Support NeoGAF

[hariseldon]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/99467/what-is-the-class-ceiling

Children of doctors and lawyers are up to 24 times more likely to get in to the same profession as their parents compared to their less “socially privileged” peers, a new book has suggested.

The Class Ceiling: Why it Pays to be Privileged by Sam Friedman from the London School of Economics (LSE), and Daniel Laurison indicates traditionally elite jobs such as medicine, law and media are among the most “inherited” careers in the UK.

According to The Times, the book “explores the invisible ‘helping hands’ that allow the well-connected middle classes to retain their stranglehold on the elite professions and explores why people from working-class backgrounds are less likely to reach top jobs even after securing first-class degrees from top universities”.

It suggests that that class pay gap is as big an issue as the gender pay gap, with people from working class backgrounds in elite roles earning on average £6,400 a year less than peers from more privileged upbringings.

“This is partly a question of culture – parental expectation combined with insider knowledge,” says Iain Macwhirter in The Herald. Yet “it is not just about culture and manners – about social barriers, and about ‘talking proper’” he adds. “The reality is that since the 1980s Britain has become deeply socially divided through relentless and accelerating inequalities of wealth and power.”

iNews says evidence of the so-called ‘class ceiling’ “comes amid rising debate over the existence of private schools in the UK”.

In an editorial in The Guardian, historian David Kynaston and economist Francis Green set out their argument that paid-for education was the root of inequality in British society.

“The existence in Britain of a flourishing private-school sector not only limits the life chances of those who attend state schools but also damages society at large, and it should be possible to have a sustained and fully inclusive national conversation about the subject,” they write.

“For far too long, public policy has been based on a casual assumption that economic inequality is not a problem so long as there is equality of opportunity. That’s it’s just about hard work, or intelligence. But it isn’t, and it never has been,” says Macwhirter.

First up, there absolutely is a class ceiling, far more than any gender-based 'glass ceiling'. This is in part due to plenty of people speaking up for women's rights, for minority rights, etc. There are plenty of women and minorities in positions where they can make the point about their respective 'glass ceilings' and of course they will, because it helps their groups and because they can be seen to be helping the oppressed, when in reality they are feathering their own nests. Working class people on the other hand, the truly oppressed, don't get much representation because they don't generally get anywhere near positions where they can make their voices heard. Nobody is sticking up for the working classes because so few people escape the working class to express their needs, and the people with a voice (the media) have largely never even met a working class person before.

Anecdotal evidence time: Looking at my own background, none of my peers did well. I am literally the only one who did ok. My wife.. her dad is a lawyer and she's a lawyer. Her friends from private school all went on to become doctors and lawyers, and the thick ones ended up working in the media (a hell of a lot at the BBC). They literally fail upwards. Part of the reason is the contacts they have. They all know people in the professions they wish to reach, which means that even if they don't have direct helping hands they know the right route to take to get there, their parents are pushing them into the right universities to meet the right people, their friends are mentioning them and thus at interview they have an advantage, etc. They all have trust funds, and their parents fund unpaid internships in London to get the experience you need to get the job, which of course poor families just can't do. There is also that confidence that comes from private school. There is a certain confidence and eloquence that exists among my wife and her peers that you just don't find among my peers.

The funny bit is that they tell me to check my privilege for being a straight white male, while wallowing in that privilege - being women really doesn't hold any of them back, neither does being gay, black or any other protected category.

I don't agree with the assertion that private schools should be binned, bringing others down is not a solution, though I admit it's a feature of the left at times, one which causes me some consternation. I'd rather we look at how we can take the features of the private schools and bring them into state schools, as well as looking at how we can improve integration, have state school students get to know private school students to gain contacts and how private school students can meet state school students to gain a bit more empathy for them (that Jacob Rees-Mogg [Tory MP] described state school students as potted plants is reflective of the wider view of the middle-classes towards the working classes).

Equality of opportunity is absolutely the way to go, but that shouldn't mean reducing the opportunity for those who are fortunate enough to get a good one, it should be about finding ways to uplift those who DON'T get good opportunities.

 

[Papa]

In my observation, a lot of the problems that prevent people from breaking through the class ceiling are behavioural, e.g. tall poppy syndrome. Nothing stunts the development of a naturally talented student like the sneers and jeers of his peers, and these behaviours are far more prevalent in lower socioeconomic classes. Activists typically want to blame it solely on structural factors which takes away any personal responsibility and agency from the individual and unfairly punishes those who were lucky enough to be born into a middle to upper socioeconomic class when it gets to the equity of outcome stage (affirmative action).

The only fair and sustainable way to fix the problem of class is to change the culture so that people can lift themselves out of poverty, not expect someone else to do it for them, but that is an extremely difficult thing to do. Immigrant families who have been through genuine adversity and scrimped and saved for everything they have are generally the best at raising anti-fragile kids who can break the poverty cycle. Natural born citizens who grow up in families on the welfare gravy train while being told everything is someone else’s fault? No chance.

 

[hariseldon]

Papa - that certainly mirrors a lot of what I've observed. I got so much shit for putting in a lot of work as a kid (at one point I was doing work 2 years ahead of the rest of my class) - though I would also say that a certain social awkwardness that goes with such feats didn't help either. I ended up missing 2.5 years of education for that (worked out as a win for me though as I spent that time learning to program computers). Looking at more modern times, if you're in a rough area, you have to be able to fight your way out of trouble. That creates a mindset far from conducive to success in life.

