choosing not to eat.
I'm sure your king will take care of you.
About the class system proposed - seems awfully arbitrary to me. Not sure what is added by having three seperate "ladders". The "elite" ladder is odd - those rich enough not to work really have little or nothing in common with working professionals, as the authour points out, so why are they being grouped together?
This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far. Americans have no class. :bowler:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far.
:yes:
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 12:44:47 PM
About the class system proposed - seems awfully arbitrary to me. Not sure what is added by having three seperate "ladders". The "elite" ladder is odd - those rich enough not to work really have little or nothing in common with working professionals, as the authour points out, so why are they being grouped together?
Because it's connected through values and what it takes to rise to the top of it (social status and connections vs ideas and creativity vs hard work). At least, that seems to be the argument that the writer sets forth.
But yeah, he does seem to go somewhat off the rails with his description of the E1 level (which is why I think why Ide-Tongzhi might approve :))
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far. Americans have no class. :bowler:
Really? There are no class differences between "the Poors" and derSpiess and Caliga? The Koch brothers are not from a different class than Woody Allen or Charels Ramsey?
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 01:27:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far. Americans have no class. :bowler:
Really? There are no class differences between "the Poors" and derSpiess and Caliga? The Koch brothers are not from a different class than Woody Allen or Charels Ramsey?
Well high-skill labor and primary gentry sound awfully similar.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 12:11:27 PM
The bias - and the analysis that follows - is probably more controversial. I expect Ide is the languishite most likely to be sympathetic towards it.
Why would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 01:24:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 12:44:47 PM
About the class system proposed - seems awfully arbitrary to me. Not sure what is added by having three seperate "ladders". The "elite" ladder is odd - those rich enough not to work really have little or nothing in common with working professionals, as the authour points out, so why are they being grouped together?
Because it's connected through values and what it takes to rise to the top of it (social status and connections vs ideas and creativity vs hard work). At least, that seems to be the argument that the writer sets forth.
But yeah, he does seem to go somewhat off the rails with his description of the E1 level (which is why I think why Ide-Tongzhi might approve :))
Work at all three levels can, in some cases, require these values. I would not say lawyering (which he's placed in the elite category) is more about "social status" than (say) "ideas" and "hard work".
That's quite aside from his mouth-foaming about the bottomless, eternal evil of the E1s. :D
I am going to have to tell the E2s I know that they are doing it wrong. :(
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 01:36:20 PM
Work at all three levels can, in some cases, require these values. I would not say lawyering (which he's placed in the elite category) is more about "social status" than (say) "ideas" and "hard work".
That's quite aside from his mouth-foaming about the bottomless, eternal evil of the E1s. :D
Yeah, I thought his description of the lower Ls fit most lawyers - except for the pay range.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 01:34:34 PMWhy would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?
... or maybe you :hug:
It seems to me that the writer has a certain firebrand antipathy towards the very upper end of the class scale he sets forth; and that shows through a fair bit.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 01:42:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 01:34:34 PMWhy would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?
... or maybe you :hug:
It seems to me that the writer has a certain firebrand antipathy towards the very upper end of the class scale he sets forth; and that shows through a fair bit.
Just wondering, as there were no movies or documents to review in there, s'all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 01:45:33 PMJust wondering, as there were no movies or documents to review in there, s'all.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 01:36:44 PM
I am going to have to tell the E2s I know that they are doing it wrong. :(
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 01:36:20 PMThat's quite aside from his mouth-foaming about the bottomless, eternal evil of the E1s. :D
Yeah, he does seem to have some antipathy towards the E grouping, and I'm pretty sure the people who populate it don't see themselves as morally bankrupt the way Mr. Church implies.
Similarly, I'm pretty sure he's got a somewhat overly sweet and positive view of the G group, which is a bit distracting.
CC - the fact that you know many E2s does lend some (anecdotal) support to the notion that E3s success is connected to the social connections they have with higher tiers of the E ladder?
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 01:36:20 PMWork at all three levels can, in some cases, require these values. I would not say lawyering (which he's placed in the elite category) is more about "social status" than (say) "ideas" and "hard work".
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 01:38:33 PM
Yeah, I thought his description of the lower Ls fit most lawyers - except for the pay range.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue that the ranks of Ides and junior lawyers are Elite by Mr. Church's categorization.
Well, that was interesting. He was just a bit racist against Arabs, and his knowledge of history is pretty weak, but it was interesting.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
This is pretty assburgers if you ask me. I understand the primal desire to give things classifications in order to better understand the world, but you can seriously go too far.
I think that the classes are pretty good, though it seems that there's so much overlap that you have to wonder at the necessity of so many different categories.
His analysis is very much based in his own self-perceived Gentrism. I'd argue that the Golden Age of the US came from the Labor Ladder's willingness to put the work in to get the job done. But I know that comes from my own self-perceived Laborism. In truth, there's never been a true "Golden Age"; just rose-colored glasses. ;)
QuoteAmericans have no class. :bowler:
Heh. Right. Keep telling yourself that.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 01:42:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 01:34:34 PMWhy would Ide be the most sympathetic towards it?
... or maybe you :hug:
It seems to me that the writer has a certain firebrand antipathy towards the very upper end of the class scale he sets forth; and that shows through a fair bit.
And an utter disregard toward those on the Labor Ladder. They are, after all, merely pawns in the war between the Gentry and the Elite.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 01:59:21 PM
CC - the fact that you know many E2s does lend some (anecdotal) support to the notion that E3s success is connected to the social connections they have with higher tiers of the E ladder?
Except my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s. That came later and I dont do any work for them. The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision. That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned. He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.
Whereas I see the 'US golden age' to have come from being the only major industrial economy not to have been completely destroyed by war, and the fact that the Third World, even if advanced in some ways by colonialism was still hundreds of years away from civilization, making it impossible for them to effectively harness and exploit their resources. And make no mistake, there can be Golden Ages.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 02:04:19 PM
And an utter disregard toward those on the Labor Ladder. They are, after all, merely pawns in the war between the Gentry and the Elite.
But that's their lot. That's the whole point of the labour ladder. Labour never has a say, they're always just muscle.
