|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Welfarism
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
must be terrible to be made redundant when you're married to a millionaire(ss)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Part of the pressure must come from dividend payments - I have no idea how these are set, but it becomes evident when you think about th purpose of a business.
Is it a) to generate a profit b) to provide a service / object c) to rpovide a living for its employees ?
Frequent.y, in these discussions people will state the basic purpose is to make money - I would question that assumption. Obviously a business needs to not go bust - but beyond that it is not self-evident. I believe ceos have a legal duty to shareholders, if it is a floated company. Co-ops and partnership model companies don't always go under though. There is more than one way of seeing things.
As to why the state should do things for you, or any specific person, well, because the state is your servant. Ultimately, it is supposed to exist for your benefit. and without you, without people, the state would not exist.
Take the sterotypical tabloid example - single mother on benefits, never worked, three kids by three different fathers. The maintaince of that family generates paid work for others, and there is a reasonable chance the children will grow up and do some work. And where do you think the infantry recruit from - not just from middle class nuclear families. But most importantly, they are citizens, he state exists to serve them and they put up with restrictions on their liberty in return for that protection/provision. We must not forget the fundemental direction of that relationship, the state exists to serve the citizen.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!
*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*
Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
must be terrible to be made redundant when you're married to a millionaire(ss)
I would really love to find out for sure if that is true by trying the experiment. If someone can come up with an eligible young woman to marry me and supply the dosh, I'm sure I could contrive some way of making myself unneccessary at work.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!
*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*
Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
Exactly. Why else would I be jumping on my horse?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
I think there are fundamental questions about the role and scope of the state, personal liberty and what society has responsibility for.
These are the distinctions that dictate how someone reacts to issues such as welfare, differences in income and the rights of the individual.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
Buffett seems to be a rare commodity these days, a real truth-teller. We could use a few more of his ilk.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think there are fundamental questions about the role and scope of the state, personal liberty and what society has responsibility for.
These are the distinctions that dictate how someone reacts to issues such as welfare, differences in income and the rights of the individual.
I don't think there has been an election since the 1832 Reform Act that hasn't addressed some of those issues. They dominated the 1906, 1945 and 1979 campaigns and the fall out from 2010 was similar, although the issues weren't debated to the same extent, thanks to the leadership TV debates.
I imagine Radical Whig will be along shortly to suggest that a written constitution will help!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
I'm not aware of any research on this, but I wonder if two unintended linked consequences of the minimum wage are these: jobs become more attractive to migrant workers, and employers are more willing to pay for motivated migrant workers than, erm, fuckwit Brits.
For instance, when I was a student fifteen years ago, I could pick up agency factory work (at £2.80 per hour). Terrible pay, but anyone could pick the work up. I'm not sure the FB's would be so welcome now; now the wages have gone up it probably matters more whether the staff are any use.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!
*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*
Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
Exactly. Why else would I be jumping on my horse?
Sarcasm. But you knew that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But you have to question how much someone like that understands about the pressures on someone who is struggling to survive on the minimum wage or on benefits.
Yes, but you also have to question how much someone struggling to survive on minimum wage or benefits understands about the pressures of running a country, of making decisions that will affect millions of people and of being right in the main beam of the media spotlight when the buck stops with them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.
Given that tens of thousands of average workers will happily pay large sums of money to watch that one footballer do his thing, or to wear his name on their back, or to buy the products he endorses, you could legitimately make the argument that a multiplier of 360 is pretty low.
Most of the value of top-level footballers comes from their scarcity rather than for the job itself. There is, as the chant goes, only one Wayne Rooney. That means he can pretty much name his price and one club or other will pay it in order to have him on their team. It just ain't the same with data analysts - we're ten-a-penny so companies can set their price and one or more of us will happily accept.
A diamond and a pencil are both just carbon, but you wouldn't pay the same price for both of them because diamonds look so much better and are so much rarer. Same principle.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It ain't insectoid. Arthropod, yeah: same-footed, soft shelled, crusty, joint footed, animals.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.
Football is the only pleasure in life some poor souls have. They can shout and sing and enjoy the drama before returning to drab normality with all it's problems.
It's been that way for a long time. I have a social history book that shows thousands of factory workers in their Sunday best, watching Tottenham Hotspurs. For many it replaced church attendance when they moved rom the country to the towns.
I hear them in the office, eulogising or mourning about the latest developments on & off the pitch.
Women often talk in softer voices about what they bought at the shops, or on ebay.
I remind myself I'm on different benefits, His benefits. (Psalm 103:2)
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Crustacean, Martin, crustacean.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.
Football is the only pleasure in life some poor souls have. They can shout and sing and enjoy the drama before returning to drab normality with all it's problems.
It's been that way for a long time. I have a social history book that shows thousands of factory workers in their Sunday best, watching Tottenham Hotspurs. For many it replaced church attendance when they moved rom the country to the towns.
