But, isn't that discrimination? Why should I belittle the hard work of a person that was fortunate enough to attend a prestigious university that gave them certain privileges? What is that majority trying to achieve? A world where that hypothetical person would stop trying?
I'm someone that's not from a privileged background, and I did not attend a prestigious university, but I sure do respect the time of anyone as much as I respect mine.
Sadly, it seems to me that it boils down to that quote from WarGames - the only winning move is not to play.
You just need it to be at a point where the masses are satiated.
If we come to a point where the average person cannot afford a modest living (which we are pretty much on the brink of) then it doesn't matter what's logical or not. People are going to get upset and inevitably start breaking things.
Kings didn't have smartphones 1000 years ago, but they did have multiple large castles and entire armies ready to do their bidding. And they didn't have to work a single day in their entire life to get it, they were born into the role.
How is that even remotely similar to a modern modest living? Can we stop with this bullshit narrative?
You would be surprised how many people would choose the former - I would guess a great majority of people would. Once you remove the hard labour of mediaeval farming, food prep, cleaning and artisanship by putting yourself at the top of the pyramid, modern medicine is the only thing that stands out - and lots of people value status over healthcare (especially below the age of 60).
That you don't, is a sign of you being a 1%er like most people here. (And even here, I am sure many people would choose having thousands of people doing their bidding to the creature comforts of modern automation or medicine.)
Discrimination combined with disempowerment/disenfranchisement/subservience, that is a problem.
I direct absolutely zero sympathy toward the Princeton grad who was born on third but thinks they hit a triple. Those are people who already hold much of the power in society, while simultaneously having no true understanding of what it's like to not be born into a life of privilege.
And those are the people this article is about: the privileged few who push the mostly false narrative that the rest of us can claw and scrape and eventually achieve the life they were simply given through birthright.
> Why should I belittle the hard work of a person that was fortunate enough to attend a prestigious university that gave them certain privileges? What is that majority trying to achieve? A world where that hypothetical person would stop trying?
A world in which everyone has approximately the same basic set of opportunities irrespective of the circumstances they were born in. A world in which hard work and individual achievement are, in fact, the primary determinant of success. In short: the very world these hucksters want us to believe exists today but doesn't.
Is that actually possible in the end? No. Inequality will always exist to some extent. But we can sure get a lot closer than the plutocratic disaster that we have today.
Heck, just raising the federal minimum wage in the US would go a long way. But when more than half of congress are millionaires (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmake...) it's no great wonder that they have little sympathy, empathy, or just basic understanding of the rest of us and the lives we lead.
I don't think it's discrimination. In a world of finite opportunities, more and more of them going to the people that are born on level 50 when you have to start at level 1 will inevitably lead to revolution against entrenched interests, as people realize things are rigged against them. History has a few examples, notably in France and Russia.
What people call 'equality warriors' I call bloodshed preventers.
> What people call 'equality warriors' I call bloodshed preventers.
Seems prudent to support, even if you are born on level 50. The current system endures as long as most people feel like they still have more to gain playing by the rules.
If a critical mass of sufficiently capable people conclude that the game is rigged against them and they have exhausted their options to change it from within then attempting a hard reboot of all levels using pitchforks and guillotines starts to seem pretty rational.
Not sure how far we are from hitting that critical mass, but it would be nice not to find out.
For a system to be rigged, it implies that the same people stay at the top.
Look at the most valuable companies today, and look 30 years ago.
There are numerous studies that show that income volatility at the top and at the bottom are very pronounced in US vs Europe and other developed countries.
More importantly, about 50% of people in the US will be in the top 10% of income, at least 1 year of their lives.
This goes against the tenet that the system is "rigged" or at least, it far less rigged here than in the rest of the world.
> This goes against the tenet that the system is "rigged" or at least, it far less rigged here than in the rest of the world.
Alas, while you might want to believe the American Dream is alive and well, it's very much on life support. For example, the World Economic Forum ranked the US 27th in social mobility:
I don't know what social mobility is. But having France in that number where they have a persistent unemployment number that is double that of the US, and where the entrenched interests have held on to their wealth for centuries, is very strange.
What I do know is income mobility since that's a hard number, and hard to manufacture.
And in that respect, citizens of the US are far better than the rest of the world.
You'll find in the article I provided that it offers the following definition:
Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals either up or down the socioeconomic ladder relative to their current standing, such as a low-income family moving up to become a part of the middle class.
Countries with high levels of social mobility exhibit lower levels of income inequality and provide more equally shared opportunities for its citizens across each of the five pillars.
This is, of course, precisely what we're discussing here.
For example, regarding Denmark, it notes:
Denmark holds the title for the most socially mobile country in the world, boasting an index score of 85.2. If a person is born into a low-income family in Denmark, the WEF estimates it would take two generations to reach a median income. In contrast, someone in Brazil or South Africa would take nine generations at the current pace of growth.
> And in that respect, citizens of the US are far better than the rest of the world.
The opinion piece you've cited makes absolutely no claims about how the US compares to other nations, and therefore does not support your claims.
It's of course a fascinating analysis. But it does not even broach the question of whether "citizens of the US are far better" off than those in other countries.
I'm someone that's not from a privileged background, and I did not attend a prestigious university, but I sure do respect the time of anyone as much as I respect mine.
Sadly, it seems to me that it boils down to that quote from WarGames - the only winning move is not to play.