America’s new aristocracy(economist.com)
economist.com
America’s new aristocracy
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21640331-importance-intellectual-capital-grows-privilege-has-become-increasingly
89 comments
If we accept the premise of the article - that the population is sifting itself out by intelligence, then the better a country is at being a meritocracy, the more likely we are to see this stratification of the populace. It's funny then that the article comes right out and says the solution is to improve the prospects of smart disadvantaged kids. This will just accelerate the process, although it will at least slightly enlarge the meritocratic elite.
The article doesn't even use the word "intelligence".
The premise of the article is that good education is available to some and not others, and that their children are more likely to also get good education, thus perpetuating the gap.
This leaves plenty of intelligent and meritorious people with poor educations and thus poor prospects, which tends to carry over to their kids. The very opposite of "meritocracy".
The premise of the article is that good education is available to some and not others, and that their children are more likely to also get good education, thus perpetuating the gap.
This leaves plenty of intelligent and meritorious people with poor educations and thus poor prospects, which tends to carry over to their kids. The very opposite of "meritocracy".
No, the article doesn't use the word intelligence; it uses the words brains, brainpower, intellectual capital, talented, and clever instead. That's The Economist for you.
The article more than once calls for improving the prospects of poor, clever children.† If you missed the emphasis on intelligence, I suggest you give the article another read.
† — In Britain, where the article was published, clever is very nearly synonymous with intelligent (and more often used), by the way. Americans tend to use clever to mean something more like witty, inteventive, or even cunning.
The article more than once calls for improving the prospects of poor, clever children.† If you missed the emphasis on intelligence, I suggest you give the article another read.
† — In Britain, where the article was published, clever is very nearly synonymous with intelligent (and more often used), by the way. Americans tend to use clever to mean something more like witty, inteventive, or even cunning.
Except the article is talking about how clever-but-poor kids don't succeed in the same way. A clever kid from a poor family with only shitty education available is going to be far more likely to remain poor.
> The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared.
> The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents.
> Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely.
> The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared.
> The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents.
> Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely.
To me it seems that it may not even be about education. While this is an interesting argument it more often seems that those from a privileged background will have more opportunities to succeed then their less fortunate peers. This is not at all related to their abilities at a given job or even their education but has far more to do with the peer group of their parents. It is this group that enables them to secure better jobs, rise through the ranks faster, or skip them all together.
Privilege breeds privilege, not by genetics but by nepotism.
Privilege breeds privilege, not by genetics but by nepotism.
Rich kids getting off scott-free for things that will permanently ruin a poor kid's life is one example of what you're discussing. Can't count the number of DUIs among wealthy kids at my district's public high-school that never went to trial or resulted in much of any sort of punishment.
Some white kid called one of the few black kids at my middle-school a nigger and they got in a fight. Somehow, only the black kid got sent to the principal's office. So the white kid walks by and taunts the black kid AGAIN at which point the black kid makes a bad decision blinded by emotion and grabs some scissors and chases the white kid down the hall. Black kid expelled and white kid... well I don't think anything happened to that POS.
Some white kid called one of the few black kids at my middle-school a nigger and they got in a fight. Somehow, only the black kid got sent to the principal's office. So the white kid walks by and taunts the black kid AGAIN at which point the black kid makes a bad decision blinded by emotion and grabs some scissors and chases the white kid down the hall. Black kid expelled and white kid... well I don't think anything happened to that POS.
This is ridiculous.
I've tutored them so I know, these rich kids with helicopter moms are hands down working harder than everybody else. They're taking AP courses they're not even interested in because that's their work ethic, they play sports and it's assumed they should get at least a partial scholarship. By senior year in high school they're ahead of their peers in life skills, emotional maturity, work ethic and academics.
The parents raising these kids to be "bred for success" aren't leaving it up to the chance that they can cash in on nepotism, they teach these kids to work hard.
I've tutored them so I know, these rich kids with helicopter moms are hands down working harder than everybody else. They're taking AP courses they're not even interested in because that's their work ethic, they play sports and it's assumed they should get at least a partial scholarship. By senior year in high school they're ahead of their peers in life skills, emotional maturity, work ethic and academics.
The parents raising these kids to be "bred for success" aren't leaving it up to the chance that they can cash in on nepotism, they teach these kids to work hard.
[deleted]
Oh my god. I don't think you could have misunderstood this article more if you had tried. I can't even comprehend how you could read the article and come away with this conclusion. I can therefore only conclude that you either did not read the article at all, or that you read it entirely filtered through you preconceptions until you had built just enough evidence that what you believed already was correct. Then you rushed over here to comment about how everything is fine because society is sifting itself into the intelligent vs the unintelligent.
I actually read the goddamn article so let me restate it for you here to make it clear for you: The new advantage in our economy is essentially education, although the article uses the 5 dollar word "intellectual capital". Because the amount of "intellectual capital" a person has is closely tied to the amount of actual capital their parents have, we are seeing increasing inequality on this front. Rich parents are able to provide stimulation and training for their child from birth by way of having more free time because they can afford it, or by having various tutors for their child. When their child reaches school, rich people get better schooling for their children due to America's insane school funding paradigm. Finally, when those children reach college, rich people are actually able to afford to send their children to good institutions, and receive preferential admission for their "legacy students".
None of the above points to society filtering itself on some sort of intrinsic "merit" that a person is born with, leading to some grand meritocracy. Rather it points to a new type of capital being important in our system, and wealthy people being able to cultivate it for their children. Improving prospects for disadvantaged kids might just make them "smart", not that they are born smart and just held back by poverty.
TL;DR: Two kids of equal potential will have their economic circumstances dictate just how "smart" they become, and in an economy predicated on being "smart" this will lead to inequality. America should work to allow both children to become as "smart" as they possibly can be.
I actually read the goddamn article so let me restate it for you here to make it clear for you: The new advantage in our economy is essentially education, although the article uses the 5 dollar word "intellectual capital". Because the amount of "intellectual capital" a person has is closely tied to the amount of actual capital their parents have, we are seeing increasing inequality on this front. Rich parents are able to provide stimulation and training for their child from birth by way of having more free time because they can afford it, or by having various tutors for their child. When their child reaches school, rich people get better schooling for their children due to America's insane school funding paradigm. Finally, when those children reach college, rich people are actually able to afford to send their children to good institutions, and receive preferential admission for their "legacy students".
None of the above points to society filtering itself on some sort of intrinsic "merit" that a person is born with, leading to some grand meritocracy. Rather it points to a new type of capital being important in our system, and wealthy people being able to cultivate it for their children. Improving prospects for disadvantaged kids might just make them "smart", not that they are born smart and just held back by poverty.