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 01:59:54 PM
Well, that was interesting. He was just a bit racist against Arabs, and his knowledge of history is pretty weak, but it was interesting
Is the racist against Arabs thing a reference to the Davos skibunnies line?
But yeah... I don't think Church has everything figured out, but there's some interesting food for thought there.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 02:01:59 PM
QuoteAmericans have no class. :bowler:
Heh. Right. Keep telling yourself that.
For the most part, he's right.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:18:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 01:59:54 PM
Well, that was interesting. He was just a bit racist against Arabs, and his knowledge of history is pretty weak, but it was interesting
Is the racist against Arabs thing a reference to the Davos skibunnies line?
But yeah... I don't think Church has everything figured out, but there's some interesting food for thought there.
Not exclusively. There were a few bits where it seemed like he was talking about the Arab sheiks as a huge portion of his E1s. I don't think that there's a lot of consistency as to who is in his E1 group. The only real unifying factor seems to be that he hates them. Being incredibly wealthy isn't enough on it's own. Being politically powerful isn't enough. Even being both isn't. You have to be rich, powerful and be offensive to Mike Church's worldview. You might as well replace 'G' with 'good' and 'E' with 'evil'.
Also, high-speed rail is stupid in a North American context.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 02:05:08 PMExcept my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s. That came later and I dont do any work for them. The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision. That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned. He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.
Fair enough; you obviously know the dynamics behind your own success than I do :)
I would have thought that a large part of being and remaining successful as a partner-level lawyer comes from the connections you have and maintain with clients and potential clients, and I would also have thought that those clients and the people who decide which lawyers to use tend to be in the upper E levels?
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 02:27:15 PM
Not exclusively. There were a few bits where it seemed like he was talking about the Arab sheiks as a huge portion of his E1s. I don't think that there's a lot of consistency as to who is in his E1 group. The only real unifying factor seems to be that he hates them. Being incredibly wealthy isn't enough on it's own. Being politically powerful isn't enough. Even being both isn't. You have to be rich, powerful and be offensive to Mike Church's worldview. You might as well replace 'G' with 'good' and 'E' with 'evil'.
Yup. He did fall apart with his somewhat rosy eyed characterization of the G group, and with the upper ends of the E spectrum especially. It did smack a little too much of the "secret cabal of the super wealthy" conspiracy theory for me there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 02:05:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 01:59:21 PM
CC - the fact that you know many E2s does lend some (anecdotal) support to the notion that E3s success is connected to the social connections they have with higher tiers of the E ladder?
Except my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s. That came later and I dont do any work for them. The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision. That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned. He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.
I think he would argue that the E1s and 2s are the ones who set the laws and create the twisted framework in which you operate. Sure, you sponge your money from all sorts of people on all sorts of rungs of the ladders, but everything you do reinforces the sick system of laws that the villains dreamed up.
Of course that's silly. The Priesthood of the Law is a product of people he would consider Gentry, not Elite.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 12:11:27 PM
A three ladder system of class in the US - and possibly globally: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/
The guy certainly has his bias - and it shows - but I think the basic classification system is pretty sound at least in broad strokes. Seems to me that pretty much everyone at languish can be placed on it
The bias - and the analysis that follows - is probably more controversial. I expect Ide is the languishite most likely to be sympathetic towards it.
If you have the time to read it, I'm curious what you think - first about the class classifications, how appropriate do you think they are; and secondly about the analysis he offers?
WEll, you are certianly right about his agenda. He has some really interesting points though. This bit stuck out to me as being pretty interesting. I don't know if it is correct, but it is certainly interesting:
QuoteThe relationship between the Gentry and Elite is one of open rivalry, and that between the Gentry and Labor is one of distrust. What about Labor and the Elite? That one is not symmetric. The Elite exploit and despise Labor as a class comprised mostly of "useful idiots". How does Labor see the Elite? They don't. The Elite has managed to convince Labor that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual "liberal elite" responsible for Labor's misery over the past 30 years. In effect, the Elite has constructed an "infinity pool" where the Elite appears to be a hyper-successful extension of Labor, lumping these two disparate ladders into an "us" and placing the Gentry and Underclass into "them".
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 02:05:08 PMExcept my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s. That came later and I dont do any work for them. The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision. That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned. He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.
Fair enough; you obviously know the dynamics behind your own success than I do :)
I would have thought that a large part of being and remaining successful as a partner-level lawyer comes from the connections you have and maintain with clients and potential clients, and I would also have thought that those clients and the people who decide which lawyers to use tend to be in the upper E levels?
No. As I said in my post you are responding to - those decisions are generally not made by the upper E levels. He is not only ingorant about how his defined upper Es live their lives. He is also ignorant about how decision making and power is excercised within most organizations.
Social contact is important but for some reason he thinks it matters most at the highest levels whereas it matters most at the mid/upper management levels (which he quite emphatically states an upper E would never touch).
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 02:05:08 PMExcept my success had and has nothing at all to do with knowing any E2s. That came later and I dont do any work for them. The question of what law firm is retained for x issue isnt normally an E2 type decision. That is one of the problems I have with this piece, which Malthus already mentioned. He makes odd associations that dont reflect reality.
Fair enough; you obviously know the dynamics behind your own success than I do :)
I would have thought that a large part of being and remaining successful as a partner-level lawyer comes from the connections you have and maintain with clients and potential clients, and I would also have thought that those clients and the people who decide which lawyers to use tend to be in the upper E levels?
That depends, a lot.
Can't speak for CC, but for me, my "clients" are in-house counsel at pharma corporations. Those are the "connections" that count. The people who
own pharma corporations don't want to know me, would have exactly zero contact with me.
Oddly, my "clients" tend to be lower on the lawyering social scale that I am - it is usually considered somewhat of a step down to go "in house" from a big law firm.
For litigators, OTOH, your clients are of course anyone with litigation to do and the money to pay for it.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: MiMAmericans have no class. :bowler:
For the most part, he's right.
Do you not think that there are social differences between "the poors", say, and yourselves? Or between your Joan Robinsons and Lemonjellos on one hand and and the guys and the people who work at McDonald's on the other hand? Between the children of successful executives and the children of successful small business owners?
