Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Oxford taught me about posh people

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 383 posts

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#211

Post by jseban »

TchoBeer wrote: post #116
WalterBright wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Work, life, and social structure is extremely unfair It's always going to be unfair. Attempts to fix it always result in some other unfairness. The real thing that works is freedom, i.e. not having the law artificially holding you back. Instead of being consumed by envy of others, you can make your own life better.

That sounds rather defeatist. Is it impossible to make work, life, or social structure more fair? I doubt you think that.

It's just that fairness is the wrong goal to use, because things can always be seen as unfair from some point of view. It's better to simply try to make things more logical/less random, and also more productive.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#212

Post by frereubu »

Although not working class by any means, I experienced a similar kind of culture shock after going to state schools until I was 16, then spending two years doing my A-levels at a very expensive boarding school. I was the commoner, surrounded by people whose parents own diamond mines in South Africa, investment banks in Hong Kong, large country estates in Scotland. There were some nice people there and I made some good friends, but there were also plenty of other people with the unquestioning belief that Rebanks describes - effectively that they were born to rule. It could be really intimidating, to the point where the belief was so strong that it bent reality and could convince other, less-well-off people to play into the submissive role that their confidence implied. However, if you started not to play the game, they became really unsettled, like they didn't have any flexibility - it was all based on a fixed set of scripts that most people didn't deviate from.

Also reminds me of that school report of Boris Johnson - "Boris really has adopted a disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies. It is a question of priorities, which most of his colleagues have no difficulty in sorting out. Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the School for next half). I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else." Plus ça change.

https://twitter.com/lettersofnote/status/1094970662828101632...

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#213

Post by jseban »

WalterBright wrote: post #146
TchoBeer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds rather defeatist. Is it impossible to make work, life, or social structure more fair? I doubt you think that.

Now that you mention it, the USSR did make many things more fair. They did it by hammering everyone down to the bottom.

Yeah, trying to have a society that is fair and equal, is nothing but an systemised and institutionalised tall poppy syndrome that leads to stagnation

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#214

Post by teachingassist »

jfk13 wrote: post #186
teachingassist wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Emphasis here is on the past tense. There are several reasons to challenge this: 1. The USA had (and still has) unprecedented resources per population. Why is your claim not still the case? 2. Immigrants tend to be people with the means to immigrate. That's rarely people in relative poverty, unless you intended to mean slaves.

In the past, a lot of (non-slave) people immigrated to the USA precisely because they were impoverished -- for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, among many others. > "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Whether those words are as appropriate today may be another matter, of course.

> for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine,

I understand this example to be of historical note because it was exceptional. Many people came over for the promise of farmland or gold or something that they could capitalise on.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#215

Post by WalterBright »

mrpopo wrote: post #172
WalterBright wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. In WW1, for example, the German soldiers knew they had lost when the Americans arrived, well equipped, tall, and fat with food. The Japanese soldiers had a similar reaction when faci…

> The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. This is not true, historians collectively agree that Korea has seen the most spectacular rise. Also, your comment was spectacularly off-topic and anachronistic. A country being a manufacturing powerhouse during WW2 doesn't mean that immigrants have a fair chance today. First they need to be able to enter, then they need to be abl…

> historians collectively agree

I'm not buying that.

S. Korea's population is 51 million. The US elevated far more. Besides, SK's economy is free market, not communism.

> First they need to be able to enter,

100,000 per month are flooding over the border.

> then they need to be able to succeed.

Evidently they believe they can, or they wouldn't come.

As for around here in Seattle, there are immigrants everywhere. I jog through the park most days, and I hear languages from all over the world. They have their stereos blasting away, and large families with kids running around, and parked cars line the street. The smells coming from their cooking are delightful, I wish they'd offer me a bite :-)

Looks to me like they're doing very well. I have no idea how you can conclude that the American door to immigration is shut, or that they are doing badly.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#216

Post by watersb »

Excellent.