TL;DR: Two kids of equal potential will have their economic circumstances dictate just how "smart" they become, and in an economy predicated on being "smart" this will lead to inequality. America should work to allow both children to become as "smart" as they possibly can be.
Coming from a household where only 1 parent had a college degree, growing up in a less affluent town within a highly affluent county, and being best friends with a member of a much more well-to-do town/family has given me some interesting opportunities to see these effects at work.
First and foremost, I don't understand the paragraph decrying successful people pairing off and breeding, we should be happy that there's some form of survival of the fittest still impacting the breeding of homo-sapiens.
Having said that, I don't think the success of well-to-do kids is about smarts; intelligence can truly be found across the board. The well-to-do kids understand early on the stakes of the game and they have the opportunity to learn the industries and occupations that afford a better lifestyle. They mostly gain these insights because they see their parent's careers and the careers of their parent's friends and have a chance to understand where the more lucrative opportunities are.
When I spoke with peers from my own town, most had no clue what they wanted to do and many were seeking out occupations with low ceilings (social work, teaching, etc). When I spoke to peers from my friend's town, most knew they wanted to get into sales or engineering or law or medicine. I think this is ultimately the biggest difference between upper and lower class upbringings and I'm still waiting for a concise study along these exact parameters.
First and foremost, I don't understand the paragraph decrying successful people pairing off and breeding, we should be happy that there's some form of survival of the fittest still impacting the breeding of homo-sapiens.
Having said that, I don't think the success of well-to-do kids is about smarts; intelligence can truly be found across the board. The well-to-do kids understand early on the stakes of the game and they have the opportunity to learn the industries and occupations that afford a better lifestyle. They mostly gain these insights because they see their parent's careers and the careers of their parent's friends and have a chance to understand where the more lucrative opportunities are.
When I spoke with peers from my own town, most had no clue what they wanted to do and many were seeking out occupations with low ceilings (social work, teaching, etc). When I spoke to peers from my friend's town, most knew they wanted to get into sales or engineering or law or medicine. I think this is ultimately the biggest difference between upper and lower class upbringings and I'm still waiting for a concise study along these exact parameters.
>we should be happy that there's some form of survival of the fittest still impacting the breeding of homo-sapiens.
This is a terrible line of thought. Evolutionary fitness is not measured by us, and we have no obligation to support it. This is a massive fallacy. It is classic rationalization.
Those that survive are fit by evolutionary terms. It doesn't matter who survives or why you think they should. It is perfectly acceptable for unsuccessful people to reproduce, since that is the very adaptation that ensures their survival and guarantees their fitness.
Flies survive by reproducing en mass. Thus they are fit. It doesn't matter if they are only flies; they fill their niche and evolve just the same.
You cannot control evolution by choosing whether or not to reproduce. Evolution doesn't have a 'plan' for you to interfere with: it is simply what happens. It is the outcome.
This is a terrible line of thought. Evolutionary fitness is not measured by us, and we have no obligation to support it. This is a massive fallacy. It is classic rationalization.
Those that survive are fit by evolutionary terms. It doesn't matter who survives or why you think they should. It is perfectly acceptable for unsuccessful people to reproduce, since that is the very adaptation that ensures their survival and guarantees their fitness.
Flies survive by reproducing en mass. Thus they are fit. It doesn't matter if they are only flies; they fill their niche and evolve just the same.
You cannot control evolution by choosing whether or not to reproduce. Evolution doesn't have a 'plan' for you to interfere with: it is simply what happens. It is the outcome.
Demanding that someone else feed you has proven to be a very successful strategy for cats, it remains to be seen if it is a long term strategy for humans.
It's not a terrible line of thought, simply an unpopular/controversial one. We've effectively eliminated selective pressures that would otherwise create a trend towards increased fitness. The most successful members of our society are increasingly the ones that are having the least children, this is irrefutable.
I would never imply that its unacceptable for unsuccessful people to reproduce, I'm simply stating that the trend within the opposite group is a bit unsettling.
I would never imply that its unacceptable for unsuccessful people to reproduce, I'm simply stating that the trend within the opposite group is a bit unsettling.
You cannot eliminate selective pressures, you just change the niche. Changing from a circle peg to a square peg doesn't eliminate the requirements for a peg to fill a hole or die. You just fill different holes. This is not preventing survival of the fittest from working, it is just changing the meaning of 'fittest.'
Edit: There is an analogous claim you could make to highlight the absurdity of this:
Say we are talking about a plane crash and you said "We should be glad the plane crashed: it means that gravity is still affecting humans, as it should!"
Flying planes doesn't invalidate gravity. Gravity is a law of nature, and it works whether we fly or not. You are still bound by gravity even if you leave the ground. Survival of the fittest is a law of nature. You are still bound by it, even if you find it easy to survive. Nature doesn't care if you are successful by human social standards; that is simply not a consideration the laws of nature take into account.
Edit: There is an analogous claim you could make to highlight the absurdity of this:
Say we are talking about a plane crash and you said "We should be glad the plane crashed: it means that gravity is still affecting humans, as it should!"
Flying planes doesn't invalidate gravity. Gravity is a law of nature, and it works whether we fly or not. You are still bound by gravity even if you leave the ground. Survival of the fittest is a law of nature. You are still bound by it, even if you find it easy to survive. Nature doesn't care if you are successful by human social standards; that is simply not a consideration the laws of nature take into account.
I don't think you understand what fitness is. You seem to be confusing it with some imaginary social, financial, and cultural definition of human merit.
It doesn't mean that at all.
As you say, poor people are often much better breeders than rich people. They're more likely to have kids younger, and those kids in turn are more likely to breed earlier than the middle classes and the aristocracy.
This actually makes them fitter in a Darwinian sense - because 'fit' just means 'more likely to breed successfully in a given environment.'
It doesn't mean any more than that, and there's certainly no moral implication about 'quality' there.
Defining who is and isn't successful is a huge social problem - possibly the biggest problem of all.
Naive definitions of success won't cut it in either direction, because in the long term you have to consider species survival, and today's definitions of 'successful' may not be best for avoiding long-term extinction.
It doesn't mean that at all.
As you say, poor people are often much better breeders than rich people. They're more likely to have kids younger, and those kids in turn are more likely to breed earlier than the middle classes and the aristocracy.
This actually makes them fitter in a Darwinian sense - because 'fit' just means 'more likely to breed successfully in a given environment.'