I hear them in the office, eulogising or mourning about the latest developments on & off the pitch.
Women often talk in softer voices about what they bought at the shops, or on ebay.
I remind myself I'm on different benefits, His benefits. (Psalm 103:2)
Gone are the days when footballers used to travel to the game on the omnibus with the supporters, and have a pie and a pint with them afterwards in the pub. I take the point that it is something watched and followed by many, and therefore the fees commanded by the top players can be extraordinary.
Yours and Marvin's comments don't address my question, though: is such unrestrained, naked capitalism good for society in general, football in particular, and more specifically the sanity of the players concerned?
When I used to play Saturday league stuff (back when my body could take it... ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ), our home pitch was a municipal one in a park that flooded, froze and baked solid, and sometimes had white lines on. No evidence at all of any 'trickle down' from Sky's millions into the grass-roots game then, and I doubt if it's changed much now. In fact, there's very little evidence of money really ever flowing from hugely rich sectors to poorer ones: they just tend to raise the walls around themselves.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Football is the only pleasure in life some poor souls have. They can shout and sing and enjoy the drama before returning to drab normality with all it's problems.
I don't know about the "only pleasure", but its bloody important for some people. I've only recently started to go to football matches - hated it when I was a kid but now old enough to be safe from being expected to play the bloody game - and last season I saw a few "famous victories" at the Millwall ground. And there were blokes crying. I mean crying because their team had won. Some old man standing near me - must have been in his 70s - his grandchildren looked to be teenagers - maybe old enough to have actually been a docker when the supporters were mostly dockers - imagine a sort of Alf Garnet character carrying on a running argument with his son and daughter in law about something really embarrasing-sounding - but crying when the team won - more or less kissed me on the way out - smelling of stale beer and tobacco. But it meant something to him. I mean, I enjoyed it, I wanted to win, but to this bloke - and thousands of others - it was huge.
quote:
... watching Tottenham Hotspurs.
[QUOTE]
[QB]
I'm not sure why, but you can't say that in English. You can watch "Tottenham Hotspur" or you can watch "Spurs" but the full name bears no "s". Odd that.
[QUOTE]
[qb]
For many it replaced church attendance when they moved rom the country to the towns.
Neat theory but I think the timing's off. Mass attendance at commercial sport venues started in about the 1860s or 70s and probably peaked in the 1900s, maybe the 1910s or 20s. That's a century after the Industrial Revolution and the big move to the towns. Also churchgoing was on the way up in the late 19th century, not down. And most of the urban working class were unchurched by the 1830s, and probably earlier - if you believe the accounts of the early Methodists craftsmen and factory workers and the like were pretty irreligious in the 18th century.
[ 15. November 2010, 16:39: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
<snip>
No evidence at all of any 'trickle down' from Sky's millions into the grass-roots game then, and I doubt if it's changed much now. In fact, there's very little evidence of money really ever flowing from hugely rich sectors to poorer ones: they just tend to raise the walls around themselves.
We should be grateful that some of us get a chance to build those walls and earn a wage doing so. That's what the 'trickle-down' theory of unrestrained self-interest was always about IIRC.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
I thought football clubs, like many other clubs/bands etc. were started (some by churches) to keep urban working class men off the grog.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ironic then that drunken football supporters are such a threat to public order.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yours and Marvin's comments don't address my question, though: is such unrestrained, naked capitalism good for society in general, football in particular, and more specifically the sanity of the players concerned?
Society in general is neither improved nor worsened because a few footballers earn an extra few million. It doesn't change the rest of us at all.
quote:
When I used to play Saturday league stuff (back when my body could take it... ), our home pitch was a municipal one in a park that flooded, froze and baked solid, and sometimes had white lines on. No evidence at all of any 'trickle down' from Sky's millions into the grass-roots game then, and I doubt if it's changed much now.
Are you suggesting that if, say, a wage cap was implemented in the professional game all the extra money would instead be spent on lower-league clubs? Rather than, say, staying in the pockets of the club owners?
quote:
In fact, there's very little evidence of money really ever flowing from hugely rich sectors to poorer ones: they just tend to raise the walls around themselves.
Again, are you suggesting that if they were made less rich it would somehow increase the wealth of everyone else? Or is this just the old tactic of making everyone more equal by dragging the top down rather than raising the bottom up?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Again, are you suggesting that if they were made less rich it would somehow increase the wealth of everyone else? Or is this just the old tactic of making everyone more equal by dragging the top down rather than raising the bottom up?
Making everyone equally poor is not the goal. Moderate, and secure, prosperity for all, without extremes of either wealth or poverty, ought in my view to be the goal of centre-left politics.