I would argue that, while tall-poppy syndrome is a factor, there are things the kids just can't escape from. I worked at a school in a deprived area and some of the parenting was absolutely shocking. The mode of interaction at home was typically shouting, which meant that the mode of interaction at school was shouting. Then you had parents who didn't bother feeding their kids, parents too pissed/stoned to care, absent parents, etc. I will add that I think it's worse now than when I was growing up in the 80s/90s. I couldn't honestly put my finger on why.

Welfare.. yeah I have mixed feelings there. I certainly consider that we should have a safety net, because sometimes life shits on you. In the UK the welfare system got too complicated though, the end result that in any poor community or group of friends you'll have one appointed benefit expert who will know what hoops to jump through to get enough money (because actually without doing that you don't get enough money to live). The end result is that you have to be alcoholic, have a drug problem, some other disability (and some went the fat route), to get a benefit. The government encouraged people to move from unemployment to disability to massage unemployment figures at one point which didn't help matters.

There are so many contributory factors, and I feel bad for the kids stuck in the middle of it all.

 

[Papa]

Papa - that certainly mirrors a lot of what I've observed. I got so much shit for putting in a lot of work as a kid (at one point I was doing work 2 years ahead of the rest of my class) - though I would also say that a certain social awkwardness that goes with such feats didn't help either. I ended up missing 2.5 years of education for that (worked out as a win for me though as I spent that time learning to program computers). Looking at more modern times, if you're in a rough area, you have to be able to fight your way out of trouble. That creates a mindset far from conducive to success in life.

I would argue that, while tall-poppy syndrome is a factor, there are things the kids just can't escape from. I worked at a school in a deprived area and some of the parenting was absolutely shocking. The mode of interaction at home was typically shouting, which meant that the mode of interaction at school was shouting. Then you had parents who didn't bother feeding their kids, parents too pissed/stoned to care, absent parents, etc. I will add that I think it's worse now than when I was growing up in the 80s/90s. I couldn't honestly put my finger on why.

Welfare.. yeah I have mixed feelings there. I certainly consider that we should have a safety net, because sometimes life shits on you. In the UK the welfare system got too complicated though, the end result that in any poor community or group of friends you'll have one appointed benefit expert who will know what hoops to jump through to get enough money (because actually without doing that you don't get enough money to live). The end result is that you have to be alcoholic, have a drug problem, some other disability (and some went the fat route), to get a benefit. The government encouraged people to move from unemployment to disability to massage unemployment figures at one point which didn't help matters.

There are so many contributory factors, and I feel bad for the kids stuck in the middle of it all.

I’m totally in favour of a welfare system as a safety net, but it can kill your society if it becomes a legitimate replacement for a real occupation and is allowed to grow too large. It’s a fine line and I’m not sure that it’s something that bureaucracy could ever adequately manage. I know it’s pessimistic, but I think there may always be an underclass as a result.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

I seem to be in the same situation as you, @hariseldon -- I don't know if I will explain this in the most clear way, but my school district up until high school (secondary) was chock full of these demeaning factors in the behavioral sense... it's no joke how many people I have seen end up in tangles with the law and gangs, all of this bad stuff because they were basically driven into it given they had exceptional brains/technical skills and demonstrated such in their classes. I suppose I'm the classic example of "getting out," though over time I left the socioeconomic bracket my peers were in because my parents had obtained well-paying jobs.

Thanks for sharing, seems an interesting piece. If it comes to it, I'll go for giving it a read.

 

[hariseldon]

Papa - The benefit system in the UK has certainly contributed towards creation of an underclass. I think the systemic flaws which cast in stone your state of inability to work are a huge flaw, along with the need to present various challenges in order to get a payment that will allow you to live.

Wings 嫩翼翻せ - I was lucky I think, to live in a time where being in a poor area meant rough but didn't necessarily mean gangs, knives, etc. I think when that kinda shit is going down your only route to survival is to be bigger and nastier than the other guy, where in my situation you weren't necessarily at risk of being killed, you'd just end up taking a few beatings, etc. It meant I did have a chance of getting out (and in hindsight being kicked out of school probably served me well, in addition to my autism - those two things kept me out of bad social circles and sent me down the rabbit hole of programming which enabled my escape. I was lucky to be born with autism at the right period of computing history when barriers to entry were low (they aren't now - too many frameworks to learn etc). Congrats on your escape, it's fucking hard and, if my experience is anything to go by, a product of luck and judgement.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

Yeah it's brutal -- I didn't leave without my fair share of getting jumped and other related weapon violence being thrown my way... granted I didn't ask for nor associate with anyone to let it happen. But to relate to the article, I would argue some forms of parenting are more prevalent to the situation than they give credit to... I think if there was better outlook (incentive? Though I don't really know how someone can be motivated to make sure their child matures appropriately) overall for the parent-children relationships it would be less of an issue. This was especially clear to me once I left, I mean I used to see how close families were and I knew it was no coincidence.

 

[hariseldon]

Yeah it's brutal -- I didn't leave without my fair share of getting jumped and other related weapon violence being thrown my way... granted I didn't ask for nor associate with anyone to let it happen. But to relate to the article, I would argue some forms of parenting are more prevalent to the situation than they give credit to... I think if there was better outlook (incentive? Though I don't really know how someone can be motivated to make sure their child matures appropriately) overall for the parent-children relationships it would be less of an issue. This was especially clear to me once I left, I mean I used to see how close families were and I knew it was no coincidence.

When I was growing up the problem was that parents wanted their kids to fit in, rather than wanting them to be successful. That was a different level of awfulness I think, because now we have parents that just don't give any fucks. In the school I worked in we had one kid who's mum would give him money every day and he'd go and buy doughnuts with that money. She wouldn't feed him. It was such a surprise that he was hyper at school. A girl was being made to do all the housework at home, while her older brother did nothing, her mother did nothing. Home life for many of the kids was chaotic, not a good environment for learning and doing homework - I'm grateful that, for all my parents faults, they disliked me enough to not want much to do with me and thus I was able to do my own thing, including the programming. These kids though won't get that opportunity because they never get any quiet time to figure out where they want to go.