And if there are social differences, are many of them not passed along from parent to child in many cases, significantly shaping values, attitudes, and opportunities?
Because if those differences exist and they're transmitted through the generations, then you do have class.
... or do they not, do you define class differently, or is the "we have no class" aspirational rather than descriptive?
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:40:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: MiMAmericans have no class. :bowler:
For the most part, he's right.
Do you not think that there are social differences between "the poors", say, and yourselves? Or between your Joan Robinsons and Lemonjellos on one hand and and the guys and the people who work at McDonald's on the other hand? Between the children of successful executives and the children of successful small business owners?
And if there are social differences, are many of them not passed along from parent to child in many cases, significantly shaping values, attitudes, and opportunities?
Because if those differences exist and they're transmitted through the generations, then you do have class.
... or do they not, do you define class differently, or is the "we have no class" aspirational rather than descriptive?
I think MiM was making a pun on the word "Class."
Jacob just had to be an asshole.
Malthus & CC - thanks for you clarifications; they even seem to mutually agree. So Church is off the mark when speaking of lawyers, and when describing the interactions of the mid- and upper- E levels which both of you are better positioned to view (if we even accept his classification system to begin with).
Do you think the rest of his classification system falls down too, or is it a potentially useful framework for analysis once adjusted to be more accurate (and filter out bias)?
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:40:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: MiMAmericans have no class. :bowler:
For the most part, he's right.
Do you not think that there are social differences between "the poors", say, and yourselves? Or between your Joan Robinsons and Lemonjellos on one hand and and the guys and the people who work at McDonald's on the other hand? Between the children of successful executives and the children of successful small business owners?
And if there are social differences, are many of them not passed along from parent to child in many cases, significantly shaping values, attitudes, and opportunities?
Because if those differences exist and they're transmitted through the generations, then you do have class.
... or do they not, do you define class differently, or is the "we have no class" aspirational rather than descriptive?
There's a small underclass and a small upper class. But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 05, 2013, 02:44:26 PMI think MiM was making a pun on the word "Class."
I thought so too, but I don't think derspiess was.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:49:29 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 05, 2013, 02:44:26 PMI think MiM was making a pun on the word "Class."
I thought so too, but I don't think derspiess was.
Ah, okay, bicker on then. :bowler:
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:49:03 PMThere's a small underclass and a small upper class. But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.
Fair enough.
Do you think that some of those differences in attitude that Church describes exists? I.e. valuing labour vs creativity vs social connection exists, as well as different definitions of success? And if so, what do you put them down to? Individual and political opinion? Something else?
My primary objection is with the idea that there are separate "ladders". That implies that moving from one to another is difficult, if not impossible. And while I think it is incredibly hard to move OFF the "underclass" ladder, and incredibly hard to move onto the "ultra elite ladder", everything in between is pretty easy to move around in the US, at least in general.
It is not very hard at all for what he would consider the son/daughter of a labour ladder class to move to the "gentry" ladder, for example.
I think alot of Americans define class as in a social hierarchy of orders with legal privileges for each one, a la ancien regime France. So because we have no dukes, or whatever, we have no class.
Which strikes me as a very narrow definition of class.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 05, 2013, 02:50:50 PMAh, okay, bicker on then. :bowler:
Thank you, sir.
I don't think we've descended into the bickering stage quite yet; though this being languish, I'm sure it's not far off :bowler:
Quote from: Berkut on September 05, 2013, 02:52:37 PM
My primary objection is with the idea that there are separate "ladders". That implies that moving from one to another is difficult, if not impossible.
"Ladder" is code for race. :secret:
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:49:03 PM
There's a small underclass and a small upper class. But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.
Well if we go by that notion almost every modern nation is classless. I am not certain the notion of class is particularly useful in describing our society but I am not sure it is really classless either.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2013, 02:55:36 PM
but I am not sure it is really classless either.
Not totally. But I never made that claim.
Quote from: Berkut on September 05, 2013, 02:37:23 PMWEll, you are certianly right about his agenda. He has some really interesting points though. This bit stuck out to me as being pretty interesting. I don't know if it is correct, but it is certainly interesting:
QuoteThe relationship between the Gentry and Elite is one of open rivalry, and that between the Gentry and Labor is one of distrust. What about Labor and the Elite? That one is not symmetric. The Elite exploit and despise Labor as a class comprised mostly of "useful idiots". How does Labor see the Elite? They don't. The Elite has managed to convince Labor that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual "liberal elite" responsible for Labor's misery over the past 30 years. In effect, the Elite has constructed an "infinity pool" where the Elite appears to be a hyper-successful extension of Labor, lumping these two disparate ladders into an "us" and placing the Gentry and Underclass into "them".
Yeah, there does seem to be fairly strong currents of anti-intellectualism aimed at the creative and progressive parts of the middle class; there does seem to be a fairly significant strain of anti-elitism as well, and it doesn't seem to be aimed at the actual elites.
Church certainly offers an explanation of the phenomenon; like you I'm not sure he's correct. I mean, you could perhaps site the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch as evidence, but I suppose the question is whether they're actually deliberately creating such sentiment (which is what it seems Church argues) or merely guiding something that exists naturally (or for other reasons).
Personally I'd jettison the Evil-E1-Conspiracy part of the classification system. I think that rather than say that E1s secretly control everything for their own (evil) benefit I'd say that the mark of people in the E1 class is that while they can influence major events, the important part is that they're in strong enough position that they can take advantage of the situation pretty much no matter what happens.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
I think alot of Americans define class as in a social hierarchy of orders with legal privileges for each one, a la ancien regime France. So because we have no dukes, or whatever, we have no class.
Which strikes me as a very narrow definition of class.
I don't think that is it. To me the problem with with trying to define a class system is the discretization of what is actually, for the most part, a continuum.
Yes there are differences and yes where you start affects where you end up, but for the most part it is all one big space.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:49:03 PM
There's a small underclass and a small upper class. But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.
Mmm.. not if you listen to most statistics. There's a pretty good chunk of the population that are below povery level. I think it's at around 15% now. That doesn't include those who are just above that level, barely scraping by.