It doesn't mean any more than that, and there's certainly no moral implication about 'quality' there.
Defining who is and isn't successful is a huge social problem - possibly the biggest problem of all.
Naive definitions of success won't cut it in either direction, because in the long term you have to consider species survival, and today's definitions of 'successful' may not be best for avoiding long-term extinction.
> You cannot control evolution by choosing whether or not to reproduce.
Yes you can; you're changing the environment, changing which genetics have higher fitness.
You are technically correct, but to express what the grandparent meant: we should be happy that our culture is such that traits that are positive for humanity (increased intelligence) do increase evolutionarily fitness.
Yes you can; you're changing the environment, changing which genetics have higher fitness.
You are technically correct, but to express what the grandparent meant: we should be happy that our culture is such that traits that are positive for humanity (increased intelligence) do increase evolutionarily fitness.
On average, kids from affluent families have a 20 point IQ advantage over kids from poor families. That's more than one standard deviation which is 15 points.
Affluent families spend significantly more money in education than poor families. The elite families send their kids to $40k/year prep school since they are 2-3 years old.
The more knowledge/information required to be successful in the society, the more important this difference in education spending and IQ is. The inequality is inherent.
Instead of focusing on reducing the inequality, we need to convince the rich people that paying more tax to educate the majority of the population is a good thing for themselves in the long run. Why not just convince the poor people to vote that way? You may ask. Well, from my understanding, rich people knows the best on how to influence poor people.
Affluent families spend significantly more money in education than poor families. The elite families send their kids to $40k/year prep school since they are 2-3 years old.
The more knowledge/information required to be successful in the society, the more important this difference in education spending and IQ is. The inequality is inherent.
Instead of focusing on reducing the inequality, we need to convince the rich people that paying more tax to educate the majority of the population is a good thing for themselves in the long run. Why not just convince the poor people to vote that way? You may ask. Well, from my understanding, rich people knows the best on how to influence poor people.
Instead of focusing on reducing the inequality, we need to convince the rich people that paying more tax to educate the majority of the population is a good thing for themselves in the long run.
Education spending has steadily risen over the last fifty years. Years of schooling has steadily increased.
In my experience, the impact of spending money on education is greatly exaggerated. I was a smart kid, probably 2.5+ STD above the norm in IQ, who went to public school for a while, then to private school. In public school, I learned math mostly by going through problems in the text book. At expensive private school, I learned math mostly by going through problems in the text book. Kids who were at the bottom of the bell curve at this private school still struggled, there was nothing money could buy to make them struggle less. The primary benefit of an expensive private school is that I was surrounded with other smart people, who I could have nerdy conversations with, rather than being a weirdo nerd. The second benefit is that you get to start building a network earlier. This benefit was very limited though, as we all scattered after graduation into different locations and careers. Most of that $40k is being spent on luxuries, not on stuff needed to educate, because education is inherently quite cheap. Mostly you just need to read stuff and practice, with just a bit of guidance from a mentor to check your work and keep you on the right path.
Anyone who wants to spend more money on education needs to state exactly what the money should be spent on, why they believe spending that money will have a positive ROI, and also needs an explanation of why the money we are already spending has not equalized things.
Imagine you had the freedom to design an education for your child and a group of his or her peers. Any money that you save could be spent on helping them get started with a mortgage or investing in their startup or spent on interesting travel or vacations. How much would you need to spend to max-out their learning? How would you spend it?
Education spending has steadily risen over the last fifty years. Years of schooling has steadily increased.
In my experience, the impact of spending money on education is greatly exaggerated. I was a smart kid, probably 2.5+ STD above the norm in IQ, who went to public school for a while, then to private school. In public school, I learned math mostly by going through problems in the text book. At expensive private school, I learned math mostly by going through problems in the text book. Kids who were at the bottom of the bell curve at this private school still struggled, there was nothing money could buy to make them struggle less. The primary benefit of an expensive private school is that I was surrounded with other smart people, who I could have nerdy conversations with, rather than being a weirdo nerd. The second benefit is that you get to start building a network earlier. This benefit was very limited though, as we all scattered after graduation into different locations and careers. Most of that $40k is being spent on luxuries, not on stuff needed to educate, because education is inherently quite cheap. Mostly you just need to read stuff and practice, with just a bit of guidance from a mentor to check your work and keep you on the right path.
Anyone who wants to spend more money on education needs to state exactly what the money should be spent on, why they believe spending that money will have a positive ROI, and also needs an explanation of why the money we are already spending has not equalized things.
Imagine you had the freedom to design an education for your child and a group of his or her peers. Any money that you save could be spent on helping them get started with a mortgage or investing in their startup or spent on interesting travel or vacations. How much would you need to spend to max-out their learning? How would you spend it?
> How would you spend it?
The first thing I would come up with is to spend it on the teachers, who are paid like shit now. I am not asserting that the current teachers deserve a much better pay. I am asserting that teacher as a profession deserve a much higher pay so that it gets the people it deserves.
The first thing I would come up with is to spend it on the teachers, who are paid like shit now. I am not asserting that the current teachers deserve a much better pay. I am asserting that teacher as a profession deserve a much higher pay so that it gets the people it deserves.
Why do you think that would improve outcomes?
From my observation, if someone is smart, they can teach themselves out of a book, with a bit of guidance to keep them on the right track. If someone simply lacks the cognitive power, there is nothing a teacher can do to make them smart. The student can improve somewhat with practice and drilling, but they still plateau at a lower point than the smart student. So we need to spend enough money that their is a guide to help students get through roadblocks, but I see no evidence that we are spending too little to provide appropriate guidance. I think one hour of personal guidance for every 10 to 20 hours of self-practice is a perfectly normal ratio. That is what we do when training new engineers, or learning a musical instrument, and there really isn't much of a way to gain more benefit by increasing the quantity of guidance.
I think that teaching could be improved somewhat, at the high-end. But it could be done by reallocating existing spending, not spending more. I do think that mentorship helps a lot, but mentorship needs to come from an experienced practitioner. So what we need is a system where a programmer can work a job for a few years, then take a mentoring job for a year, then work for a few years, etc. This would require eliminating the need for education degrees, and optimizing teacher's time for personal mentorship rather than grading tests, building lesson plans, and performing classroom management. It really would be an entirely different job than what is now considered a teacher. A "teacher" now is really just a glorified day-care worker, paying them more won't help much.