But, as one approaches greater equality, even on a lower absolute level for those at the top, a curious thing happens: the well-being of all increases, as we all collectively share in the benefits of membership of a well-functioning society. Violence and crime diminish, so the streets are safer and you do not need to fly out to the leafy suburbs; public services work better - so you do not have to spend money on school fees and health insurance if you want to be well-educated and well cared for; public transport is used by everyone, not only by the poor, so the buses become a priority, and are cleaner and more frequent.
In a society composes of the rich and the poor, there are weak social links and low solidarity, and potential for constant class conflict between them, and thus little scope for seeing things in terms of common goods; greater equality builds up stronger horizontal links between people, and helps people to realise that their well-being is interconnected with that of others and of all.
This arises, in part, because all wealth is relative: when everyone is equally poor, poverty is merely uncomfortable. When poverty exists in the shadow of wealth, it comes disgraceful, humiliating, exploitative, dehumanising, abasing.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Making everyone equally poor is not the goal. Moderate, and secure, prosperity for all, without extremes of either wealth or poverty, ought in my view to be the goal of centre-left politics.
Without defining "moderate", you're not going to get many on your side. What is moderate - is it being able to afford seven meals a week? Being able to afford seven nice meals a week? Being able to afford to go out to eat once in a while? Being able to splash out on a few real luxury foods every now and then? Where do you set the bar?
quote:
But, as one approaches greater equality, even on a lower absolute level for those at the top, a curious thing happens: the well-being of all increases, as we all collectively share in the benefits of membership of a well-functioning society.
So you say. But this belief of yours is a flimsy hope on which to hang an entire political theory.
quote:
Violence and crime diminish, so the streets are safer
Violence and crime are caused by attitudes, not prosperity. There will always be those who want more and are prepared to get it by whatever means necessary. There will always be addicts who mug and burgle to get their next fix. And in a world of enforced moderacy there will be a flourishing black market where people who want more than moderate prosperity allows can get it.
quote:
and you do not need to fly out to the leafy suburbs;
Except because they look nicer and aren't as crowded. Even with everything else exactly the same I'd rather live in a leafy suburb than an urban tower block.
quote:
public services work better - so you do not have to spend money on school fees and health insurance if you want to be well-educated and well cared for;
How do they magically start working better just because everyone is economically equal?
For that matter, why do schools have to start working better? There's no advantage to having good qualifications any more. Everyone's the same regardless.
quote:
public transport is used by everyone, not only by the poor, so the buses become a priority, and are cleaner and more frequent.
Why does everybody start using public transport? Does "moderate prosperity" mean no-one will be able to afford a car? This is starting to sound really bad...
quote:
In a society composes of the rich and the poor, there are weak social links and low solidarity, and potential for constant class conflict between them, and thus little scope for seeing things in terms of common goods; greater equality builds up stronger horizontal links between people, and helps people to realise that their well-being is interconnected with that of others and of all.
And in a society where everyone is forced to be the same there is no incentive to better oneself, no incentive to work hard at anything and no social mobility. Entrepreneurism goes bye-bye. Invention takes a back seat. Most big companies will, of course, already have left (due to their directors' desire to stay rich), but eventually even smaller companies will suffer as the trickle of skilled workers, scientists and academics to countries where they can earn better salaries becomes a flood with every lowering of the bar of prosperity (of course, on the plus side this hastens the move towards everyone who is left being in parity). Eventually the whole society stagnates and is rapidly taken over by the rest of the world.
quote:
This arises, in part, because all wealth is relative: when everyone is equally poor, poverty is merely uncomfortable. When poverty exists in the shadow of wealth, it comes disgraceful, humiliating, exploitative, dehumanising, abasing.
As far as I can see, when everybody is equally poor they'll rip each others eyes out just to get a little more comfort for themselves. The solution is to promote social mobility, and there can be no mobility if there's nowhere to go.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
I thought football clubs, like many other clubs/bands etc. were started (some by churches) to keep urban working class men off the grog.
Some were. Of the London teams Fulham and I think maybe Spurs and QPR were church sides. Others from secular boys clubs or sports clubs set up by well-meaning persons with similar intent.
Most were probably works teams, started by men who wanted to have a kick-around on Saturday afternoon or evening between work and the pub. Millwall and West Ham both started as factory teams, and later drew support mainly from dockers (maybe one reason for their rivalry being the nastiest in English sport is that their supporters were and are basically the same people living on opposite sides of the river). Arsenal was origianlly Dial Square FC, an amateur a team from the Woolwich Arsenal (i.e. munitions factory) though that was so big I suspect it had many teams. If I can believe Wikipedia, Crystal Palace really was started as a team for workers at the Crystal Palace and its adjacent park. Hence "Glaziers". Leyton Orient was a team for ex-students of a teacher-training College who were working in the East End.