That's a pretty high number, especially compared to recent history. The Middle Class is shrinking.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
I think alot of Americans define class as in a social hierarchy of orders with legal privileges for each one, a la ancien regime France. So because we have no dukes, or whatever, we have no class.
Which strikes me as a very narrow definition of class.
My definition of class is something that is at least in part self-perpetuating and easy to define as unlike other classes.
The "underclass" is a good example - once in it, it is hard to get out, your kids will most likely be underclass too, and it is (reasonably) easy to define what it is. Similarly, the ultra-elite - barring exceptional circumstances it is very hard to get in without being born in it, and it is easy to recognize.
The fear, in North America, is that what used to be a rather more fluid middle is moving to effectively a two-class system - those who are easily employable because of experience, having the exact right education, luck, skill, entreprenureal smarts, or some combo of the above, and earn enough to both fund their kids through education and retire; and the mass of under-employed and under-paid; and that rising barriers to entry will make this division into truly a "class" division, such that it will take being the kids of someone in the "steadily employable" group to break into it.
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2013, 03:02:53 PM
I don't think that is it. To me the problem with with trying to define a class system is the discretization of what is actually, for the most part, a continuum.
Yes there are differences and yes where you start affects where you end up, but for the most part it is all one big space.
Which is why I am not really comfortable with the idea.
I think the concept is more suited to a society with a huge mass of uneducated farm workers and/or industrial laborers with little ability to advance themselves. But those sorts of societies are becoming more scarce in the modern era. There are still classes but they are less...erm...classy or something.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 03:05:04 PMMy definition of class is something that is at least in part self-perpetuating and easy to define as unlike other classes.
The "underclass" is a good example - once in it, it is hard to get out, your kids will most likely be underclass too, and it is (reasonably) easy to define what it is. Similarly, the ultra-elite - barring exceptional circumstances it is very hard to get in without being born in it, and it is easy to recognize.
That's not a bad approach, actually :cheers:
QuoteThe fear, in North America, is that what used to be a rather more fluid middle is moving to effectively a two-class system - those who are easily employable because of experience, having the exact right education, luck, skill, entreprenureal smarts, or some combo of the above, and earn enough to both fund their kids through education and retire; and the mass of under-employed and under-paid; and that rising barriers to entry will make this division into truly a "class" division, such that it will take being the kids of someone in the "steadily employable" group to break into it.
I think that's pretty perceptive as well.
It does leave out one thing that Church outlined and which resonated with me as well. One of the keys, I thought, of the ladder system was that of values.
For the labour ladder the notion of success was tied to and derived from doing more work, basically. If you recall, he posited the pinnacle of the labour ladder to be someone who's running a successful plumbing business or restaurant or series of same. He's the guy who learned to be a plumber, worked hard, was smart, and now he's got a large plumbing business that services the whole state or whatever.
Contrast that to the pinnacle of success he posits for his gentry class - Jon Stewart (or Rush Limbaugh, to pick someone on the other side of the political spectrum); there the ideal is to generate value from ideas, advancement, and/or culture.
Finally the pinnacle of the Elite class is to exercise control, where the specifics of what is being controlled is less germane than the control itself.
I think the tension between these different value values (ahem) describe and explain a lot of the conflicts we see across the American landscape (and elsewhere as well), and I think that's interesting. Perhaps it's a mistake to attach them to class definitions though...
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 03:19:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 03:05:04 PMMy definition of class is something that is at least in part self-perpetuating and easy to define as unlike other classes.
The "underclass" is a good example - once in it, it is hard to get out, your kids will most likely be underclass too, and it is (reasonably) easy to define what it is. Similarly, the ultra-elite - barring exceptional circumstances it is very hard to get in without being born in it, and it is easy to recognize.
That's not a bad approach, actually :cheers:
QuoteThe fear, in North America, is that what used to be a rather more fluid middle is moving to effectively a two-class system - those who are easily employable because of experience, having the exact right education, luck, skill, entreprenureal smarts, or some combo of the above, and earn enough to both fund their kids through education and retire; and the mass of under-employed and under-paid; and that rising barriers to entry will make this division into truly a "class" division, such that it will take being the kids of someone in the "steadily employable" group to break into it.
I think that's pretty perceptive as well.
It does leave out one thing that Church outlined and which resonated with me as well. One of the keys, I thought, of the ladder system was that of values.
For the labour ladder the notion of success was tied to and derived from doing more work, basically. If you recall, he posited the pinnacle of the labour ladder to be someone who's running a successful plumbing business or restaurant or series of same. He's the guy who learned to be a plumber, worked hard, was smart, and now he's got a large plumbing business that services the whole state or whatever.
Contrast that to the pinnacle of success he posits for his gentry class - Jon Stewart (or Rush Limbaugh, to pick someone on the other side of the political spectrum); there the ideal is to generate value from ideas, advancement, and/or culture.
Finally the pinnacle of the Elite class is to exercise control, where the specifics of what is being controlled is less germane than the control itself.
I think the tension between these different value values (ahem) describe and explain a lot of the conflicts we see across the American landscape (and elsewhere as well), and I think that's interesting. Perhaps it's a mistake to attach them to class definitions though...
I don't think those values work well with class definitions ... taking again what I'm familiar with, that would put most lawyers quite firmly in the "labour" class, as lawyers are notrious for being chained to the concept of the "billable hour" - i.e., success is derived, literally, from volume of work.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 03:02:59 PM
Mmm.. not if you listen to most statistics. There's a pretty good chunk of the population that are below povery level. I think it's at around 15% now. That doesn't include those who are just above that level, barely scraping by.
That's a pretty high number, especially compared to recent history. The Middle Class is shrinking.
Meh, sounds like scaremongering-- poverty is a relative concept and if you're gonna do the poverty thing, the US is a pretty good place to do it. There's still a good deal of mobility up or down. I don't think most of us think of ourselves as being of a particular class, other than that squishy middle.
Americans just aren't particularly class-conscious, save for the snobby elites and the resentful self-defeating underclass.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 03:43:33 PMAmericans just aren't particularly class-conscious, save for the snobby elites and the resentful self-defeating underclass.
I think I have a pretty good idea whom you mean by the resentful self-defeating underclass... but who do you mean when you say snobby elites?