Another issue is tablet parenting. Young kids are arriving at primary school unable to feed themselves or use a toilet. This has not historically been the case. Development of speech and language is falling behind rapidly because they arrive at the school system with far less skill than prior generations. This is making its way through the upper end of primary now, where that early bad start manifests in stunted development because they're always behind, and we're gonna see some really nasty shit because of it. Again, my parents, for all their faults, did some good things. They didn't like me when I was older but when I was young they put in some work to get me ahead of the pack, and for that I'm grateful.

Both my parents came from fairly broken homes but in both cases they were homes where hard work was the norm. I have a feeling that growing up in a home where nobody works can create problems, and lead to parents being as lazy with their parenting as they are with the rest of their lives.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

When I was growing up the problem was that parents wanted their kids to fit in, rather than wanting them to be successful. That was a different level of awfulness I think, because now we have parents that just don't give any fucks. In the school I worked in we had one kid who's mum would give him money every day and he'd go and buy doughnuts with that money. She wouldn't feed him. It was such a surprise that he was hyper at school. A girl was being made to do all the housework at home, while her older brother did nothing, her mother did nothing. Home life for many of the kids was chaotic, not a good environment for learning and doing homework - I'm grateful that, for all my parents faults, they disliked me enough to not want much to do with me and thus I was able to do my own thing, including the programming. These kids though won't get that opportunity because they never get any quiet time to figure out where they want to go.

Another issue is tablet parenting. Young kids are arriving at primary school unable to feed themselves or use a toilet. This has not historically been the case. Development of speech and language is falling behind rapidly because they arrive at the school system with far less skill than prior generations. This is making its way through the upper end of primary now, where that early bad start manifests in stunted development because they're always behind, and we're gonna see some really nasty shit because of it. Again, my parents, for all their faults, did some good things. They didn't like me when I was older but when I was young they put in some work to get me ahead of the pack, and for that I'm grateful.

Both my parents came from fairly broken homes but in both cases they were homes where hard work was the norm. I have a feeling that growing up in a home where nobody works can create problems, and lead to parents being as lazy with their parenting as they are with the rest of their lives.

Why do I feel like situations like these leave room for some unfortunate cycles? Sure, we can read studies on the matter to reinforce our already first-handedly supported experiences, but come to think of the fact that two individuals out of many who were a part of this type of situation (no need for a statistic, considering my own hometown alone) are able to come out and discuss the dire circumstances... I think about it every day. College was a huge bubble for me in that it made it easy to forget essentially how many people were unable to be in the position I am in, or were sabotaged (by themselves, their parents, or their environment) but coming back makes me realize why my demographic is scarce in higher institutions on a grand scale. Pretty disheartening, but today we're just conducting research and handling anecdotal evidence to pinpoint the true contributing factors.

 

[hariseldon]

Why do I feel like situations like these leave room for some unfortunate cycles? Sure, we can read studies on the matter to reinforce our already first-handedly supported experiences, but come to think of the fact that two individuals out of many who were a part of this type of situation (no need for a statistic, considering my own hometown alone) are able to come out and discuss the dire circumstances... I think about it every day. College was a huge bubble for me in that it made it easy to forget essentially how many people were unable to be in the position I am in, or were sabotaged (by themselves, their parents, or their environment) but coming back makes me realize why my demographic is scarce in higher institutions on a grand scale. Pretty disheartening, but today we're just conducting research and handling anecdotal evidence to pinpoint the true contributing factors.

Oh it's absolutely cyclical. The poverty cycle creates a trap that's VERY hard to get out of. Don't forget we form our ideas of what is normal from what we see around us. I don't eat my dinner using my feet because I've never seen anyone do so. I have seen them use a knife and fork so I do that. Similarly, if everyone you know communicates by shouting (and honestly Eastenders isn't far off the mark here) then all you know is that, so all your communication is aggressive and shouting. This of course means a constant state of conflict at school, middle-class teachers who didn't grow up that way not knowing what the fuck to do with them, etc. Just a small, basic example. Then those kids don't know how to have good relationships and end up having kids far too young and repeating the cycle all over again.

Solutions, for me, would include some hard-line policing in areas where gangs have taken over. Zero-tolerance shit. It creates a safe environment for people to express themselves in non-violent ways and opens the way to become more rounded adults. Multi-agency help for parents in these places to learn the necessary skills. Get the best teachers to spend some of their career in these schools but give them support when they get there so they understand better what kind of kids they're working with, why they are that way, and how to help them (again, through a stroke of luck I had some excellent teachers who helped me out of a hole, though my exit from school was precipitated by a teacher who hated boys but that's another story for another day). Grammar schools. Bring back fucking grammar schools. They were a route out, a shot at proving ones excellence, the chance to be with other people who would do well and thus escape the confines of working class life. Maybe even boarding schools to get kids out of those bad places and bad situations. Education is the best, PROVEN, way out of the shit.

 

[strange headache]

Equality of opportunity is absolutely the way to go, but that shouldn't mean reducing the opportunity for those who are fortunate enough to get a good one, it should be about finding ways to uplift those who DON'T get good opportunities.

We've finally gone full circle, from class, over glass ceiling, to class ceiling. Am I the only one who finds this term silly, especially considering that we already have a notion that describes exactly that, it's called social mobility and has existed in science for ages:

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to one's current social location within a given society.