Some were simple commercial ventures - Chelsea was set up by the owners of a stadium because they were having trouble filling it, and they simply bribed their way into the League. Quite a lot of football has always been about money. Which almost brings us back to the topic.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Marvin, you've got more than enough straw men in that for bayonnet practice...
quote:
Without defining "moderate", you're not going to get many on your side. What is moderate - is it being able to afford seven meals a week? Being able to afford seven nice meals a week? Being able to afford to go out to eat once in a while? Being able to splash out on a few real luxury foods every now and then? Where do you set the bar?
What? Where did you get the idea that the sole indicator of wealth is going out to eat? People are free to spend their money however they want.
quote:
So you say. But this belief of yours is a flimsy hope on which to hang an entire political theory.
It's pretty much an established fact. The less difference there is between rich and poor, the happier everyone is.
quote:
in a world of enforced moderacy there will be a flourishing black market where people who want more than moderate prosperity allows can get it.
Nowhere have we ever said that there will be Moderating police stalking the street. If you can assert that "Violence and crime are caused by attitudes" without evidence, no doubt we can assert that their absence is due to the attitudes of justice and fairness.
quote:
Except because they look nicer and aren't as crowded. Even with everything else exactly the same I'd rather live in a leafy suburb than an urban tower block.
You just don't get it. The reason we have 'nice' areas and 'nasty' areas is because with have extremes of wealth and poverty. Moderation means the nasty areas get nicer.
quote:
How do they magically start working better just because everyone is economically equal?
For that matter, why do schools have to start working better? There's no advantage to having good qualifications any more. Everyone's the same regardless.
Yep. Just don't get it. You seem to equate paying a tiny minority the majority of the money with ambition and achievement, as if those with the money are hard working, successful and smart on their own merits. They're not. There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
quote:
Why does everybody start using public transport? Does "moderate prosperity" mean no-one will be able to afford a car? This is starting to sound really bad...
Only because either a) you're deliberately playing dumb (and it doesn't suit you) or really, really don't get it.
Plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport is used by rich and poor alike, whether or not they have a car. As has been shown in city after city with plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport.
Etc, etc. Not everyone is motivated by greed. Thank God.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!
*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*
Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
Pish tosh, and piffle old boy! The lower classes haven't started shooting back so there's no war. After all, we're the ones who lease them the ammunition. Once it starts it'll all be over by Christmas...
And for the record, there were massive numbers of claims that NuLabour's introduction of the minimum wage was going to increase inflation and lead to mass unemployment. It didn't happen. So now whenever anyone complains about the possible effect an increase in the minimum wage would have, I want to know what their precedents are - if none are given, I file them into the "alarmism" bin.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What? Where did you get the idea that the sole indicator of wealth is going out to eat? People are free to spend their money however they want.
I used food as an example because very few people will argue that nobody needs to eat. If I'd used electrical goods or motor vehicles as the example some bright spark would have popped up to say that nobody needs to have them at all.
quote:
quote:
So you say. But this belief of yours is a flimsy hope on which to hang an entire political theory.
It's pretty much an established fact. The less difference there is between rich and poor, the happier everyone is.
Evidence?
quote:
Nowhere have we ever said that there will be Moderating police stalking the street.
Maybe not, but if you want it to happen you'll have to enforce it at some level.
quote:
If you can assert that "Violence and crime are caused by attitudes" without evidence, no doubt we can assert that their absence is due to the attitudes of justice and fairness.
I provided examples to back the assertion up. I note you have ignored them.
quote:
quote:
Except because they look nicer and aren't as crowded. Even with everything else exactly the same I'd rather live in a leafy suburb than an urban tower block.
You just don't get it. The reason we have 'nice' areas and 'nasty' areas is because with have extremes of wealth and poverty. Moderation means the nasty areas get nicer.
However nice urban living gets, I would still prefer to live in a leafy suburb. It's not the standard of the accomodation, it's the density. You could offer me the fanciest 14th-floor city centre apartment in the world and I'd rather have a three-bed semi with a bit of garden out in suburbia.
quote:
Yep. Just don't get it. You seem to equate paying a tiny minority the majority of the money with ambition and achievement, as if those with the money are hard working, successful and smart on their own merits. They're not.
Three people that spring to mind are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and Bill Gates. In really modern times you could add Mark Zuckerberg into the mix as well. I'd say all of those people have got where they are today on their own merits.
quote:
There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
It does. Work hard, get promotions, get more money.
quote:
Plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport is used by rich and poor alike, whether or not they have a car. As has been shown in city after city with plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport.
But it was clearly stated that smartening up public transport would come after everybody started using it, as the fact that they are all using it would make it more of a priority.
Doing it the other way round, the way you suggest, is a great idea.
quote:
Etc, etc. Not everyone is motivated by greed. Thank God.
Not everyone, no. But more than enough people to make it something you can't just ignore. Any economic strategy you can come up with has to account for the basic selfishness of humanity.
[ 16. November 2010, 15:57: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Three people that spring to mind are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and Bill Gates. In really modern times you could add Mark Zuckerberg into the mix as well. I'd say all of those people have got where they are today on their own merits.