From my observation, if someone is smart, they can teach themselves out of a book, with a bit of guidance to keep them on the right track. If someone simply lacks the cognitive power, there is nothing a teacher can do to make them smart. The student can improve somewhat with practice and drilling, but they still plateau at a lower point than the smart student. So we need to spend enough money that their is a guide to help students get through roadblocks, but I see no evidence that we are spending too little to provide appropriate guidance. I think one hour of personal guidance for every 10 to 20 hours of self-practice is a perfectly normal ratio. That is what we do when training new engineers, or learning a musical instrument, and there really isn't much of a way to gain more benefit by increasing the quantity of guidance.
I think that teaching could be improved somewhat, at the high-end. But it could be done by reallocating existing spending, not spending more. I do think that mentorship helps a lot, but mentorship needs to come from an experienced practitioner. So what we need is a system where a programmer can work a job for a few years, then take a mentoring job for a year, then work for a few years, etc. This would require eliminating the need for education degrees, and optimizing teacher's time for personal mentorship rather than grading tests, building lesson plans, and performing classroom management. It really would be an entirely different job than what is now considered a teacher. A "teacher" now is really just a glorified day-care worker, paying them more won't help much.
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
- John Steinbeck
My opinion is that the poor see themselves the way the rich want them to.
And if they keep spending what little money they do have pretending to be millionaires, instead of spending it on their children's education... Then I'm afraid voting with their majority power to get what they want without necessarily earning it is the only way to go if you believe the state is the only way to fix the problem.
Ironically, it's all the individuals that mean well that are constantly planting and reinforcing negative self-fulfilling prophecies into the minds of the poor. We need to stop telling them that they can't do it without help, and that instead they must simply do what they would if they didn't think they're helpless leeches. Because they naturally are not that, at all.
Ironically, it's all the individuals that mean well that are constantly planting and reinforcing negative self-fulfilling prophecies into the minds of the poor. We need to stop telling them that they can't do it without help, and that instead they must simply do what they would if they didn't think they're helpless leeches. Because they naturally are not that, at all.
The top 10% of the wealthiest Americans already pay 68% of the total income tax. What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged. Other countries manage to education their children well at all sorts of tax levels.
68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it.
>Other countries manage to education their children well at all sorts of tax levels.
I think you'll find that - coincidentally - those countries have much higher tax rates, and the disparity between high and low incomes is smaller than it is in the US.
Education is always a good thing, and not just for the obvious reasons.
But poor education is as much a symptom of damaged political belief systems as it is a cause.
Fixing education will only fix the political pathologies up to a point.
>Other countries manage to education their children well at all sorts of tax levels.
I think you'll find that - coincidentally - those countries have much higher tax rates, and the disparity between high and low incomes is smaller than it is in the US.
Education is always a good thing, and not just for the obvious reasons.
But poor education is as much a symptom of damaged political belief systems as it is a cause.
Fixing education will only fix the political pathologies up to a point.
We spend more per student than other countries.
http://rossieronline.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/us-schools-v...
Also:
> 68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it.
Income is not the same as wealth. The top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. How much higher would be "fair" to you?
http://rossieronline.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/us-schools-v...
Also:
> 68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it.
Income is not the same as wealth. The top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. How much higher would be "fair" to you?
(45/10)/(55/90) == 7.4
That's how much more the average person in the top decile makes compared to the rest.
(68/10)/(32/90) == 19
That's how much higher the tax the top decile's taxes are. That means that they are paying 2.6 times as much taxes per dollar.
Is it too high? Too low? I guess it really depends on what the baseline is. You can't really tell from these numbers. If the bottom 90% pays 10% of their income in taxes and the top 10% 26% I think it would sound acceptable, if not a bit low. These numbers don't really tell much of a story.
I guess my point is that as long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer, the tax delta is not high enough.
That's how much more the average person in the top decile makes compared to the rest.
(68/10)/(32/90) == 19
That's how much higher the tax the top decile's taxes are. That means that they are paying 2.6 times as much taxes per dollar.
Is it too high? Too low? I guess it really depends on what the baseline is. You can't really tell from these numbers. If the bottom 90% pays 10% of their income in taxes and the top 10% 26% I think it would sound acceptable, if not a bit low. These numbers don't really tell much of a story.
I guess my point is that as long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer, the tax delta is not high enough.
That's not an especially compelling argument. The Top 10% hold more than 77% of the wealth in the United States [1, 2]. And are much more efficient at converting short-term income into long term wealth than the lower 90% [2].
[1] http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf [2] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf
[1] http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf [2] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf
I don't see how that's a rebuttal to his actual point:
> What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged.
His point: the top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. That's a lot of money that could be used to improve the lives of the 90%, but it's being mismanaged by the government. He's saying, instead of increasing the amount of money that is going to be mismanaged by the government at the expense of the 10%, why not do more with what we already have?
> What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged.
His point: the top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. That's a lot of money that could be used to improve the lives of the 90%, but it's being mismanaged by the government. He's saying, instead of increasing the amount of money that is going to be mismanaged by the government at the expense of the 10%, why not do more with what we already have?
Exactly. I don't understand why we apply different rules to government. They are just a large human institution. If the Red Cross was struggling and asking for additional money when they already took in more than competing institutions, would we not look at their books and operations first before sending them more money?
In response to the down votes: I don't understand the objective here. Are we interested in punishing the rich or fixing the education system?
>The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents.
This is quite right. It is astounding to think about the amount of intellectual capital that is being squandered by the current structures in place.
It is in our collective best interest to develop this resource as much as possible.
Perhaps a market based solution would be to institute an entrepreneurship-focused boarding school (and after that, maybe a genetic engineering focused nursery, call it X-Y-Combinator, say).
This is quite right. It is astounding to think about the amount of intellectual capital that is being squandered by the current structures in place.
It is in our collective best interest to develop this resource as much as possible.
Perhaps a market based solution would be to institute an entrepreneurship-focused boarding school (and after that, maybe a genetic engineering focused nursery, call it X-Y-Combinator, say).
This is very true. One can argue that much of the difference can't be overcome - there is no way that a public education can outperform someone whose life involves Mandarin immersion and test prep tutors.
That said, there are schools (say the Success Academies) who find a way to perform well, even with poor kids, many of which are english language learners and special ed. Unfortunately many cities (and the progressives running them) are doing their best to chase away these reforms rather than embrace them.
That said, there are schools (say the Success Academies) who find a way to perform well, even with poor kids, many of which are english language learners and special ed. Unfortunately many cities (and the progressives running them) are doing their best to chase away these reforms rather than embrace them.
The article is conflating some things. Yes, Jeb Bush will be running. Yes, Clinton will be running. Both are dynastical-ish issues.