There is a shift from university for its own sake, back to skilled work in making things. A more rational motivation.

I was far too often, far too much like the arrogant snots the author encountered at university; I had been conditioned to be the smartest guy in the room. But I was passionate about computers and the engineering that had created them, and I worked hard. Not sure that the space I was taking up would have had more benefit to someone else.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#217

Post by teachingassist »

WalterBright wrote: post #196
teachingassist wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Emphasis here is on the past tense. There are several reasons to challenge this: 1. The USA had (and still has) unprecedented resources per population. Why is your claim not still the case? 2. Immigrants tend to be people with the means to immigrate. That's rarely people in relative poverty, unless you intended to mean slaves.

1. The USSR had (and has) much more resources per population. Japan achieved great wealth with insignificant natural resources. 2. Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do. Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing. The money was to be made by cramming poor people in below decks. In colonial…

> Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing.

Third-class passage was £8, approximately $1000 in today's currency, i.e. more expensive than an equivalent trans-atlantic flight today, and too expensive for poor people to typically consider.

> Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do.

"The median income of foreign-born households in 2016 was $53,200, compared to U.S. born resident’s median household income of $58,000."

That seems like middle class people to me.

Do we have different definitions of poor?

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#218

Post by 2wrist »

jgrahamc wrote: post #49

The teaching was personalised, flexible and interactive. That kind of system keeps people like me in the room, fired up and engaged. Kids like me, who don’t flourish in school, can benefit from such attention, and focus, and belief. A good society would strive to give it to them. Yes, this is the best part of Oxford. My undergraduate education there consisted of: 1. Lectures to large groups of students 2. Some small…

This is what resonates with me, I went to a declining secondary school inthe UK and the amount of clever, clever kids who were written off because they were poor, or their parents were from the wrong side was scary. They just didn't bother with them. So much wasted talent and potential. Think of how much they could have contributed to society.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#219

Post by jseban »

iso1631 wrote: post #173
coffeecat wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Having recently decided that I dislike leftist politics and that I align more with right-wing politics (in theory, if not in practice), the thing that switched in my mind is: why does it matter whether or not society is fair? I think that's the wrong question; I don't see any intri…

> how can we improve our average level of well-being What average? MEAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 1 person with $10m and 99 people with nothing (mean=100k) System 2: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) The latter is far far better despite on mean being worse. MEDIAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 51 person with $1m and 49 people with nothing (median=$1m) System 2: 100 people with $250k (median=250k) The…

Yeah but in reality what happens is that if you redistribute too much, you stifle productivity to the point where you have no improvements at all, and your mean will start to regress. Why? Because you have removed all incentives for people to improve, and rather introduced the perverse incentive of preferring to be on the receiving end.

In reality it's more like System 1: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) System 2: 98 people with $60k and 2 people with $10m (mean=259k)

And then people argue that System 2 is worse because the small increase for the most people is not worth the humiliation of some times seeing a person with 10m which is unfair.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#220

Post by WalterBright »

teachingassist wrote: post #214
jfk13 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, a lot of (non-slave) people immigrated to the USA precisely because they were impoverished -- for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, among many others. > "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Whether those words are as appropriate today may be another matter, of course.

> for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, I understand this example to be of historical note because it was exceptional. Many people came over for the promise of farmland or gold or something that they could capitalise on.

They came because they were poor. For a fictionalized account of Swedish immigrants, see Moberg's novel "The Emigrants". You might dismiss it as fiction, but the preface writes:

"To ensure the verisimilitude of his story, Moberg did extensive historical research in both Sweden and the United States. He studied county records in Smaland and read many collections of letters that immigrants in America had sent to relatives in Sweden during the nineteenth Century. His studies also included trips to the Maritime Museum in Gothenburg. This research gave him a record of living conditions in nineteenth-century Sweden and a feel for life aboard sailing vessels in the days when emigration had not yet become an industry backed by large steamship companies."

Post reply on HN