That would be funny if it weren't so pitifully stupid. Surely you know that Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and used daddy's money to buy QDOS?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
It does. Work hard, get promotions, get more money.
This is what your argument boils down to. It is not now, if it ever has been, true. You are completely deluding yourself as an act of supreme and undying faith if you believe this.
This whole thread started on the basis that it was wrong for some people to be better of on benefits than they are doing a full-time job. The corollary of that is that people doing a full-time job should always be better off than if they were on benefits.
If we acknowledge (as we have done) that doing a full time job - working hard - does not, in many cases, provide a wage large enough to live on, let alone support a family, then we cannot simultaneously assert that the system is broken and not broken.
We reward some people disproportionately, and others nowhere near enough, and the criteria we use to distribute those rewards is not based on competency, hard work, talent or any other useful skill. Sometimes, someone actually does achieve riches because they're good at something other than self-promotion - but that's the exception that proves the rule.
You want a world where if you work hard, learn stuff and play (mostly) by the rules, you'll be rewarded. So do I. But the system you want to use to bring that about is exactly the one that denies that ethic the most.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Three people that spring to mind are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and Bill Gates. In really modern times you could add Mark Zuckerberg into the mix as well. I'd say all of those people have got where they are today on their own merits.
That would be funny if it weren't so pitifully stupid. Surely you know that Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and used daddy's money to buy QDOS?
Richard Branson is the son of a barrister and grandson of a High Court Judge and Privy Councillor. He is an alumnus of Stowe School (a famous Public School which specialises in producing eccentrics). However, he overcame dyslexia to found his own business empire - but he was never likely to be on his uppers - having family money behind you does allow you to take more risks.
Alan Sugar really did come from humble origins as the son of an East End tailor. He's a much better example of someone with a real flair for making money from nothing.
Zuckerberg I know less about, but Wikipedia say his parents were a psychiatirist and a dentist, and that he attended an independent boarding school, so no great shortage of money there.
It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Richard Branson is the son of a barrister and grandson of a High Court Judge and Privy Councillor. He is an alumnus of Stowe School (a famous Public School which specialises in producing eccentrics). However, he overcame dyslexia to found his own business empire - but he was never likely to be on his uppers - having family money behind you does allow you to take more risks.
In what way does that mean he didn't build the business empire himself?
quote:
Alan Sugar really did come from humble origins as the son of an East End tailor. He's a much better example of someone with a real flair for making money from nothing.
Yes.
quote:
Zuckerberg I know less about, but Wikipedia say his parents were a psychiatirist and a dentist, and that he attended an independent boarding school, so no great shortage of money there.
What did his parents' jobs have to do with the fact that he came up with a winning idea? Are you saying poor people aren't as clever or original as rich ones, because I'd disagree with that.
quote:
It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
In what way does it help, do you suppose? Answer that question and you might answer the whole thread.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
And for the handful that do take advantage of inherited money and found a successful business of their own there are too many spoiled trust fund babies living on mummy and daddy's money and a huge sense of entitlement - but somehow they're not looked down on like those who get any form of welfare.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
In what way does it help, do you suppose? Answer that question and you might answer the whole thread.
As Moth mentioned regarding Richard Branson, if your family is well off, 'risk taking' simply isn't as risky. You are less likely to lose your home or be made bankrupt.
Oh, and you might not even bother taking the dole, which might colour your view of those who do.
[ 17. November 2010, 11:35: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
It does. Work hard, get promotions, get more money.
Huh! My dad left school at the age of twelve in order to prop up the household budget. He worked hard all his life: mostly with his hands and physical strength, although he had the intelligence and mental curiosity to educate himself. But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning) he was condemned to spend the rest of his life in 'humble toil'. Which suited him in many ways, because he lacked the ruthless competitive streak which Marvin unaccountably forgot to include in his equation above. But it didn't bring material prosperity.
A society which values ruthless competition above qualities such as patience, understanding, caring might be Marvin's ideal, and is clearly more like the one we live in than the opposite. But it doesn't seem to me either civilised or Christian.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I think there are a number of reasons, many of which can be found in the Milburn report. As I summarised them in the presentation I give to my students:
Maternal health and child poverty
Early-years care
Family, parenting and community
Education and school attainment
Post-school qualifications, higher education and transitions into work
Opportunities to progress in work.
Also:
financial capital and asset-holding,
anti-competitive practices,
‘opportunity-hoarding’
physical geography.
All of these are associated with success in life, at least in terms of access to the professions. It may be that entrepreneurs are born, not made, but I'm thinking that the factors above are quite likely to be relevant to that as well.