It's not that I don't agree with you @hariseldon, in fact you're absolutely right. Nevertheless, I still think that article is frikkin' stupid for introducing a new term for something that already is a well studied and observed social phenomenon. The book tries to sell this notion of "class ceiling" as some kind of revolutionary new approach, when in fact, it's only rehashing the exact same idea that has existed since the frikkin' industrial revolution.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/99467/what-is-the-class-ceiling






First up, there absolutely is a class ceiling, far more than any gender-based 'glass ceiling'. This is in part due to plenty of people speaking up for women's rights, for minority rights, etc. There are plenty of women and minorities in positions where they can make the point about their respective 'glass ceilings' and of course they will, because it helps their groups and because they can be seen to be helping the oppressed, when in reality they are feathering their own nests. Working class people on the other hand, the truly oppressed, don't get much representation because they don't generally get anywhere near positions where they can make their voices heard. Nobody is sticking up for the working classes because so few people escape the working class to express their needs, and the people with a voice (the media) have largely never even met a working class person before.

Anecdotal evidence time: Looking at my own background, none of my peers did well. I am literally the only one who did ok. My wife.. her dad is a lawyer and she's a lawyer. Her friends from private school all went on to become doctors and lawyers, and the thick ones ended up working in the media (a hell of a lot at the BBC). They literally fail upwards. Part of the reason is the contacts they have. They all know people in the professions they wish to reach, which means that even if they don't have direct helping hands they know the right route to take to get there, their parents are pushing them into the right universities to meet the right people, their friends are mentioning them and thus at interview they have an advantage, etc. They all have trust funds, and their parents fund unpaid internships in London to get the experience you need to get the job, which of course poor families just can't do. There is also that confidence that comes from private school. There is a certain confidence and eloquence that exists among my wife and her peers that you just don't find among my peers.

The funny bit is that they tell me to check my privilege for being a straight white male, while wallowing in that privilege - being women really doesn't hold any of them back, neither does being gay, black or any other protected category.

I don't agree with the assertion that private schools should be binned, bringing others down is not a solution, though I admit it's a feature of the left at times, one which causes me some consternation. I'd rather we look at how we can take the features of the private schools and bring them into state schools, as well as looking at how we can improve integration, have state school students get to know private school students to gain contacts and how private school students can meet state school students to gain a bit more empathy for them (that Jacob Rees-Mogg [Tory MP] described state school students as potted plants is reflective of the wider view of the middle-classes towards the working classes).

Equality of opportunity is absolutely the way to go, but that shouldn't mean reducing the opportunity for those who are fortunate enough to get a good one, it should be about finding ways to uplift those who DON'T get good opportunities.

Damn you get likes from both Dun and Matt. I’m envious. Teach me how.

 

[Papa]

Damn you get likes from both Dun and Matt. I’m envious. Teach me how.

Can’t speak for Dun, but for me: skepticism, critical thinking and, above all, humour.

 

[Papa]

We've finally gone full circle, from class, over glass ceiling, to class ceiling. Am I the only one who finds this term silly, especially considering that we already have a notion that describes exactly that, it's called social mobility and has existed in science for ages:



It's not that I don't agree with you @hariseldon, in fact you're absolutely right. Nevertheless, I still think that article is frikkin' stupid for introducing a new term for something that already is a well studied and observed social phenomenon. The book tries to sell this notion of "class ceiling" as some kind of revolutionary new approach, when in fact, it's only rehashing the exact same idea that has existed since the frikkin' industrial revolution.

Well I guess it’s like the current_year popularity of Jordan Peterson. He’s not saying anything particularly revolutionary, but his timing and branding are right. He’s the old school dad telling you to quit your whinging, knuckle down, and show some humility at a time when society has gone crazy on teaching kids to change the world before they understand it (cough cough AOC).

The term “social mobility” just isn’t sexy and identity politics have blinded people to what real advantages/disadvantages are, i.e. they’re class-based not race-/sex-/whatever-based. Introducing the term “class ceiling” co-opts the catchy glass ceiling branding that feminists have used to great effect. It’s simply a marketing gimmick: repackage old ideas to sell them to a new generation, kinda like how Marxism was rebranded and peddled to iGen, except in this case the ideas are actually solid. “Social mobility” is unhashtaggable.

 

[godhandiscen]

In my observation, a lot of the problems that prevent people from breaking through the class ceiling are behavioural, e.g. tall poppy syndrome. Nothing stunts the development of a naturally talented student like the sneers and jeers of his peers, and these behaviours are far more prevalent in lower socioeconomic classes. Activists typically want to blame it solely on structural factors which takes away any personal responsibility and agency from the individual and unfairly punishes those who were lucky enough to be born into a middle to upper socioeconomic class when it gets to the equity of outcome stage (affirmative action).

The only fair and sustainable way to fix the problem of class is to change the culture so that people can lift themselves out of poverty, not expect someone else to do it for them, but that is an extremely difficult thing to do. Immigrant families who have been through genuine adversity and scrimped and saved for everything they have are generally the best at raising anti-fragile kids who can break the poverty cycle. Natural born citizens who grow up in families on the welfare gravy train while being told everything is someone else’s fault? No chance.

Spot on.

 

[hariseldon]

Yep, fully aware that it's a rehash of social mobility, but if it gets ideas of class out there it's all good, and yes co-opting the language of the nu-left might be a good way to give it legs, make people compare the role of class Vs race, gender, etc.