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 03:43:33 PMAmericans just aren't particularly class-conscious, save for the snobby elites and the resentful self-defeating underclass.
I think I have a pretty good idea whom you mean by the resentful self-defeating underclass...
No, you probably don't, Seedy.
Quotebut who do you mean when you say snobby elites?
Those with extreme generational wealth. I have to admit I don't know them very well.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 02:48:33 PM
Do you think the rest of his classification system falls down too, or is it a potentially useful framework for analysis once adjusted to be more accurate (and filter out bias)?
I dont think his classification system is useful. He has an interesting idea regarding educated bright people being a new class but I think his analogy to the old land based gentry who needed to do nothing more than get born into the right family fails on a martiesque scale.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:49:03 PM
There's a small underclass and a small upper class. But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.
Mmm.. not if you listen to most statistics. There's a pretty good chunk of the population that are below povery level. I think it's at around 15% now. That doesn't include those who are just above that level, barely scraping by.
That's a pretty high number, especially compared to recent history. The Middle Class is shrinking.
I think there is a very, very large difference between the poor and the underclass that you are missing.
The poor might be poor, but their social class and culture allow them to have a reasonable shot of becoming not poor, and it isn't generational. Their kids might be poor, but might not, and have a pretty decent opportunity to become not poor if they have a reasonable amount of intelligence/ambition/hard work, etc.,
Being poor sucks, but it isn't any kind of permanent sentence.
The underclass in America are the poor who for a variety of reasons are generational poor. They are poor, and quite likely their kids will be poor as well, because their social "class" is one that lacks the very things that give mobility to other poor Americans. Familial stability, appreciation for and access to education, etc., etc.
I don't fit into any of his classifications. Fuck all bloggers.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 03:19:10 PM
It does leave out one thing that Church outlined and which resonated with me as well. One of the keys, I thought, of the ladder system was that of values.
For the labour ladder the notion of success was tied to and derived from doing more work, basically. If you recall, he posited the pinnacle of the labour ladder to be someone who's running a successful plumbing business or restaurant or series of same. He's the guy who learned to be a plumber, worked hard, was smart, and now he's got a large plumbing business that services the whole state or whatever.
Contrast that to the pinnacle of success he posits for his gentry class - Jon Stewart (or Rush Limbaugh, to pick someone on the other side of the political spectrum); there the ideal is to generate value from ideas, advancement, and/or culture.
Finally the pinnacle of the Elite class is to exercise control, where the specifics of what is being controlled is less germane than the control itself.
I think the tension between these different value values (ahem) describe and explain a lot of the conflicts we see across the American landscape (and elsewhere as well), and I think that's interesting. Perhaps it's a mistake to attach them to class definitions though...
That is actually where I disagree with him most. Success in any field is generally tied to doing more work - either generating it and doing it; generating it and giving it to others to do; or doing the work generated by others. All of that takes time and effort although Church seems to think that the only people who "work" are his labour class. Most everyone in each of his other categories - with the exception of his E1s and perhaps a lot of E2s necessarily need to produce work of one sort or another. Its just that some people are better at marketing their work or are fortunate enough to do work which is highly remunerative.
Quote from: Berkut on September 05, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 02:49:03 PM
There's a small underclass and a small upper class. But a large majority of us are in a big squishy middle (effectively classless), despite all the OMG THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DIEING rhetoric we hear.
Mmm.. not if you listen to most statistics. There's a pretty good chunk of the population that are below povery level. I think it's at around 15% now. That doesn't include those who are just above that level, barely scraping by.
That's a pretty high number, especially compared to recent history. The Middle Class is shrinking.
I think there is a very, very large difference between the poor and the underclass that you are missing.
The poor might be poor, but their social class and culture allow them to have a reasonable shot of becoming not poor, and it isn't generational. Their kids might be poor, but might not, and have a pretty decent opportunity to become not poor if they have a reasonable amount of intelligence/ambition/hard work, etc.,
Being poor sucks, but it isn't any kind of permanent sentence.
The underclass in America are the poor who for a variety of reasons are generational poor. They are poor, and quite likely their kids will be poor as well, because their social "class" is one that lacks the very things that give mobility to other poor Americans. Familial stability, appreciation for and access to education, etc., etc.
I agree with all of that, of course, but I have another point to debate, and it is this: that the average costs of both being "not-poor" (in terms of perceived necessities of life) and having enough money to ensure your kids have all they need to be not-poor as well, and in addition having sufficient cash to retire on, is rising faster than the average income; and that this is harming generational social mobility for people who are not in the 'underclass'.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 03:50:00 PMNo, you probably don't, Seedy.
Believe it or not, there were no insinuations intended.
I expect that when you speak of the resentful, self-defeating underclass you're thinking of the people Church described as generationally poor and third-generation unemployed, no?
QuoteQuotebut who do you mean when you say snobby elites?
Those with extreme generational wealth. I have to admit I don't know them very well.
Okay yeah... so the 0.01% or even 0.001%. Just checking, because I thought you might be throwing some liberal ivory tower snobs into that category as well, but evidently you didn't :)
Quote from: Berkut on September 05, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
The underclass in America are the poor who for a variety of reasons are generational poor. They are poor, and quite likely their kids will be poor as well, because their social "class" is one that lacks the very things that give mobility to other poor Americans. Familial stability, appreciation for and access to education, etc., etc.
Those were the people I thought you meant, derspiess.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 04:04:05 PM
I agree with all of that, of course, but I have another point to debate, and it is this: that the average costs of both being "not-poor" (in terms of perceived necessities of life) and having enough money to ensure your kids have all they need to be not-poor as well, and in addition having sufficient cash to retire on, is rising faster than the average income; and that this is harming generational social mobility for people who are not in the 'underclass'.
Yeah, when I look at my own social and economic mobility and reflect on how hard it would be for me to do the same thing in todays enviornment, it makes me shudder.