A child born to a mother in good health, who has good early years care in a stable and supportive family and community is more likely to get a good education and thus attain well. Unfortunately, that is still more common in the wealthier parts of society than it is amongst the poorer parts. The effect is enhanced if the parents can pay for private schooling. This means they are more likely to go to a good university, or if not suited to that, to be introduced to good employment opportunities. The advantage of a private education in the UK cannot be exaggerated:
Only 7% of the population attend independent schools but well over half the members of many professions have done so:
75% of judges
70% of finance directors
45% of top civil servants
32% of MPs
55% of solicitors
68% of top barristers
You notice that 'financial capital and asset holding' are also mentioned as relevant. If your family can help you with your first start-up, you have an advantage. If you went to a first rate public school and are on first-name terms with political leaders, it can't hurt.
Physical geography is an interesting one. A lot of that relates to opportunities for work experience and job opportunities. If you come from the back of beyond, it can be much harder to network, though arguably the internet may diminish the importance of that. Alan Sugar may have been more fortunate than he knew to be born in London.
I do wish I had your optimism about life, Marvin. You seem determined to believe, Invictus-like, that you are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul. Long periods spent with those who come from wealthy families (I am an Oxbridge graduate, remember) have convinced me that the wealthy are fantastic at 'opportunity hoarding'. They have no real objection to a few of those below them getting on, but they'll be damned before any of their kids moves down a rung. They all know each other, they network well, and they know which schools will get their children to where they want to be. They know the system, and they are too politically astute and well-connected to ever let it be changed seriously to their disadvantage.
As the Milburn report puts it:
‘Children of less advantaged class origins need to show substantially more merit than children from more advantaged origins in order to gain similar class positions.’
No-one denies that top entrepreneurs work hard for what they achieve. However, the chance to become a top entrepreneur is not an even one, however hard you are prepared to work. That does not mean that those from poorer backgrounds cannot succeed - some can and do. It does mean that it is less likely.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning)
Without grants? Yes - that's been the case for several years now. Without mass higher education? Like hell.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
All of these are associated with success in life, at least in terms of access to the professions. It may be that entrepreneurs are born, not made, but I'm thinking that the factors above are quite likely to be relevant to that as well.
I'm not disputing the correlation, I'm asking why it exists.
quote:
A child born to a mother in good health, who has good early years care in a stable and supportive family and community is more likely to get a good education and thus attain well.
Again, this is a true statement but offers no real explanation of why such factors are so key (and/or why the absence of those factors is so detrimental). Only when the actual cause is identified can a working solution be proposed.
quote:
You notice that 'financial capital and asset holding' are also mentioned as relevant. If your family can help you with your first start-up, you have an advantage. If you went to a first rate public school and are on first-name terms with political leaders, it can't hurt.
That's going to be true no matter what political system you introduce. Even if every political leader comes from the working class, their friends will have their ears more than complete strangers.
quote:
Physical geography is an interesting one. A lot of that relates to opportunities for work experience and job opportunities. If you come from the back of beyond, it can be much harder to network, though arguably the internet may diminish the importance of that. Alan Sugar may have been more fortunate than he knew to be born in London.
Again, there's nothing that can be done about that. Sometimes social mobility requires physical mobility as well.
quote:
I do wish I had your optimism about life, Marvin. You seem determined to believe, Invictus-like, that you are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul.
That's how I was brought up. Seems a lot better than growing up never expecting to do or achieve much because the rich will always screw me over. And when I have kids I'll be sure to teach them that the world is their oyster, not their prison.
quote:
Long periods spent with those who come from wealthy families (I am an Oxbridge graduate, remember) have convinced me that the wealthy are fantastic at 'opportunity hoarding'. They have no real objection to a few of those below them getting on, but they'll be damned before any of their kids moves down a rung.
Ensuring that their kids do as well as, if not better than, them should be the ultimate goal of every parent. Show me someone who doesn't care what their kids end up doing, or who actively wants them to be worse off, and I'll show you a bad parent.
quote:
They all know each other, they network well, and they know which schools will get their children to where they want to be. They know the system, and they are too politically astute and well-connected to ever let it be changed seriously to their disadvantage.
Oh well then, let's give the whole thing up.
quote:
As the Milburn report puts it:
‘Children of less advantaged class origins need to show substantially more merit than children from more advantaged origins in order to gain similar class positions.’
Are we talking school class or social class here?
quote:
No-one denies that top entrepreneurs work hard for what they achieve.
Oh yes they do. Even on this very thread we've got people implying that they just trip over a pile of daddy's money and somehow wind up leading a successful company. I've seen them described as "talentless parasites who feed off the sweat of others" on this very board.
quote:
However, the chance to become a top entrepreneur is not an even one, however hard you are prepared to work. That does not mean that those from poorer backgrounds cannot succeed - some can and do. It does mean that it is less likely.