But the discussion about education is off. Jeb is the embodiment of family dynasties, but let us not forget that there ware Adams, Harrisons, and Roosevelts. And Clinton is a strange example considering she married Bill, who came from a poor family and basically pulled himself up by charisma, which discounts the second-generation education notion presented.
But the discussion about education is off. Jeb is the embodiment of family dynasties, but let us not forget that there ware Adams, Harrisons, and Roosevelts. And Clinton is a strange example considering she married Bill, who came from a poor family and basically pulled himself up by charisma, which discounts the second-generation education notion presented.
Yeah, the Clintons are really more of a (dysfunctional) power couple than a dynasty.
The fact of University education having soared 17 times the median income, obviously means there is a bubble that needs to pop.
This bubble is sustained with student loans from the Government. The law of unintended consequences, you want to help the students, you give them money, prices go up.
In Spain something similar happened to houses. I don't want loans if they make houses 4 times more expensive, like European money did. I prefer to pay it myself, 4 times faster.
I had a very good education in different countries in Europe, and it was "free" in the economic sense, but it required me to have very good grades.
In some ways I would have preferred to pay a reasonable price for my education, but giving me the right to choose what I want to study and what not (just pass the exam without having to ace it for maintaining scholarship).
The economist, being Keynesian and all wants the Government to control everything top-down, but central planning is not the best system.
BTW: I find the hypothesis of the article ridiculous. It is not intelligence or education what makes Ivy league students wealthier in the US, but connections to power and privileges.
In fact, few people on the very top are that intelligent or educated. I have met some of them. They have other values, like being working, having charisma, being social...
This bubble is sustained with student loans from the Government. The law of unintended consequences, you want to help the students, you give them money, prices go up.
In Spain something similar happened to houses. I don't want loans if they make houses 4 times more expensive, like European money did. I prefer to pay it myself, 4 times faster.
I had a very good education in different countries in Europe, and it was "free" in the economic sense, but it required me to have very good grades.
In some ways I would have preferred to pay a reasonable price for my education, but giving me the right to choose what I want to study and what not (just pass the exam without having to ace it for maintaining scholarship).
The economist, being Keynesian and all wants the Government to control everything top-down, but central planning is not the best system.
BTW: I find the hypothesis of the article ridiculous. It is not intelligence or education what makes Ivy league students wealthier in the US, but connections to power and privileges.
In fact, few people on the very top are that intelligent or educated. I have met some of them. They have other values, like being working, having charisma, being social...
17 * $53,891 = $916,147
There is no way the average or even median university education costs nearly 1 million dollars. I have no doubt it costs way too much, but this argument isn't valid.
17 times the rate of increase, not 17 times the current value. So new_school_cost/old_school_cost = 17*new_median_income/old_median_income.
My brother is getting rich faster than Bill Gates - I mean, he went from 0 in the bank last year to $200 this year, whereas Gates actually gave some money away!
Sometimes the absolute value is much more meaningful than the derivative.
Sometimes the absolute value is much more meaningful than the derivative.
> It is far more useful than wealth, and invulnerable to inheritance tax. It is brains.
Not to sound unfair, but isn't this how mate selection works? Why would two successful, bright people not want to mate and create successful, bright children? Isn't this what we want for our children, to be bright, capable, with functional, stable households and marriages brought about by parents who they themselves value education and a stable marriage/family?
I'm all for equality and the anti-aristocracy sentiment (I was a first generation college student, and my parents come from humble backgrounds), but it seems like the whole bend on the genetic predisposition of privileged children based on what they are born with seems like exactly what the whole point of evolution of the human species is about - creating a better version of ourselves.
Not to sound unfair, but isn't this how mate selection works? Why would two successful, bright people not want to mate and create successful, bright children? Isn't this what we want for our children, to be bright, capable, with functional, stable households and marriages brought about by parents who they themselves value education and a stable marriage/family?
I'm all for equality and the anti-aristocracy sentiment (I was a first generation college student, and my parents come from humble backgrounds), but it seems like the whole bend on the genetic predisposition of privileged children based on what they are born with seems like exactly what the whole point of evolution of the human species is about - creating a better version of ourselves.
Unless you are talking about theistic evolution, it has no point. Making beings suited to thrive in their environment is the method that led to our existence, but it's not the point of our existence unless we decide it is. It's perfectly fine to believe that the point of your existence is procreation and filling the world with better versions of yourself, but other people might have other agendas, like creating an egalitarian society or preventing overpopulation or replacing people with robots. None of them can be objectively verified as the purpose of humanity.
The idea of "assortative mating" is covered in depth in
http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Markets-Inequality-Remaking-A...
I have no affiliation with the book, I just read it recently and thought someone might be interested in the topic.
As much as I think the article's author means well. I am quite disturbed by what some of their suggestions represent.
Notably, the idea of "plucking" children that display intelligence from a young age and somehow aiding them in their education. Now I may be wrong, but this seems like we're metaphorically "harvesting" intelligence for the benefit of society.
The assumption being that society at the moment can't naturally do that, and we have to use state funding/power/force to make it happen. As with all such assumptions, it comes with a eery connotation that we have "very smart" scientists (you know, the ones we don't naturally reward in society") that have studied this, and they concluded that the best course forward for society is for them to "pick" a favorable feature in the populace and help it blossom.
Looking forward to see what sort of discussion this mini-rant/tangential-brain-musing sparks.
Notably, the idea of "plucking" children that display intelligence from a young age and somehow aiding them in their education. Now I may be wrong, but this seems like we're metaphorically "harvesting" intelligence for the benefit of society.
The assumption being that society at the moment can't naturally do that, and we have to use state funding/power/force to make it happen. As with all such assumptions, it comes with a eery connotation that we have "very smart" scientists (you know, the ones we don't naturally reward in society") that have studied this, and they concluded that the best course forward for society is for them to "pick" a favorable feature in the populace and help it blossom.
Looking forward to see what sort of discussion this mini-rant/tangential-brain-musing sparks.
UPDATE - I removed the Thomas Jefferson quote as it's evidently a fake:
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-ceas...
I’m also a big fan of Occam's razor when it comes to politics because people tell themselves all kinds of imaginative things to justify their beliefs while a five year old child would see right through them. The simplest answer may be unpopular even if it’s the right one, and I think that’s why people so often ignore it.
The truth is that US taxes are about as low as they have ever been for any developed country, there are more loopholes than ever before, and money has corrupted politics to the point where the wealthy determine elections now instead of the voting populace.