I dunno cc. One thing that has really struck me as I "grew up" was that all that stuff people tell you about how if you play by the rules and do all the things you're supposed to do you'll be successful is just garbage. Or a mundane definition of success. I'd say that as a general rule, life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
Sure working hard your whole life might earn you a fine living of an average type and a happy retirement, but that doesn't get you to the pinnacle of any so-called ladder you might be on. That plumber who built a statewide plumbing business took risks to get that. He threw himself on the tracks and risked being a great big failure. Maybe he did fail the first time or the first ten times. That's not unusual. When you play it safe, you wall yourself off from both ends of the bell curve, but you can't open the right side without opening the left as well, if you know what I mean.
Not sure why you assume there is not a bell curve for hard work? My observation is that a lot of people do what they need to do but not much more. It is those people that do extra that tend to get ahead.
The smart money actually does the opposite. The smart money tries to limit risk. Simply saying one needs to engage in risky behaviour to be successful misses the main component of being successful. Hard work.
Break your leg at work and get a 7 figure settlement.
PROFIT
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 04:38:19 PM
I dunno cc. One thing that has really struck me as I "grew up" was that all that stuff people tell you about how if you play by the rules and do all the things you're supposed to do you'll be successful is just garbage. Or a mundane definition of success. I'd say that as a general rule, life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
Sure working hard your whole life might earn you a fine living of an average type and a happy retirement, but that doesn't get you to the pinnacle of any so-called ladder you might be on. That plumber who built a statewide plumbing business took risks to get that. He threw himself on the tracks and risked being a great big failure. Maybe he did fail the first time or the first ten times. That's not unusual. When you play it safe, you wall yourself off from both ends of the bell curve, but you can't open the right side without opening the left as well, if you know what I mean.
Success has a number of different components - hard work, smarts, luck, skill, risk-taking. The proportions vary of course.
In certain careers success is not defined all *that* much by risk. In general, the professions are not "about" risk as much as (say) investing is. A person who wants to become a heart surgeon isn't going to get there by risk-taking as much as by skill, hard work, smarts and luck.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:47:04 PM
Break your leg at work and get a 7 figure settlement.
PROFIT
I would counsel against that kind of risk taking
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:47:04 PM
Break your leg at work and get a 7 figure settlement.
PROFIT
I would counsel against that kind of risk taking
Speak for yourself, pal.
It was only 7 months of agony.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 04:04:05 PM
I agree with all of that, of course, but I have another point to debate, and it is this: that the average costs of both being "not-poor" (in terms of perceived necessities of life) and having enough money to ensure your kids have all they need to be not-poor as well, and in addition having sufficient cash to retire on, is rising faster than the average income; and that this is harming generational social mobility for people who are not in the 'underclass'.
Yeah, when I look at my own social and economic mobility and reflect on how hard it would be for me to do the same thing in todays enviornment, it makes me shudder.
Yeah, us poor folks did pretty good. :P
[Ducks, runs for cover :D ]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:47:04 PM
Break your leg at work and get a 7 figure settlement.
PROFIT
I would counsel against that kind of risk taking
Speak for yourself, pal.
Ok, you can counsel people to take that risk - then you can pay out part of the settlment :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 04:04:05 PM
I agree with all of that, of course, but I have another point to debate, and it is this: that the average costs of both being "not-poor" (in terms of perceived necessities of life) and having enough money to ensure your kids have all they need to be not-poor as well, and in addition having sufficient cash to retire on, is rising faster than the average income; and that this is harming generational social mobility for people who are not in the 'underclass'.
Yeah, when I look at my own social and economic mobility and reflect on how hard it would be for me to do the same thing in todays enviornment, it makes me shudder.
Yeah, us poor folks did pretty good. :P
[Ducks, runs for cover :D ]
I was going to make a quip about how the children of professors have no such trouble. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 04:47:04 PM
Break your leg at work and get a 7 figure settlement.
PROFIT
I would counsel against that kind of risk taking
Speak for yourself, pal.
Ok, you can counsel people to take that risk - then you can pay out part of the settlment :P
Better yet - the person who takes that risk can pay you to recover. ALL PART OF THE PLAN! ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 04:55:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2013, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 04:04:05 PM
I agree with all of that, of course, but I have another point to debate, and it is this: that the average costs of both being "not-poor" (in terms of perceived necessities of life) and having enough money to ensure your kids have all they need to be not-poor as well, and in addition having sufficient cash to retire on, is rising faster than the average income; and that this is harming generational social mobility for people who are not in the 'underclass'.
Yeah, when I look at my own social and economic mobility and reflect on how hard it would be for me to do the same thing in todays enviornment, it makes me shudder.
Yeah, us poor folks did pretty good. :P
[Ducks, runs for cover :D ]
I was going to make a quip about how the children of professors have no such trouble. :D
Or the nephews of celebrated cultural icons. :P
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Or the nephews of celebrated cultural icons. :P
Yeah, I can take that right to the bank. :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 04:38:19 PM
I dunno cc. One thing that has really struck me as I "grew up" was that all that stuff people tell you about how if you play by the rules and do all the things you're supposed to do you'll be successful is just garbage. Or a mundane definition of success. I'd say that as a general rule, life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
It also punishes risk.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 05:07:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Or the nephews of celebrated cultural icons. :P
Yeah, I can take that right to the bank. :lol:
Indeed. Your successful, stable family has set you up for success. Feel guilty and bad about yourself, because you're taking the bread out of Ideologue's mouth.
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 05:11:23 PMIndeed. Your successful, stable family has set you up for success. Feel guilty and bad about yourself, because you're taking the bread out of Ideologue's mouth.
Well... if there's some sort of meat on the bread, Ide wouldn't eat it anyhow; no harm done.
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 05:11:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 05:07:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Or the nephews of celebrated cultural icons. :P
Yeah, I can take that right to the bank. :lol:
Indeed. Your successful, stable family has set you up for success. Feel guilty and bad about yourself, because you're taking the bread out of Ideologue's mouth.
He doesn't eat bread, but candy bars. :P
He would eat bread if the depredations of those lucky few hadn't left him with nothing but chocolate and bad peanut butter.
As for the vegetarian thing, I just assume that's brain damage from drinking, fighting or malnourishment.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 05:09:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 04:38:19 PM
I dunno cc. One thing that has really struck me as I "grew up" was that all that stuff people tell you about how if you play by the rules and do all the things you're supposed to do you'll be successful is just garbage. Or a mundane definition of success. I'd say that as a general rule, life does not reward work. It rewards risk.