 

[strange headache]

The term “social mobility” just isn’t sexy and identity politics have blinded people to what real advantages/disadvantages are, i.e. they’re class-based not race-/sex-/whatever-based. Introducing the term “class ceiling” co-opts the catchy glass ceiling branding that feminists have used to great effect. It’s simply a marketing gimmick: repackage old ideas to sell them to a new generation, kinda like how Marxism was rebranded and peddled to iGen, except in this case the ideas are actually solid. “Social mobility” is unhashtaggable.

My problem with this is that it supplants a notion with a long scientific history, that is well researched and has a lot of empirical data, with a trendy notion with no scientific history, no studies and no data. I think that's a reasonable critique to make.

Yep, fully aware that it's a rehash of social mobility, but if it gets ideas of class out there it's all good, and yes co-opting the language of the nu-left might be a good way to give it legs, make people compare the role of class Vs race, gender, etc.

Maybe, but co-opting their language merely gives their notions legitimation by suggesting that the "class ceiling" is a mere derivate of the "glass ceiling", when in fact the notion of social mobility has existed for a long time already. I can understand that it's sometimes necessary to repackage old thing to make them palatable for the modern masses, but at the very least they could have acknowledged the existence of "social mobility", a scientific notion with a rich body of already existing empirical data.

The whole post-modernist approach of the far-left consists in diluting terminology in order to sell their ideology. For example, racism becomes "power+prejudice", thus immunizing itself against any form of reasoned criticism.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Solutions, for me, would include some hard-line policing in areas where gangs have taken over. Zero-tolerance shit. It creates a safe environment for people to express themselves in non-violent ways and opens the way to become more rounded adults.

Zero tolerance consequences or policing?

I'm not sure about your country or area, but zero tolerance policing/broken windows theory is increasingly becoming a relic of the past in the U.S.

It turns the community against the police, who are driven by bad incectives, and lopsided political power to avoid consequences. It actually increases violent confrontation, and decreases order under today's standards.

Now there is a thing called hot-zoning & zero tolerance, but it has a narrow focus. Zero tolerance policing had its time, but got misused after the government reduced organized crime.

 

[Acerac]

In my observation, a lot of the problems that prevent people from breaking through the class ceiling are behavioural, e.g. tall poppy syndrome. Nothing stunts the development of a naturally talented student like the sneers and jeers of his peers, and these behaviours are far more prevalent in lower socioeconomic classes. Activists typically want to blame it solely on structural factors which takes away any personal responsibility and agency from the individual and unfairly punishes those who were lucky enough to be born into a middle to upper socioeconomic class when it gets to the equity of outcome stage (affirmative action).

The only fair and sustainable way to fix the problem of class is to change the culture so that people can lift themselves out of poverty, not expect someone else to do it for them, but that is an extremely difficult thing to do. Immigrant families who have been through genuine adversity and scrimped and saved for everything they have are generally the best at raising anti-fragile kids who can break the poverty cycle. Natural born citizens who grow up in families on the welfare gravy train while being told everything is someone else’s fault? No chance.

Just according to keikaku.

 

[Papa]

My problem with this is that it supplants a notion with a long scientific history, that is well researched and has a lot of empirical data, with a trendy notion with no scientific history, no studies and no data. I think that's a reasonable critique to make.



Maybe, but co-opting their language merely gives their notions legitimation by suggesting that the "class ceiling" is a mere derivate of the "glass ceiling", when in fact the notion of social mobility has existed for a long time already. I can understand that it's sometimes necessary to repackage old thing to make them palatable for the modern masses, but at the very least they could have acknowledged the existence of "social mobility", a scientific notion with a rich body of already existing empirical data.

The whole post-modernist approach of the far-left consists in diluting terminology in order to sell their ideology. For example, racism becomes "power+prejudice", thus immunizing itself against any form of reasoned criticism.

You and I aren’t the intended audience. I guess they’re just starting a conversation

 

[hariseldon]

Matt is right. The problem here is that people have completely forgotten the importance of class, which is a product of the middle classes taking over the left, and the working classes no longer producing dangerously eloquent souls who can change the world. I get the problems but anything that brings the debate back to somewhere sane is worth a shot. Also, history is absolutely full of old ideas repackaged under new names, so I'm less bothered by that than I might otherwise be, and if it stimulates people to repeat those old studies that might not be a bad thing, we might get that steady drip of studies that makes people think again. Or maybe I'm just being too optimistic. Apologies for weaker than usual post, I'm on my phone.

 

[Halo is Back]

The only true privileged people on this earth are kids who grow up with parents that have a lot of money

 

[hariseldon]

The only true privileged people on this earth are kids who grow up with parents that have a lot of money

And those are the very same people telling the rest of us to check our privilege.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Part of the problem is the idea, you're over 17 out of the home. The fomenting of this stupid idea to both parents and their children. I need to be renting a 1000+$ apartment or I'm not a real adult. And the parents, I need to kick my kids out of the house ASAP once they reach 18.

It is so so stupid. Investment and asset accretion is the key to breaking out of lower classes and into the higher classes. You don't need to be a doctor or a lawyer to be wealthy. And a 5,000 investment is worth more at 10 than at 30 than at 50. The earlier they or their parents start investing for them the better.

But instead of family helping family, they get a good chunk of their wages sequestered into things such as rent, money that could easily go into investments, if the parents already had a fully paid mortgage and no rent.

. The mode of interaction at home was typically shouting, which meant that the mode of interaction at school was shouting. Then you had parents who didn't bother feeding their kids, parents too pissed/stoned to care, absent parents, etc. I will add that I think it's worse now than when I was growing up in the 80s/90s. I couldn't honestly put my finger on why.

Look if would-be parents are of so low caliber that they'd be a hindrance to their children's development, perhaps they shouldn't be having kids in the first place?