The reason this matters is that the poor don’t have capital. They don’t even have good credit. How can they be expected to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and get an education when people even on this site (one of the densest concentrations of intelligence in the world) constantly demand privatization? Take away the entirety of a people’s wealth and what do they have left? Their inalienable rights, their community, their heritage, in essence their government. I think any attack on what we’ve traditionally thought of as government services (like public education) is only going to lead us faster to aristocracy.
I have an inkling of what could be done to reduce wealth inequality but the pragmatic view of these things has become unpopular. I just ask that anyone who is passionate about something like school vouchers or inheritance taxes take a step back and look at the big picture. Instant runoff voting, publicly funded elections, and treating all net income equally under a progressive tax system are just a handful of newish ideas that would do wonders for leveling the playing field. My feeling is that people don’t want it leveled, so the disparity between rich and poor today basically comes down to prejudice.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-ceas...
I’m also a big fan of Occam's razor when it comes to politics because people tell themselves all kinds of imaginative things to justify their beliefs while a five year old child would see right through them. The simplest answer may be unpopular even if it’s the right one, and I think that’s why people so often ignore it.
The truth is that US taxes are about as low as they have ever been for any developed country, there are more loopholes than ever before, and money has corrupted politics to the point where the wealthy determine elections now instead of the voting populace.
The reason this matters is that the poor don’t have capital. They don’t even have good credit. How can they be expected to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and get an education when people even on this site (one of the densest concentrations of intelligence in the world) constantly demand privatization? Take away the entirety of a people’s wealth and what do they have left? Their inalienable rights, their community, their heritage, in essence their government. I think any attack on what we’ve traditionally thought of as government services (like public education) is only going to lead us faster to aristocracy.
I have an inkling of what could be done to reduce wealth inequality but the pragmatic view of these things has become unpopular. I just ask that anyone who is passionate about something like school vouchers or inheritance taxes take a step back and look at the big picture. Instant runoff voting, publicly funded elections, and treating all net income equally under a progressive tax system are just a handful of newish ideas that would do wonders for leveling the playing field. My feeling is that people don’t want it leveled, so the disparity between rich and poor today basically comes down to prejudice.
That quote looked suspicious, so I typed it into Google. It's fake.
Thanks, I stand corrected, that's why I like this site. I saw it on a bumper sticker so now am bummed out that it wasn't true:
http://www.teapartygearonline.com/merchandise/bumper_sticker...
http://www.teapartygearonline.com/merchandise/bumper_sticker...
Most other countries went from aristocracy to democracy. I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way -- to have been founded on the principles of The Enlightenment and to slip into plutocracy.
I point my finger of blame at the same thing that gave us the American Dream: a vast amount of land and the automobile. It meant everyone could own a home and land of their own, but it also meant that by not living in closer proximity to each other we forgot that we're family members and we turned into competitors. It only became important that you get your share (large, please!) and not making sure that we're all, as a nation, able to live well.
Now we are engaged in a great power war, testing whether this nation, or any nation so misguided and so derailed, can long endure.
I point my finger of blame at the same thing that gave us the American Dream: a vast amount of land and the automobile. It meant everyone could own a home and land of their own, but it also meant that by not living in closer proximity to each other we forgot that we're family members and we turned into competitors. It only became important that you get your share (large, please!) and not making sure that we're all, as a nation, able to live well.
Now we are engaged in a great power war, testing whether this nation, or any nation so misguided and so derailed, can long endure.
Our government has always been plutocratic.
> The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
-- James Madison, the architect of our Constitution
> The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
-- James Madison, the architect of our Constitution
" I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way"
Ahh, you Americans can be quite funny - being exceptionalist even when you're slagging yourselves off.
The fact is, it's not just America where inequality is growing and elites are entrenching themselves. I also don't think your analysis of why America ended up uniquely having inequality/elites is convincing one, even if it were true.
Ahh, you Americans can be quite funny - being exceptionalist even when you're slagging yourselves off.
The fact is, it's not just America where inequality is growing and elites are entrenching themselves. I also don't think your analysis of why America ended up uniquely having inequality/elites is convincing one, even if it were true.
America was founded as a democracy only for land-owning white men. We have gone back and forth through various levels of plutocracy and populism, but overall have been getting more democratic. For one thing, we're nowhere near the plutocracy of the pre-income-tax, late nineteenth century. While recent trends have not, in my opinion, been going in a good direction, I wouldn't be worried about this particular issue at all.
Check out Made in America (https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/about/).
Check out Made in America (https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/about/).
I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way -- to have been founded on the principles of The Enlightenment and to slip into plutocracy.
Hardly. This is a very traditional political cycle that was first documented by the Greek historians and philosophers. Polybius and Plato aptly named it "Kyklos" (Cycle) and goes from Anarchy -> Democracy -> Aristocracy -> Monarchy.
This period of cycle is different however as there is no more "West" to go and start your anarchic society so it should be interesting to see what happens this time round the cycle.
Hardly. This is a very traditional political cycle that was first documented by the Greek historians and philosophers. Polybius and Plato aptly named it "Kyklos" (Cycle) and goes from Anarchy -> Democracy -> Aristocracy -> Monarchy.
This period of cycle is different however as there is no more "West" to go and start your anarchic society so it should be interesting to see what happens this time round the cycle.
In Europe it's gone:
Anarchy -> Democracy (Greece, early Rome) -> Aristocracy (late Rome) -> Monarchy (imperial Rome, middle ages) -> Revolution (brief partial anarchy?) -> Democracy -> Aristocracy (Eurozone) -> ???
I wonder if it's one of those "wheels of reincarnation," kind of analogous to the mainframe/PC cycle of centralization vs. decentralization. Decentralization creates problems that can only be solved by centralization (tragedy of the commons, paradox of thrift, etc.), but then centralization creates its own new problems that drive decentralization (corruption, arbitrary power), rinse and repeat.
Anarchy -> Democracy (Greece, early Rome) -> Aristocracy (late Rome) -> Monarchy (imperial Rome, middle ages) -> Revolution (brief partial anarchy?) -> Democracy -> Aristocracy (Eurozone) -> ???
I wonder if it's one of those "wheels of reincarnation," kind of analogous to the mainframe/PC cycle of centralization vs. decentralization. Decentralization creates problems that can only be solved by centralization (tragedy of the commons, paradox of thrift, etc.), but then centralization creates its own new problems that drive decentralization (corruption, arbitrary power), rinse and repeat.
Right, well you just described the cycle well with example. Anarchy is usually short lived as people naturally form groups.