It also punishes risk.
That's what I meant by opening up both ends of the bell curve. :yes:
I don't know if I buy into the "life rewards risk" approach.
I think life rewards minimizing risk while maximizing potential upside. Your starting position - we can call it class or not - determines how much risk you may have to accept for the range of upsides within reach.
Starting, say, an office supplies store has a very different risk profile if all you can provide is sweat equity and personally guaranteed credit compared to, say, a $20K no-strings no interest loan from your father. Similarly, the range of potential upsides - or at least the distribution of likelihood within that range - varies as well; you have a much higher chance of seeing the bigger upsides if you happen to have social connections to high finance types, people familiar with IPOs etc.
So yeah... I think life rewards taking well-calculated risks, luck, and good starting positions.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 03:43:33 PMAmericans just aren't particularly class-conscious, save for the snobby elites and the resentful self-defeating underclass.
I think I have a pretty good idea whom you mean by the resentful self-defeating underclass... but who do you mean when you say snobby elites?
:secret: Jews.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 06:17:11 PM
So yeah... I think life rewards taking well-calculated risks, luck, and good starting positions.
You forgot the lack of a moral compass that permits the ability to fuck anybody over at anytime for anything, unfettered by conscience or consideration.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 06:47:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 06:17:11 PM
So yeah... I think life rewards taking well-calculated risks, luck, and good starting positions.
You forgot the lack of a moral compass that permits the ability to fuck anybody over at anytime for anything, unfettered by conscience or consideration.
I need to develop that.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 06:50:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 06:47:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 06:17:11 PM
So yeah... I think life rewards taking well-calculated risks, luck, and good starting positions.
You forgot the lack of a moral compass that permits the ability to fuck anybody over at anytime for anything, unfettered by conscience or consideration.
I need to develop that.
We're not discussing your dating life.
Why not?
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:08:49 PM
Why not?
You haven't offered many details, so there isn't much to discuss.
Quote from: Berkut on September 05, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
I think there is a very, very large difference between the poor and the underclass that you are missing.
The poor might be poor, but their social class and culture allow them to have a reasonable shot of becoming not poor, and it isn't generational. Their kids might be poor, but might not, and have a pretty decent opportunity to become not poor if they have a reasonable amount of intelligence/ambition/hard work, etc.,
Being poor sucks, but it isn't any kind of permanent sentence.
The underclass in America are the poor who for a variety of reasons are generational poor. They are poor, and quite likely their kids will be poor as well, because their social "class" is one that lacks the very things that give mobility to other poor Americans. Familial stability, appreciation for and access to education, etc., etc.
I'm aware of the difference. I understood this particular tangent to be about the shrinking middle class (or lack thereof), not the difference between poor and underclass.
It may well be that the working poor can work their way out - or their kids can - but it doesn't change the fact that the number of people below the poverty level is steadily growing. And they're not coming from the upper classes; they're coming from the middle. So it seems to me that the idea that the "shrinking middle class" is scare-mongering or a myth is ridiculous.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 05:07:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Or the nephews of celebrated cultural icons. :P
Yeah, I can take that right to the bank. :lol:
If you had no morals, you could. Just look at what Princess Diana's brother did with her. Hell, he's almost solvent now!
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 06:30:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 06:25:29 PM:secret: Jews.
That's not who he meant :)
Heh. You'd like to think so. The phraseology of the right wing has changed quite a bit, but usually is grounded in the same ideas. Instead of "Jews control the Press" we have "Liberal Media Elite". Same concept.
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:25:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 07:19:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:08:49 PM
Why not?
You haven't offered many details, so there isn't much to discuss.
Seedy appears to disagree. <_<
:P I just don't think you have a problem with dispensing with your moral compass when it comes to dating.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 06:30:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 06:25:29 PM:secret: Jews.
That's not who he meant :)
Heh. You'd like to think so. The phraseology of the right wing has changed quite a bit, but usually is grounded in the same ideas. Instead of "Jews control the Press" we have "Liberal Media Elite". Same concept.
The right wing has nothing on you and Seedy when it comes to bringing ethnicity into everything.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:04:16 PM
Heh. You'd like to think so. The phraseology of the right wing has changed quite a bit, but usually is grounded in the same ideas. Instead of "Jews control the Press" we have "Liberal Media Elite". Same concept.
OMG DOG WHISTLE POLITIX
We've also got the judicially poor. Those people who had to suffer irrationally harsh legal sanctions that create extra barriers to success that would otherwise not be there. I'm talking about a 20 year old with a drug possession charge for having some weed or something minor like that. In the era of background checks, that crap can ruin your life for just one dumb mistake. Kinda takes away any reason they might have had to try at that point. If we didn't have an underclass, we'd manufacture one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 08:10:34 PM
We've also got the judicially poor. Those people who had to suffer irrationally harsh legal sanctions that create extra barriers to success that would otherwise not be there. I'm talking about a 20 year old with a drug possession charge for having some weed or something minor like that. In the era of background checks, that crap can ruin your life for just one dumb mistake. Kinda takes away any reason they might have had to try at that point. If we didn't have an underclass, we'd manufacture one.
Yeah, that's a good point, too. The mistakes that we made as kids 30 years ago could destroy a kid's future today.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2013, 08:07:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 06:30:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 06:25:29 PM:secret: Jews.
That's not who he meant :)
Heh. You'd like to think so. The phraseology of the right wing has changed quite a bit, but usually is grounded in the same ideas. Instead of "Jews control the Press" we have "Liberal Media Elite". Same concept.
The right wing has nothing on you and Seedy when it comes to bringing ethnicity into everything.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzpyeWEs.jpg&hash=643681a0e86ced7c07c65912b00d54db9ee2a17c)
Today's Translation: "Welfare Fraud".
They have such big feet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 08:06:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:25:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 07:19:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 07:08:49 PM
Why not?
You haven't offered many details, so there isn't much to discuss.
Seedy appears to disagree. <_<
:P I just don't think you have a problem with dispensing with your moral compass when it comes to dating.
