181–190 of 888 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Is there any evidence that there was some sort of orchestrated effort to have a sudden change in rhetoric? Or are these graphs just reflecting the rise of the social justice movement, which the news would obviously report on? Basically this doesn't really tell us anything about cause and effect.
Class is not supposed to be much of anything in America. Success is everything.
Success is mostly class. US has a below average social mobility by international standards. https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/1-5%20generations.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opportunity is only available to those who are in the right place at the right time speaking to the right people. If we consider the fact that the universe is entirely deterministic we can see that the ideas of free will and meritocracy evaporate.
Complete nonsense. You literally make your own opportunities - although not all opportunities are obvious when present and some do not reveal themselves unless other opportunities are taken first. How do you think the "right place, right time" people get to the right place and right time? It's not an accident - it's years in the making for most people. Some never even realize they're in the right place or at the righ…
LMAO at these journalists pretending they're so surprised to find this. As if they had no hand in creating this environment... and as if this wasn't the whole point to begin with. The upper class owns journalism and this state of affairs was very much the goal.
The goal of whom? Please don't vaguely hand wave about the .1%. Who specifically with means has had this goal? Because without any kind of evidence or idea of who is doing it, it just sounds like a conspiracy theory. I ask because whenever I see instances of the ultra rich trying to control the narrative, it always comes off as obvious and ham fisted. The obvious rebuttal is "well you don't see when they succeed", bu…
This is widely understood to be a form of affirmative action. Naturally, high schools in underprivileged areas - rural or urban - will produce students who are nowhere nearly as prepared as students from elite or wealthy schools. We ignore that difference as a policy matter. Top 10% is top 10%.
Maybe the Ivies will move to a similar system in the wake of the current SCOTUS case.
Yeah, I agree that it is important to take into account disadvantages that people may have unfairly experienced due to no fault of their own. But, why do we need to use race as a proxy? Presuming something about someone based on their skin color is prejudice regardless of your intentions. If people are disadvantaged, let's measure those disadvantages directly and adjust for those factors.
> But, why do we need to use race as a proxy? Because historically race was used systemically to limit opportunities for people of color. The last school to be desegregated was in 1963. Think about that.
How do you determine the class of student being admitted?
Easy: The proportion of their or their parents' income which comes from labor as opposed to earnings on property.
Antisocialism is the root of so many of America's problems. Tax wealth, seize inheritance, and don't charge for higher education. Guillotines only work for the people who can afford them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
furthermore they focused on race specifically because dividing Americans on class never failed repeatedly.
It's because class in America has always been fluid, with people going from poor to rich or middle class, and from rich to poor, based on their life decisions, and seizing opportunities. Perhaps the current events have strangled these opportunities for enough people so class can now be used to divide the population against itself?
If your definition of class is more European, it's perfectly possible to be upper class and have a down generation, economically speaking, while your network remains upper class, and your children go right up again, as they don't make the same relatively low salary choices of their parents. This is a well measured situation all over the world, and the US is not special. See the well known studies in Italy, where ancestry and class correlations are linked for over a dozen generations.
But let's say all you care about is income, and look at intergenerational income mobility. It's not as if the United State does all that well, and most of the difference is emigration of high class immigrants. The doctor that can't get a job in the US as a doctor, but whose children vastly outearn them, becoming relatively high class quite quickly. See https://www.chicagofed.org/research/mobility/intergeneration....