Why do you say the Eurozone is an aristocracy?
I think Plato listed them in decreasing levels of desirability as:
Aristocracy->Timocracy->Oligarchy->Democracy->Tyranny
Aristocracy->Timocracy->Oligarchy->Democracy->Tyranny
I envision that Space is the new "west" or final frontier.
Unfortunately I don't. Space has a lack of most of the basic things needed for humans to survive. Like air, water and land. Trivialities I know.
They lack those things now. But who knows what the future holds. Personally, I believe that eventually those "necessities" you mention won't hold individuals back from exploring that new frontier.
Maybe once we are cyborgs, but not before then.
[deleted](1)
"It is odd that a country founded on the principle of hostility to inherited status should be so tolerant of dynasties."
The sixth president of the United States was the son of the second president. I don't think the founding of our country was quite as utopian as the author believes.
The sixth president of the United States was the son of the second president. I don't think the founding of our country was quite as utopian as the author believes.
sounds like a load of eugenics
Or possibly anti-eugenics, right? "Smart people are getting together to breed more smart people, and that's unfair, so let's bolster the smart people who became that way...uh, magically... (and maybe put down the smart dynasties while we're at it)." At least that's how it reads to me.
I find this article rather bizarre. The opening paragraph sounds a note that the rest of the article fails to pick up. It seems to me newsworthy that so many of the presumed candidates for 2016 are attached to past presidents, and "aristocracy" in that sense is definitely worrying and worth public discussion. But that's not the subject of the article.
The subject of the article is the privilege ("aristocracy" even) of intelligence. The thesis is that intelligent parents beget intelligent children, and since intelligence tends to beget success and wealth, intelligence represents a sort of inheritable good, a "fortune," in effect, handed down through family lines. Since all such inherited benefits undermine equality (the claim goes), they are a societal evil and should be combatted. The article suggests that the best way to combat them is to promote the less-intelligent or the intelligent-without-parentage. This is soft-gloving the issue; if inherited intelligence really is a societal evil, surely holding down those who are intelligent would also be a valid strategy.
This is a wonky argument at best. A few of the holes:
In what way is this situation new? If the inheritance of intelligence gives a unfair advantage to the heirs, when in all of human history was this ever not a source of inequality?
Surely inequality (in this abstract sense) is not such a universal, unmitigated evil that it must be fought everywhere it appears. People are in fact different; some people have advantages; some of these advantages are inherited. Where's the evil, the danger, in that? "Equality" in the sense that democracies embrace and fight for has never been taken as encompassing personal traits. If I'm beautiful and my parents are beautiful, should I hide my face in shame in a democratic nation? If I'm a great pole vaulter and so was my mother, should I hide my skill or contribute extra funds to support the training of weaker pole vaulters? The article misunderstands the notion of equality and, consequently, misidentifies the "danger" or "unfairness" arising from differences in people's abilities.
This is no innocent error. If we truly believed, as a society, that smart/beautiful/talented/gifted people posed a danger to society, represented a form of inequality, and formed an "aristocracy," we would be motivated to perpetrate the grossest sort of manipulations (at best) and atrocities (at worst) to equalize them with us ordinary folk. The result would be horrific, evil, and destructive to the utmost, not only for those unfortunates who were subjected to "equalization" but also for society itself.
Attack the privileged, if you must, when their possessions or powers pose a threat to the wellbeing of members of society in general. Do not attack those who simply have great abilities, even if their parents did too, or you'll achieve nothing but spite against your own face.
The subject of the article is the privilege ("aristocracy" even) of intelligence. The thesis is that intelligent parents beget intelligent children, and since intelligence tends to beget success and wealth, intelligence represents a sort of inheritable good, a "fortune," in effect, handed down through family lines. Since all such inherited benefits undermine equality (the claim goes), they are a societal evil and should be combatted. The article suggests that the best way to combat them is to promote the less-intelligent or the intelligent-without-parentage. This is soft-gloving the issue; if inherited intelligence really is a societal evil, surely holding down those who are intelligent would also be a valid strategy.
This is a wonky argument at best. A few of the holes:
In what way is this situation new? If the inheritance of intelligence gives a unfair advantage to the heirs, when in all of human history was this ever not a source of inequality?
Surely inequality (in this abstract sense) is not such a universal, unmitigated evil that it must be fought everywhere it appears. People are in fact different; some people have advantages; some of these advantages are inherited. Where's the evil, the danger, in that? "Equality" in the sense that democracies embrace and fight for has never been taken as encompassing personal traits. If I'm beautiful and my parents are beautiful, should I hide my face in shame in a democratic nation? If I'm a great pole vaulter and so was my mother, should I hide my skill or contribute extra funds to support the training of weaker pole vaulters? The article misunderstands the notion of equality and, consequently, misidentifies the "danger" or "unfairness" arising from differences in people's abilities.
This is no innocent error. If we truly believed, as a society, that smart/beautiful/talented/gifted people posed a danger to society, represented a form of inequality, and formed an "aristocracy," we would be motivated to perpetrate the grossest sort of manipulations (at best) and atrocities (at worst) to equalize them with us ordinary folk. The result would be horrific, evil, and destructive to the utmost, not only for those unfortunates who were subjected to "equalization" but also for society itself.
Attack the privileged, if you must, when their possessions or powers pose a threat to the wellbeing of members of society in general. Do not attack those who simply have great abilities, even if their parents did too, or you'll achieve nothing but spite against your own face.
Meanwhile Europe still has an aristocracy but we will ignore that and fret about the unlikely chance that America will develop one.
The aristocracy in Europe was devastated after WWI&II. And their power was in land ownership. And the massive capital destruction was ... lets say very high inheritance tax.
Why do assume that high inheritance tax resulted in massive capital destruction for the aristocracy? In most jurisdictions it's not exactly hard to transfer assets into companies/foundations/trusts/etc to avoid it.
You got it the opposite. If you owned the majority of Dresden ... when the allies ended their jolly fun there - there was not much left for your kids to inherit.
Oh, that way. I was thinking more of British aristocracy
Last time I looked, Europe had more republics than monarchies...
and in france almost all of the high level bureaucrats and politicians come from the same school (ecole sciences po)
Which appears to have a remarkably wide intake, striving not to be simply a place that rich French aristocrats send their children. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/world/europe/05iht-educLed...
Bravo.
Bravo.
The diversity initiative makes up 10% of the class? That's laughably low, compared to say UC Berkeley, or even the ivies in the US.