On what grounds, sir?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:04:16 PM
Heh. You'd like to think so. The phraseology of the right wing has changed quite a bit, but usually is grounded in the same ideas. Instead of "Jews control the Press" we have "Liberal Media Elite". Same concept.
It's similar to the way the Occupy movements blame all the problems in the world on the international "Banking" conspiracy.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 05, 2013, 08:31:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:04:16 PM
Heh. You'd like to think so. The phraseology of the right wing has changed quite a bit, but usually is grounded in the same ideas. Instead of "Jews control the Press" we have "Liberal Media Elite". Same concept.
It's similar to the way the Occupy movements blame all the problems in the world on the international "Banking" conspiracy.
I wasn't aware they did that, or that occupy movements still existed.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:33:51 PM
I wasn't aware they did that, or that occupy movements still existed.
You should try to become more informed.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 05, 2013, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 08:33:51 PM
I wasn't aware they did that, or that occupy movements still existed.
You should try to become more informed.
You could help me, for instance show me how the "Occupy movements blame all the problems in the world on the international "Banking" conspiracy." Since there were dozens of them across the world, you have your work cut out for you. Or I could find one that blames some problems on something other then an international "banking conspiracy thereby invalidating your statement. Or you could walk that statement back. Which one you wanna do?
I'm guessing he'll quit while he's ahead.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 03:02:22 PM
Personally I'd jettison the Evil-E1-Conspiracy part of the classification system. I think that rather than say that E1s secretly control everything for their own (evil) benefit I'd say that the mark of people in the E1 class is that while they can influence major events, the important part is that they're in strong enough position that they can take advantage of the situation pretty much no matter what happens.
But that's the most important part. :(
I think he does overreach in that regard. Obviously there are a number of hyper-elite people who espouse progressive politics and some who genuinely embrace reactionary ones. But the idea that the upper reaches of the 1% are more concerned with power for its own sake, or as a birthright, rather than for the change it can effect in the world, is probably true.
At the same time, denying their fundamental humanity--that is, denying that they have actual beliefs, let alone hobbies, creative urges, the ability to love, and so forth--is probably incorrect. Their wealth and privilege warps their humanity, as is often evident whenever someone from this quasi-mythical "E1" group speaks about things they are interested in, but I don't think the world is ruled by a cabal of Robert Pattinsons from Cosmopolis. Such a portrayal is an effective cartoon of their degraded or congenitally weak sense of empathy, but I have difficulty believing that they are robots solely programmed to accumulate power, without passion or prejudice.
In any event, he puts an intellectually confused gloss on obvious facts. There are indeed three kinds of people in America. Economically insecure right-wingers ("labor"), economically insecure left-wingers ("gentry"), and parasites for whom political forces and economic forces do exist, but are entertained more as a hobby rather than something which personally affects them.
The inability to resolve these division comes from the fact that the "gentry" has, as the author says, embraced a fundamentally "feminine" modus operandi (dude's words, not mine) of talking and talking and talking, and as such have rejected that yucky "masculine" value which is the only solution to socioeconomic problems and the only solid foundation upon which power is built: capacity for violence. You can't blog your way out of dystopia.
However, if your goal is to mobilize a red army, talk of the "objective evil" of the elite is well and good. :)
How do you get that the gentry are insecure? :huh:
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 05:17:05 PM
He would eat bread if the depredations of those lucky few hadn't left him with nothing but chocolate and bad peanut butter.
As for the vegetarian thing, I just assume that's brain damage from drinking, fighting or malnourishment.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 05, 2013, 10:15:07 PM
How do you get that the gentry are insecure? :huh:
Because except those of us who own property capable of supporting us and our families through a passive income stream, we are all of us insecure.
That's pretty silly.
Of course it is.
We don't need you purposefully saying silly things.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 05:07:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 05, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Or the nephews of celebrated cultural icons. :P
Yeah, I can take that right to the bank. :lol:
If you had no morals, you could. Just look at what Princess Diana's brother did with her. Hell, he's almost solvent now!
Naw. All I'd get, is attention from penniless graduate students working on their PhDs. ;)
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 07:51:20 AM
We don't need you purposefully saying silly things.
I don't think that you're qualified to judge that.
It seems the further up the ladder the author gets, the more fanciful the ratings become. By the time he gets to E1, I think he is writing about a boogey man that doesn't actually exist. He is able to identify that there are 60,000 people in this group, and 18,000 live in the US. But who are these people that are actually running the world in downtime between their rape sessions of ski bunnies?
When I think of the most powerful and influential people in the US that don't have that influence tied to a specific job (which can be lost), I think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, T Boone Pickens, Sheldon Adelson, the Clintons, perhaps Jay Z, Oprah Winfrey, etc. That is a diverse group, but what unites all of them is the fact that they are essentially self made and have been in executive roles (if they aren't still in them).
Which makes sense when you think about it. The nature of world economic growth has meant each generation of truly rich is wealthier than the one before it, and wealth has a lot of factors to make it decline on a per person basis as it is passed through generations. If you want power but don't have the greatest wealth, you are going to need people's respect.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 08:10:34 PM
We've also got the judicially poor. Those people who had to suffer irrationally harsh legal sanctions that create extra barriers to success that would otherwise not be there. I'm talking about a 20 year old with a drug possession charge for having some weed or something minor like that. In the era of background checks, that crap can ruin your life for just one dumb mistake. Kinda takes away any reason they might have had to try at that point. If we didn't have an underclass, we'd manufacture one.
Agreed
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 12:11:27 PMSeems to me that pretty much everyone at languish can be placed on it
I don't think that I can.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2013, 02:39:54 PM
Can't speak for CC, but for me, my "clients" are in-house counsel at pharma corporations. Those are the "connections" that count. The people who own pharma corporations don't want to know me, would have exactly zero contact with me.
...
For litigators, OTOH, your clients are of course anyone with litigation to do and the money to pay for it.
For big companies, it is pretty much the same: the key person to know is not BigBank CEO but the inhouse counsel responsible for disputes (for bigger disputes this could be fairly senior people but usually not the top of the C-suite)
For smaller or midsize companies it could be the principal i.e. CEO or director but again could be a GC if the position or its equivalent exists.
A significant source of business is other lawyers or service professionals who either lack the specific expertise or are conflicted out.