I believe a newborn is a citizen from the moment they are first able to be conscious. And I believe all such deserve as a basic right to be raised in a healthy environment with reasonable and caring parents. If that right cannot be provided to the newborn, then that family does not deserve to bring that newborn into being.

 

[hariseldon]

Omega Supreme Holopsicon - In my case staying at home wasn't an option, and for many of the kids I was talking about in an earlier post it wasn't either. When home with your parents is such a toxic environment, the imperative is generally to get out ASAP, which probably is what drives a lot of teen pregnancies but that's another matter for another day. I'll also add that even the good parents in poor places are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, so any thought of putting aside investment for their kids is a no-no. Further, while people are escaping toxic homes, it is not uncommon these days for people to stay living with their parents well into their 20s and even 30s as the cost of renting/buying a home has become insane. This of course hands the advantage to those who can do so.

Re whether the parents should be having kids - it's fair to say that they're not up to the job but the problem is that no solutions to that are particularly palateable. Do we want the state taking people's kids away due to poverty? I do think the intervention point should be earlier than the current point but of course the problem only gets shifted - much of the care system is pretty hopeless and leads to even worse outcomes for their kids, and I would argue that morally it's a bit sketchy to start taking kids away from poor families and moving them to nice comfortable middle-class homes, even if it may be better for the individual child at that time. It has a slight ring of class-eugenics almost to it. And that's before we get to the more extreme approaches that people start pushing in response to that, such as sterilisation. I'm afraid the means of achieving your goal, unless you have any good ones I've missed, are all far too icky to consider.

I will just add that while the working classes do have it hard, there are some things where they are frankly superior to their comfortable middle-class brethren. They have fight, desire, determination, when they do eventually break out. So many middle-class trust fund kids are absolute pussies who give up easily and depend on Mummy and Daddy to bail them out when they fuck up. A working class person who breaks out and gets there will work harder, will get more done and will take shit from nobody. Let's not lose our working classes, they're an asset, but we absolutely SHOULD be looking to remove some of the barriers.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I'll also add that even the good parents in poor places are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, so any thought of putting aside investment for their kids is a no-no.

It's called roommates. If two parents work and they have say two to 3 kids who also work, in low cost housing, it shouldn't be prohibitive to pay the mortgage or rent. Keeping expenses in check, and suddenly investments become possible, as there should be some money to spare.

Part of the problem is the government and its guaranteed loans for university making costs rise through the roof. Without that, the costs would've been kept in check, and going to college for those that can wouldn't also create massive debt, but would be an easy avenue to a better job.

When home with your parents is such a toxic environment, the imperative is generally to get out ASAP, which probably is what drives a lot of teen pregnancies but that's another matter for another day.

If all the parents can ever provide is an ultra toxic environment they shouldn't be having children. What they are doing places a burden the newborn children, on these citizens, as well as on the rest of society by the adverse effects on their children.

And that's before we get to the more extreme approaches that people start pushing in response to that, such as sterilisation. I'm afraid the means of achieving your goal, unless you have any good ones I've missed, are all far too icky to consider.

I think the right of the newborn trump the right of the parents to have them. We openly realize this when it comes to incest, and even making such relations illegal even if sterile, the mere possibility some could have children is enough to make even the relations illegal.

Now, if parents are going to have adverse effects just as severe or even more severe than the consequences of incest, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to have children?

People do not like the state having control over reproduction, and it can be argued, but we're in a world of finite resources. Only a high death rate allows a high birth rate. What we ought to do is virtually abolish the death rate, and that means the birth rate must also collapse. The resources of the world are the resources of society, not of the individual, they are a public pool of resources, and it is society that should determine the reproduction rate, as that is the load on the public resources. If an individual wants more reproduction, that individual need acquire the resources to provide for its offspring, and upon birth of that offspring they need lose those resources which should immediately be transferred to the offspring.

It is madness to say the right to reproduce should come at the expense of society, to say a person should be able to reproduce with abbadon, without restriction, if they can't provide society must obligatorily provide lest their children starve and suffer. People should not be able to reproduce if they do not have the resources to provide for their offspring. This luxury of a safety net for people with no resources to reproduce, to be provided for, can only be sustained for a relatively short while. It is something that is unsustainable long term, especially if those reproducing vigorously and yet without resources grow in number sufficiently(an inevitability without regulation given positive selective pressure of free resource distribution for reproduction).

 

[hariseldon]

Omega Supreme Holopsicon - I think you're being unrealistic. For starters, you're asking parents to put in money while the kids are growing up but then saying that the kids can work and pay money towards the rent, which is only really practical past 16 in most cases. I will add that your uni point is far less relevant than the cost of housing. I do think that people are going to uni who really don't benefit from it, and yes the universities are a racket, but that's really a fairly small part of the problem, especially in the UK where the cost is one you pay once you start working as a small cut of your wages past a certain earning level. I can't speak for America obviously.

I think once you start talking about abolishing the death rate and stopping people from having kids.. yeah you're in some weird territory and honestly that's not a path that anyone can go down. You're the transhumanism enthusiast guy aren't you if I recall - yeah I'll let you do you and hopefully this won't derail a perfectly good and useful thread into weird sci-fi speculation and borderline eugenics.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

yeah I'll let you do you and hopefully this won't derail a perfectly good and useful thread into weird sci-fi speculation and borderline eugenics.

I think the same reasoning that is used to prohibit incest, is valid to prohibit mentally unstable, and harmful individuals from being allowed to have offspring.(Right now, I've heard mentally unstable stranger women are allowed to have sexual visits to convicted serial killers to have their babies, that sounds kinda troublesome for example.)

The idealistic notion, that mentally unstable individuals, and individuals without resources, should simply be given resources upon resources to reproduce as vigorously as they want, is simply not sustainable.