They might also want to consider an education system that prioritises good teaching and not teachers faking impossible exam scores. Exam scores are not what makes a teacher.
The article mentions the problems with teachers in the second half.
Many schools are in the grip of one of the most anti-meritocratic forces in America: the teachers’ unions, which resist any hint that good teaching should be rewarded or bad teachers fired.
Many schools are in the grip of one of the most anti-meritocratic forces in America: the teachers’ unions, which resist any hint that good teaching should be rewarded or bad teachers fired.
Yes, this was a reaction to that. My objection is to the idea of "good teaching", as that often seems to be defined as "high standardised test scores".
Is intellectual capital really that important? You can have a college degree studying an esoteric subject and be working a minimum wage job at a starbucks. Hell, you can do a postdoc in biochemistry, quit, start working for lyft, and get a pay raise. Until recently, semi-skilled oil rig workers in north dakota could comfortably make 80-100k.
Surely this is conflating the professionals with the power dynasties. While marrying for intelligence may be common among professionals, marrying for status is still more common among the very rich, where any jobs are hobbies and the idea of actually relying on an income from stuff you do, is a sign of not being the right sort. Bright people marrying each other and having genius children does not remotely explain the Bush dynasty.
I think the author fired this to capture the attention of the reader early on, so that later he could expose the problem.
At first, it seemed as if the author almost conveys the thought that educated people should feel guilty from breeding with other educated people.
But thinking about it, all he seems to want is to break the implication: Bright kid ==> came from educated family.
To tear down causality, so that even kids who were born in ghettos could do something with their lives.
However, pondering on my own family:
My mother didn't continue college. My father studied in a technical high-school, but didn't go to college due to the fact our country was invaded by France and he had to provide for his mother and brothers and sisters, working with his father. He didn't go to college so that they get to.
Even though they didn't go to college, and although they were under great financial stress, there was one thing you couldn't mess with at home: Reading. They were ferocious readers. I was raised in a home with the classics (Balzac, Dumas, Hugo), books about plants, History, philosophy, geography, manuals for everything (from sewing machines, to guns and radio transmission). They raised 9 kids and we all went through a ton of stuff. We call the bathroom "The National Library" for a reason.
I wasn't allowed to go out until I've written many pages (to improve hand-writing, way before I was of age to be schooled. When I was 10, first year we started French at school (by that time, I had been exposed to the language for 10 years already), my teacher accused me of not being the one who wrote the text she asked us to and I had to write in front of her to believe. It was a "grown-up" writing). I've been accused so many times of cheating because I did something "I wasn't supposed to be able to do or knew something I wasn't supposed to know".
They schooled my brothers and sisters, who then schooled me.
My first three languages, I learned at home, my fourth when I started playing with kids outside. And then English, etc. My childhood was reading, reading, and reading. I had to summarize things like stories, and explain them. I've been asked questions on them. Engineering magazines, newspapers, you name it.
I assumed all the kids had to do this.
We became Software/Civil/Electronics Engineers, Architects, Maths and Chem/Physics grads and Designers.
So the question is: Knowing that they didn't go to college, and the fact my father was a political prisoner for years, and my mother had her parents tortured and murdered by French military when she was 9 or so...
How did they manage not to fall into the trap of perpetuating the cycle, and blaming their life conditions. After all, failing our education would've been extremely easy to justify with what they went through.
The answer is, in one word: Sacrifice. They sacrificed a lot of things and were not selfish, and never complained or neglected our education by finding an excuse in self-pity on why it was okay to fail us. Then my brothers and sisters were not selfish by transmitting and putting a lot of effort in my education, more than they received. And we're putting that effort with my nieces and nephews.
Would we stop putting that much effort in my nieces and nephews if public education was of quality? Definitely not. It's not the same motivation a brother or sister, an uncle, or a parent, has toward a child than a teacher has.
At first, it seemed as if the author almost conveys the thought that educated people should feel guilty from breeding with other educated people.
But thinking about it, all he seems to want is to break the implication: Bright kid ==> came from educated family.
To tear down causality, so that even kids who were born in ghettos could do something with their lives.
However, pondering on my own family:
My mother didn't continue college. My father studied in a technical high-school, but didn't go to college due to the fact our country was invaded by France and he had to provide for his mother and brothers and sisters, working with his father. He didn't go to college so that they get to.
Even though they didn't go to college, and although they were under great financial stress, there was one thing you couldn't mess with at home: Reading. They were ferocious readers. I was raised in a home with the classics (Balzac, Dumas, Hugo), books about plants, History, philosophy, geography, manuals for everything (from sewing machines, to guns and radio transmission). They raised 9 kids and we all went through a ton of stuff. We call the bathroom "The National Library" for a reason.
I wasn't allowed to go out until I've written many pages (to improve hand-writing, way before I was of age to be schooled. When I was 10, first year we started French at school (by that time, I had been exposed to the language for 10 years already), my teacher accused me of not being the one who wrote the text she asked us to and I had to write in front of her to believe. It was a "grown-up" writing). I've been accused so many times of cheating because I did something "I wasn't supposed to be able to do or knew something I wasn't supposed to know".
They schooled my brothers and sisters, who then schooled me.
My first three languages, I learned at home, my fourth when I started playing with kids outside. And then English, etc. My childhood was reading, reading, and reading. I had to summarize things like stories, and explain them. I've been asked questions on them. Engineering magazines, newspapers, you name it.
I assumed all the kids had to do this.
We became Software/Civil/Electronics Engineers, Architects, Maths and Chem/Physics grads and Designers.
So the question is: Knowing that they didn't go to college, and the fact my father was a political prisoner for years, and my mother had her parents tortured and murdered by French military when she was 9 or so...
How did they manage not to fall into the trap of perpetuating the cycle, and blaming their life conditions. After all, failing our education would've been extremely easy to justify with what they went through.
The answer is, in one word: Sacrifice. They sacrificed a lot of things and were not selfish, and never complained or neglected our education by finding an excuse in self-pity on why it was okay to fail us. Then my brothers and sisters were not selfish by transmitting and putting a lot of effort in my education, more than they received. And we're putting that effort with my nieces and nephews.
Would we stop putting that much effort in my nieces and nephews if public education was of quality? Definitely not. It's not the same motivation a brother or sister, an uncle, or a parent, has toward a child than a teacher has.
If the Ronald Reagan had happened to choose Donald Rumsfeld or any of the other plausible candidates as his running mate in 1980, would we be taking about George W. or Jeb Bush at all? And if the Republican Party had thought the 2012 election winnable, would we be talking about Mitt Romney?