You think that's because those from wealthier backgrounds are hoarding all the good jobs. I disagree - I think it's because those from poorer backgrounds have lower aspirations. If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it. Instead they get dragged down, told not to bother trying, told that such things are not for the likes of them. And mostly it's the parents teaching them these things, be it directly or indirectly. I weep for that situation, I really do, but I simply don't see how any of the standard political answers (which usually involve either throwing money at it or taking money away from it) will - or can - change a thing if parents simply can't, don't or won't put the effort in to educating their kids.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning)
Without grants? Yes - that's been the case for several years now. Without mass higher education? Like hell.
Your point is? Mine is, that people being born today are likely to find themselves as disadvantaged as my dad was.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it.
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning)
Without grants? Yes - that's been the case for several years now. Without mass higher education? Like hell.
Your point is? Mine is, that people being born today are likely to find themselves as disadvantaged as my dad was.
My point is that we are not "returning" to "an era before mass higher education". The changes in HE funding will not* adversely affect any prospective student.
*= OK, "should not". There are plenty of people who are too stupid or lazy to look beyond the headline numbers to see how much better the new system actually will be for students.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it.
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
Because surely as well as providing opportunity for all, a fair society also allows reward for those who succeed? Otherwise, where is the incentive and also the fairness?
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
Well of course not everybody can get to the top. Not everybody should. I myself will (barring disastrous changes to the job market) never be in the top 25% of earners in this country, and that's right and proper because I have neither the aptitude nor the fighting instinct to be there. As a bone fide member of the majority you mention, I really don't see that as suffering in any way.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it.
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
Because surely as well as providing opportunity for all, a fair society also allows reward for those who succeed? Otherwise, where is the incentive and also the fairness?
You're absolutely right, but absolutely wrong if you think the current system provides that. Inherited wealth and bought privilege are greater indicators of success than talent, good ideas and hard-work.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
reward for those who succeed: fair enough. That shouldn't imply punishment for those who don't. They might be relatively less well off, but they shouldn't be deprived of the necessities of life (nor their children be hampered).
In practice, most of us who settle for an easier and less stressful way of life by gravitating to the less competitive occupations, don't particularly regret missing out on private jets and luxury penthouses. We are quite content to live humbly but do need food, warmth and shelter, and preferably a bit of culture. And occasional luxuries are nice, but one person's luxury is another's must-have.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Originally quoted by Moth: quote:
However, the chance to become a top entrepreneur is not an even one, however hard you are prepared to work. That does not mean that those from poorer backgrounds cannot succeed - some can and do. It does mean that it is less likely.
You think that's because those from wealthier backgrounds are hoarding all the good jobs. I disagree - I think it's because those from poorer backgrounds have lower aspirations. If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it. Instead they get dragged down, told not to bother trying, told that such things are not for the likes of them. And mostly it's the parents teaching them these things, be it directly or indirectly. I weep for that situation, I really do, but I simply don't see how any of the standard political answers (which usually involve either throwing money at it or taking money away from it) will - or can - change a thing if parents simply can't, don't or won't put the effort in to educating their kids.
I think this is the nub of our disagreement. My experience has been that poor parents are just as ambitious for their children as wealthy ones. I don't know a single parent who says 'I want little Johnny to grow up to be an unsuccessful drop-out'. I think you unfairly malign poorer parents when you say that, and I would be interested to see your evidence.
What is the case, according to the research I have seen, is that poorer parents no longer believe that education is likely to provide a way out of poverty for their children. They base this on their own experience - many of them went to the very same schools their children are now attending, and those schools did not equip them with the knowledge and skills to do well in life. Why should anything have changed since they were there?
Instead, poorer parents are more likely to try to get their children into football academies, or on the X factor, as thse seem to be more attainable ways of getting a better life. Hence the popularity of such shows on TV.
What we have seen over the last 30 years is a widening of the gap between the richest and poorest in a huge number of fields - health, education and attainment being the most important. It was easier for me to do well than it was for you, because I'm about 20 years older, assuming we both started out with good, caring, working class parents.
The problem with the rationale you give for this is that it takes the route of blaming the victims of inequality for their own fate - something which has been the route of those doing well out of a system throughout history. 'Women cannot succeed in the professions because their brains aren't up to it'. 'Blacks are not as clever or sophisticated as whites'. 'The poor are not as ambitious as the rich and won't work hard enough'. This simply will not do as an explanation. Why should the poor want to stay poor? It doesn't make sense, and I am not prepared to believe it unless we can eliminate every other explanation - which we can't.
I think the explanation that the social and educational system has (possibly unwittingly) entrenched opportunity hoarding and class difference seems a lot more plausible, as this explanation is motivated by greed rather than apathy - a motivation you have previously given great weight to in your desire to uphold high wages for high attainers. The middle classes, seeing they were on to a good thing, have sensibly made use of their superior buying power to exclude poorer children from opportunities to advance. They have done this by leveraging all their assets - money, power, and influence. I do not blame them for this - it is common sense to advance your own cause. However, it is not fair.