This is positive selective pressure, any small group that wants to take advantage of such free ample resource provision will be at a selective advantage, it is the nature of evolution, of natural selection. Even the most minute genetic tendency to vigorously reproduce without resources will be positively selected for. Generation upon generation, even from small seeds, they will become a large enough number to collapse the system.

Ample welfare, unconditioned, unregulated, is not sustainable long term, the burden upon the welfare system will grow until it elicits collapse of the welfare system, or perhaps even the entire nation.

 

[BlueAlpaca]

Dr. Stephen Hsu talks race, IQ, and poverty

 

[synchronicity]

People are always searching for equality in the world - forever an impossibility - before they can declare life good. The irony is that the key to satisfaction and happiness always lay within - not in the world bending to what you wish were true. A little gratitude for what you do have that is good (and we all have something, even if we're on our death bed) changes everything. Inequality will never disappear, but your personal perspective is much more amenable to change. Then the world can go on as it is and for you:

Spoiler: Whoa!

You'll feel right as rain. (for those who may not get the reference.)

 

[hariseldon]

synchronicity - Personally I'm not after equality in the everyone-gets-the-same mould I think you're alluding to, and I think I make that reasonably clear, or at least I hope I do.

Equality of opportunity is absolutely the way to go, but that shouldn't mean reducing the opportunity for those who are fortunate enough to get a good one, it should be about finding ways to uplift those who DON'T get good opportunities.

While you're right that happiness is found within, it's a lot easier to find if you can actually pay the rent. Further, that shouldn't distract us from the problem of social mobility becoming an increasing issue in recent years, with the rich taking an ever increasing slice and leaving less for the poor, and even the middle getting something of a squeeze. There's enough to go round to ensure that everyone willing to put in a hard day's work can live in dignity, and we were a lot closer to achieving that in decades past than we are now.

BlueAlpaca - I would agree that a high IQ helps you get out of poverty, but it's damn hard to have a high IQ if you come from a family that doesn't value education, in a community that doesn't value education, and have a home life that is frequently chaotic. It's true to say that race isn't a factor (I may be mistaken but that video seems to go to a dark place at the end and some of the comments are pretty dark stuff along the lines of what got JordanN a temp ban) - overall I'm not sure that video offers much that can be called useful and it's not a source I'd be happy to use personally.

 

[synchronicity]

synchronicity - Personally I'm not after equality in the everyone-gets-the-same mould I think you're alluding to, and I think I make that reasonably clear, or at least I hope I do.

Yes, I understood your position. And I'm not criticizing your point of view, if it came across that way. I'm just sharing my perspective that happiness in life is not a fight with the world, it's a fight with the "self".

Nothing wrong with having another angle. We're all coming from unique perspectives. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you - just offering my take.

 

[hariseldon]

Yes, I understood your position. And I'm not criticizing your point of view, if it came across that way. I'm just sharing my perspective that happiness in life is not a fight with the world, it's a fight with the "self".

Nothing wrong with having another angle. We're all coming from unique perspectives. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you - just offering my take.

All good, one thing this place has helped me do is to understand that there are multiple ways to skin a cat. I suspect most of us, left or right (barring the extremes) just want to be able to do ok if we work hard, and I think most of us want that right extended to as many people as possible. The primary disagreements are on how to achieve this - with the left finding the solutions in government intervention and the right in government stepping back and letting the market provide. I can see merit in both sides, and problems in both, which is probably how I've managed, more than once, to be called an SJW and a gamergate nazi on the same day in different bits of the internet. I'm quite proud of that.

 

[synchronicity]

with the left finding the solutions in government intervention and the right in government stepping back and letting the market provide. I can see merit in both sides, and problems in both...

One thing life has elucidated for me is that all problems demand their own solutions that, when found, offer up unique problems of their own. We'll endlessly search for the perfect world, for utopia, and only discover it when, ironically, the search is abandoned. Surrender allows peace to set in, and suddenly the world is ok. Sometimes you get shit upon, sometimes life shits on others, but that was always going to happen, and will always continue to happen, no matter what you did or do. The best a person can do is to be kind and compassionate within your own daily interactions, with what life introduces directly into your path imo. There is no need to try to change the world. That desire is born of ego.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

People are always searching for equality in the world - forever an impossibility - before they can declare life good. The irony is that the key to satisfaction and happiness always lay within - not in the world bending to what you wish were true. A little gratitude for what you do have that is good (and we all have something, even if we're on our death bed) changes everything. Inequality will never disappear, but your personal perspective is much more amenable to change. Then the world can go on as it is and for you:

What people don't seem to realize is that part of the reason there are limits to the quality of life at each social strata is because there are limited finite resources. Resources that must be alloted to the population, and money is merely a means of rationing or allotting that out.

The more people there are the less share of the finite pie each must be given.

IF the government printed enough money to give each person 10$ million dollars, it wouldn't end poverty it would result in hyperinflation. The flow of money must be restricted to an extent less it lose its value.

The world can support a few tens of million of millionaires, as it stand, but not a few billion millionaires. If you try to make it so, money will simply lose its value as the millionaires use their money to barter for the finite pool of resources, and raise the cost of countless articles.

With the coming automation there is no need for anyone to live in poverty. But the population must shrink to what can be sustained with a high standard of living, perhaps not all millionaires, but whatever standard you use, for example the average american standard of living is said takes 4 earths if all humans are raised to it. But if we have 1/4th the world population it takes only 1 earth.

There's enough to go round to ensure that everyone willing to put in a hard day's work can live in dignity, and we were a lot closer to achieving that in decades past than we are now.

