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

American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 888 posts

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#251

Post by whydat_whodat »

geoduck14 wrote: post #204
coyotespike wrote: post #187

Here in Texas, any student from the top 10% of their high school is guaranteed a place at the flagship University of Texas at Austin. 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…

The top 10% of the good high schools don't go to University of Texas

UT Austin is considered one of the "public ivies" -- a public university offering an educational experience competitive with ivy league universities.

Other examples are UC Berkeley, University of Washington at Seattle, and Penn State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#252

Post by zeroonetwothree »

civilized wrote: post #213
coyotespike wrote: post #187

Here in Texas, any student from the top 10% of their high school is guaranteed a place at the flagship University of Texas at Austin. 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…

On this particular issue of college accessibility to high-achieving underprivileged kids, Texas is the most progressive state in the US. Name a "progressive" state that comes even close.

CA has exactly the same system. I’m not sure which was first.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#253

Post by debacle »

maxfurman wrote: post #231
geoduck14 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 10% of the good high schools don't go to University of Texas

The parent comment isn't about who goes to UT, it's about who gets accepted.

The point is that you can hold a door open for everyone, but only the people who need it will use it.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#254

Post by daxelrod »

Test0129 wrote: post #228
TimTheTinker wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"White privilege" is like a DSM-5 diagnosis. It's only brought up with a treatment (or remedy) in mind. It's intended more as a tool to bring about a particular outcome, and less as a description of a scientifically measurable reality. I don't object to the use of "white privilege" to attempt an objective description of reality. I do object to the notion that more discrimination on the basis of race is the answer. Yo…

I object to the use of "white privilege" on first principles: Interpreted literally, it implies all whites are privileged. This is categorically untrue. It encourages racism through associating an immutable trait with a negative word. "White privilege" is no more true than saying "Jewish privilege" or "Asian privilege" when referring to trends that do not reflect the whole. For the latter two one would be accused of…

Why do you believe "privilege" is a negative word?

Also, assuming you mean Robin DiAngelo, what of hers have you read? She's pretty clear in both White Fragility and Nice Racism in advocating against "constant, deliberate, self-flaggelation" because they center the person doing it and take energy away from productive action.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#255

Post by ETH_start »

cocacola1 wrote: post #245
briHass wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Realistically, however, it is rare to move more than one or two income brackets from where your parents were when they were your age. You state that like it's a bad thing. If you can bump a bracket or two per generation, 2 generations can take you from near-penniless to upper-middle class.

Cold comfort to the near-penniless and penniless.

Real life is filled with disappointments and limitations, even with the best social structures in place. The false promise of a social revolution that provides instant wealth and salvation for all is used by populists to gain power, but any attempt to realize this promise leads to worse outcomes for the public.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#256

Post by sokoloff »

andirk wrote: post #133
anonporridge wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, parental income can be a terrible proxy. High income doesn't necessarily indicate wealth or high class. It usually indicates highly educated, high level working class, like doctors and software engineers. Families with generational wealth often have very little direct income. All wealth is in assets that they borrow against, which doesn't count as income. Even when they take income or realize capital g…

Parental income is a terrible proxy? The abilities of ones guardians growing up is a huge factor in what opportunities someone is offered and a lot of that is dictated by how much money is available for the child. Other aspects like the intelligence, love, care, wit of the parents and child may be larger factors, but that's not something one can quantify on a form.

My oldest will be applying to college in 2027. If it would maximize their chances of admission, I could arrange for my 2026 income tax return to show any 5 or most 6 figure sums that I needed. If I really needed to, I could do the same for 2025 as well.

Showing a household income of $75K in that year/those years won't change the more comfortable financial situation they grew up in.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#257

Post by closeparen »

andirk wrote: post #133
anonporridge wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, parental income can be a terrible proxy. High income doesn't necessarily indicate wealth or high class. It usually indicates highly educated, high level working class, like doctors and software engineers. Families with generational wealth often have very little direct income. All wealth is in assets that they borrow against, which doesn't count as income. Even when they take income or realize capital g…

Parental income is a terrible proxy? The abilities of ones guardians growing up is a huge factor in what opportunities someone is offered and a lot of that is dictated by how much money is available for the child. Other aspects like the intelligence, love, care, wit of the parents and child may be larger factors, but that's not something one can quantify on a form.

Brilliant and accomplished people don't always pursue wealth. In certain subcultures it's crass, uncouth, one might even say low class to pursue something too practical or employable, to be too interested in material things and conspicuous consumption. These people aren't rich on paper but they are rich in genetics, habits, attitudes, values, vocabularies, media diets - and they raise brilliant, accomplished kids. Affirmative action for high academic performers subject to low family income would be an almost perfectly tailored handout for this cohort.

Filtering on parental education level might knock most of them out & get better at targeting kids who outperformed their circumstances in more surprising ways. But is the legibility or surprisingness of the kid's outperformance really the point? I think maybe what you'd want to do is give some slots in the meritocracy to kids who are not outperformers at all, but chosen randomly, without regard to academic performance.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#258

Post by kelseyfrog »

happyopossum wrote: post #144
kelseyfrog wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy: The proportion of their or their parents' income which comes from labor as opposed to earnings on property.

So an athlete with a $250m contract would be lower class because all of his income is from labor? That’s ridiculous.

We probably have very different definitions of class that's causing this confusion. The definition of class I'm using is laid across a spectrum from those who sell their labor on one end to those who make money from the ownership of property on the other.

The reason I use this definition is because the economic relations are reflected in social relations. The social relations one has when they primarily live off the earnings of property are qualitatively different from those who don't - this difference forms the basis of class.

Know that this isn't an idiosyncratic definition - the cradle it was born in was the same cradle that bore sociology itself.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#259

Post by daxelrod »

Test0129 wrote: post #242
daxelrod wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't whiteness and wealthiness both be types of privilege?

Because one does not imply the other. A minority of whites are disproportionately wealthy. Associating the trait of a minority of a group with the majority is racism. It's really that simple.

I'm not suggesting one implies the other. Are you saying the only advantage one could possibly have is economic? Or maybe that you'd expect all advantages and disadvantages to be reflected in wealth or lack thereof?

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#260

Post by hither_shores »

notright5 wrote: post #147
zabzonk wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so the capitalist press are trying to foment a socialist revolution???

They are not capitalist. They are sociologists / journalists / non-technical economists earning 50k (barely percentile 60), and telling us daily how action X is immoral (exactly what bishops and priests used to do).

Journalists don't decide the editorial stance of the publications they write for. In the short term, it's up to an editorial board or editor-in-chief. In the long term, it's up to the owners.
Post reply on HN