What is the solution? I think it lies in radically overhauling the education system. I would introduce lotteries for all state schools for a start, so that buying a house in the right catchment area is no longer a guarantee of a place in a good school. Once most of the middle classes have no real choice of school, they'll make sure every school is a good one. I would eliminate the personal statement from university applications, I would guarantee a place at the top universities for the top five attaining students from each school, no matter what their grades - see middle class parents scrambling to get into a poor sixth form so that little Johnny can come top! I would make independent schools give far more scholarships to the top attainers in local primary schools. All internships would have to be advertised and expenses paid.
Let's really level the playing field, then we can see who rises to the top.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
What is the solution? I think it lies in radically overhauling the education system. I would introduce lotteries for all state schools for a start, so that buying a house in the right catchment area is no longer a guarantee of a place in a good school. Once most of the middle classes have no real choice of school, they'll make sure every school is a good one.
If all parents are as motivated as you suggest to make sure their kids get the best chance in life, why is it down to middle class parents?
Also, this is impractical - what about siblings, parents needing to travel across town from where they live and then to work, impact on infrastructure - roads, public transport etc.
quote:
I would eliminate the personal statement from university applications,
Why - so that kids with poor language skills don't get exposed until they get there??? It is not the universities job to teach basic communication skills.
quote:
I would guarantee a place at the top universities for the top five attaining students from each school, no matter what their grades - see middle class parents scrambling to get into a poor sixth form so that little Johnny can come top!
Right. So a person coming sixth in one place, but who may outperform all top five in another place doesn't get into the best university? How is that in any way meritocratic or fair?
quote:
Let's really level the playing field, then we can see who rises to the top.
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
A bit of an own goal.
If that's what Moth is hypothetically guilty of, you're guilty of it right now: able children are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology, but because they're poor, they don't count.
[ 17. November 2010, 17:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
A bit of an own goal.
If that's what Moth is hypothetically guilty of, you're guilty of it right now: able children are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology, but because they're poor, they don't count.
So we change one bad system for another one. What is the point in that?
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
What is the solution? I think it lies in radically overhauling the education system. I would introduce lotteries for all state schools for a start, so that buying a house in the right catchment area is no longer a guarantee of a place in a good school. Once most of the middle classes have no real choice of school, they'll make sure every school is a good one.
If all parents are as motivated as you suggest to make sure their kids get the best chance in life, why is it down to middle class parents?
I don't understand the question. I already explained why poorer parents don't trust education as a way out - those living in poorer areas are not in the catchment for good schools. At present it's in middle class parents' interests to send their children to good schools, something they achieve by using money. If they had no choice of school, they would invest that money and influence in improving every school. Poorer parents would no doubt join in - some of them do try already.
quote:
Also, this is impractical - what about siblings, parents needing to travel across town from where they live and then to work, impact on infrastructure - roads, public transport etc.
Why should siblings go to the same school, at least at secondary level? Provide buses from each area to each school, US style. Parents shouldn't be driving kids to school anyway - we both worked and never drove our children to school - even though one travelled 10 miles each way.
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I would eliminate the personal statement from university applications,
quote:
Why - so that kids with poor language skills don't get exposed until they get there??? It is not the universities job to teach basic communication skills.
No, to eliminate intelligent middle class parents writing the statements for their kids! Give them a test in English, or, better still, make a good grade in GCSE English actually require writing skills!
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I would guarantee a place at the top universities for the top five attaining students from each school, no matter what their grades - see middle class parents scrambling to get into a poor sixth form so that little Johnny can come top!
quote:
Right. So a person coming sixth in one place, but who may outperform all top five in another place doesn't get into the best university? How is that in any way meritocratic or fair?
Others would still be able to get in, but it would minimise the advantage of being at a good school. Maybe it should only be the top one or two, rather than five. If schools eventually evened out, this could be dropped anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Let's really level the playing field, then we can see who rises to the top.
quote:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
Yes, it is social engineering. However, I dispute that we are sacrificing the ablest any more under this system than we are doing at present - if as much! An able poor child under our current system has a very reduced chance of success.
Whenever any education system is suggested that is not alterable by money or influence, an outcry goes up. That should tell us something. But don't worry - my scheme will never be adopted - it would be political suicide.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
A bit of an own goal.
If that's what Moth is hypothetically guilty of, you're guilty of it right now: able children are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology, but because they're poor, they don't count.
So we change one bad system for another one. What is the point in that?
Well, you suggest a better one! I'm not entirely convinced by my own solutions either, but since I think that the stranglehold that the middle classes have on opportunities is the problem, forcibly breaking that hold in some way is the solution. I'm probably not going far enough, actually, as I haven't suggested banning independent schools, for example.
If, like Marvin, you think that the problem is the poor themselves, my solution obviously won't work.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