Problem is women entering the work force + low skill migrants entering the work force have in part increased the number of workers and devalued the value of a worker in the market place, increasing the wealthy's bargaining power at the table, when it comes to employment.

The loss of the value of work has thankfully lowered the birth rate. The problem is at the very bottom you're given free resources to reproduce without regulation, which makes the current system dysgenic. The mother and father must work in the middle class and have trouble having one or two kids, the single mothers at the bottom can have a dozen kids and welfare will provide, if they have a dozen different fathers there's child support too.

I would agree that a high IQ helps you get out of poverty, but it's damn hard to have a high IQ if you come from a family that doesn't value education, in a community that doesn't value education, and have a home life that is frequently chaotic.

IQ is independent of education. Barring extremes of growing in the wild with animals. Being raised by human parents, is enough.

Also barring extreme toxins, hits to the head, etc. Even growing on mcdonalds food you can score high on IQ.

And high IQ will allow someone to learn more and easier, and eventually gravitate to higher class as they can see the way out, even without strict education. Something they hear here, or there, they'll have the intellect to look into it and not dismiss everything they hear or see in cartoons, in tv, in rumors, etc.

 

[waxer]

In most my experience it's simply not even trying. To some just having a job when none of their family does is considered well off so why do bother. The problem I have with class ceilings etc much like race etc is it's double edged. Why bother blah blah blah excuses.
I know I always had the opportunity but big money has never been a goal of mine in life just happiness. Paid off when you look at my family vs brothers. We don't have the fancy toys but I have time to spend with wife and kids. Time no amount of money will ever buy back.
I don't bother with excuses for my avg wage and I don't blame others for my decisions.
To be successful whether you consider it while being thick through contacts or whatever in normal circumstances still requires dedication.
That sort of work ethic is ingrained in certain cultures eg china. But also within families. A wealthy parent is far more likely to teach their children to be successful and that they can achieve it. Their being no excuses and owning your decisions is also a good one.
My parents didn't care that I didn't want to work the hours they did but they taught me the consequences and benefits of what that meant.

 

[hariseldon]

So we have a nihilist who doesn't think we should try to improve anything - honestly we're just going to have to disagree on that. Omega Supreme Holopsicon while your future fantasy is wonderful, what about now? What can practically be done in the world that exists today? You seem fixated on a future of automation, AI and transhumanism, but ignore the problems and realities of the present. Re IQ - poverty absolutely has an effect. A chaotic home life with a poor diet can absolutely inhibit a child's development.

waxer - as an adult you have choices to make and undoubtedly some people don't try when there is a welfare alternative, but I do have some sympathy for some people - no matter how hard they try the odds are so stacked against them that they have no hope. If you grow up in the homes I described earlier, you won't even believe that making an effort improves things, you'll not know anyone who succeeded and got out of the shit, and you won't have contacts to guide you to the right decisions. I agree that some cultures do a better job of creating a work culture than ours, and that's something we need to address, but I disagree with your assessment that success means the person worked hard - it's MUCH easier to make money when you have money. You can take 10 shots at risky projects and only need 1 to succeed, where a poor person might only get 1 shot. And as a rich person you'll know the right people to get your product in the shops or whatever may be required for your business to succeed.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

So we have a nihilist who doesn't think we should try to improve anything - honestly we're just going to have to disagree on that. @OSC while your future fantasy is wonderful, what about now? What can practically be done in the world that exists today? You seem fixated on a future of automation, AI and transhumanism, but ignore the problems and realities of the present. Re IQ - poverty absolutely has an effect. A chaotic home life with a poor diet can absolutely inhibit a child's development.

A chaotic home has an effect, but there are still lawyers, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, etc that come from said backgrounds and succeed.

There is also genetics of resilience, some will simply not have the innate mental fortitude to withstand certain stresses and certain types of abuse.

As for now? What can you do as an individual? There are those that want unfettered welfare, unregulated reproduction and open borders, a recipe for disaster. There are those that want to cut all welfare and close borders. Voting won't make much difference, a single vote means little. At least the exchange of ideas has the effect of being magnified as the arguments spread and convince bystanders.

Without technological advancement we will have short brutish lives. The world is nearing a peak in its ability to grow the fossil energy production, and without growth in energy consumption there is no real economic growth and the whole house may experience significant decline. Food, transportation, basically everything depends on energy. Energy limits what each and everyone can have and how much the flow of money must be restrained, as it is the fundamental resource at the base of the economy.

With technological advancements we can be as gods, you have to be willing to accept the potential opening of the doors of hell if you want to open the doors of heaven. Slavery never went away, and the new types of slavery may see absolute dominion of a godlike nature, without even the ability to die to escape.

Any way, it is said even someone working at mcdonalds can retire a millionaire with proper investing. Yes we can claim it is impossible, but people are social animals. Even now working together two or more individuals can generate a portion of excess resources. Were this not the case the system would collapse from an inability to afford reproduction by most. The key to escape from poverty is investing. Maybe it won't happen this very generation, at worst, but generations down the line, investments can accrue across the generations and break the chain of poverty.... yes we are in a sense paying for the mishandling of resources of our forebears.

 

[hariseldon]

Tell you what, go work at McDonalds and we can go for a big mac when you're a millionaire.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Tell you what, go work at McDonalds and we can go for a big mac when you're a millionaire.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2014/09/07/how-to-become-a-millionaire-on-minimum-wage.aspx

It's called compound interest. If I start investing right now, decades from now the money multiplies immensely. To top it off, those who earn less than 100~k iirc, can invest in roth ira, and all earnings from investments will be local state and federal tax free for the rest of their lives, if I'm not mistaken.