9 ms·

A New Aristocracy [pdf]

76 points by foobarqux 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago
Missed a huge chance to take on law schools for their absurd price structure. They have been increasing tuition at break neck speed, even as lawyer salaries have shrunk since the recession. /bitter ass lawyer who's working at 1 am to pay dem SOFI bills.
- shostack 11y ago
  Why do you think this might be? Hasn't demand for law degrees shrunk considerably at schools that aren't top tier since students aren't getting jobs?
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Demand has definitely shrunk but prices keep going up. The demand curve for schools aren't rational.
    - kristianp 11y ago
      Is this just the top law schools?
jycool 11y ago
"At Harvard College and here, at Yale Law School (two places where students have skillfully and bravely compiled data that their Universities suppress), as many students come from households in the top one percent as from the entire bottom half of the income distribution." Stunning. But no surprise you invest in your kids credentials if you can afford it. Can someone propose a way the free market can be considered fair without the definition of 'fair' being defined as 'market-determined'?
- plonh 11y ago
  Also, those 1%ers pay for the scholarships that send the 50%ers to Harvard free and move those 50%ers into the 1% shortly after graduation
- shoo 11y ago
  One of the preceding sentences phrases it well: > But although it was once the engine of American social mobility, meritocracy today blocks equality of opportunity. This reminds me somewhat of the phrase "kicking away the ladder" that Chomsky mentions, in a different context: > Well, that’s what the intellectual property rights are for. In fact there’s a name for it in economic history. Friedrich List, famous German political economist in the 19th century, who was actually borrowing from Andrew Hamilton, called it “kicking away the ladder”. First you use state power and violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other people can’t do it. [1] Here is my poorly paraphrased version of the idea: 1. use whatever means are available to obtain a position of advantage (the ladder). 2. now, let us change the rules so from this moment forth we shall compete upon our equal merits, without resorting to such ugly means as "ladders" to obtain advantage. 3. note however, that i still remain in a position of absolute advantage, due to my previous use of the ladder, which you now cannot access. 4. ho ho ho, "meritocracy" / "free trade" / etc. [1] http://www.wsm.ie/c/noam-chomsky-intellectual-property-kicking-away-ladder http://www.wsm.ie/c/noam-chomsky-intellectual-property-kicki...
  - rancur 11y ago
    sounds a bit like game theory... that is also what I have independently observed, though not phrased as eloquently. . (slightly off topic) I have to say I'm very thankful to have found HN. I grew up in a decent, moderately sized city (300k) going to a private religious school with children whose parents were similarly strongly interested in the intellectual development of their children. I had access to all the sports teams. I played soccer through Varsity, played with the golf team [but note I was not on the golf team...lol], and basketball in middle school. I played piano for 8 years. I attended one of the top 5 schools of my field in the nation, and graduated into a small company with other graduates from my school, MIT, etc. From 'good places'. Because of this, education was always something I always took for granted. I always valued it, but always took it for granted. Some of my education, however, took humans for granted. Your value to society was sometimes considered limited by what you could produce. Additionally, many of those I highschooled and undergraduated with (mainly other purported Christians who I have since determined were not living congruently with stated beliefs) held little reservation filtering people out of their life based on, I'll call it, 'being dumb'. This always bothered me. As fruit of my religion [mainly 'made in God's image', combined with looking at the life Jesus lived] I believed in the intrinsic value of the human, so I always sought to correct for it: because I always tried my hardest, it never occurred to me how people could willfully and knowingly not aspire themselves to something greater than what required minimal effort. Everyone I grew up with did [though, in hindsight, for different reasons than I], I did, and my parents did, so naturally I assumed everyone else did, too. As such, I was regularly perplexed at the value judgements certain colleagues would place on other members of humanity...like me...because they miscategorized generational challenges I was facing as 'being dumb'. Damaging prejudice. So I left that company, and struck out on my own. I have since discovered what a rare breed my background nurtured, and now understand the wisdom in filtering those you spend time with. Instead of a prideful superiority [which I certainly observed], I exercise with a cautious respect for, and in protection of, talent and time. I exercise without placing value judgements on the people I come in contact with, but I do judge the values of the people I spend time with. In this way I safely continue to respect their humanity, and avoid pride. It's only since I moved and became aware of my need to protect that I became aware of how hard it is to find knowledge seekers. And so, when I come across someone from a different field but similar excellence, who carries with them persuasive content helpful for advancement, I am thankful. I also realized I need to stop spending so much time trying to argue with people-- because most people aren't actually listening, aren't actually seeking. And so I am thankful to have found HackerNews, this article, and shared insights like yours. It's very important to surround yourself with excellence. You'll become the ones you're around, and believe their idiocy, if you're not careful. Be careful.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
waterlesscloud 11y ago
OK. Sure. The deck is stacked against you. And me too. And? What now? That's the only question that matters.
- zachrose 11y ago
  Shuffle the deck?
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Converting metaphor back into real life, I'm pretty sure shuffling the deck usually involves a whole lot of violence.
    - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
      Change on a massive scale has never been peaceful. We're at the precipice of a new Era much like the Industrial Revolution, the masses of society are about to see a paradigm shift.
- chinathrow 11y ago
  Don't privatize education. Yes, there are lots of countries where higher education is available at reasonable costs, including all top universities.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's interesting how this article undermines most modern narratives about inequality while simultaneously maintaining a proper liberal mood affiliation. According to the article, the "aristocracy" preserves itself by educating it's children well and teaching them to succeed on their own merits. Even then, those children must work extremely hard in order to maintain their position. And there are no real barriers to entry; in principle, anyone can do this, it's just that the wealthy are the ones who actually wind up doing this (probably because they are the ones who recognize the value of it). In short, the 1% are the 1% because they are better than the rest, and through hard work and good parenting the same is true of their children. Yet somehow, the article makes these exact same claims in a manner that will probably avoid anger by left wing sorts. I'm impressed.
- cup 11y ago
  > in principle, anyone can do this. Anyone with the money. It's important that we don't forget how significant financial capital is on the outcome of childrens lives. A good case study is on those two Colombian twins that were separated at birth.
- pen2l 11y ago
  > And there are no real barriers to entry There are barriers to entry. Children taught with care, with consistent discipline, attention, etc. will do better. When mom and dad are out working and unavailable to lend a hand with homework, children will not do well. When mom and dad work blue collar jobs where they don't use skills that are marketable for the world tomorrow, children are left on their own to do things children do. When mom and dad are angry and bitter because of their misfortunes, children will very possibly be on the receiving end of unwarranted yelling. Time, stress-free lives, roof on your head -- these are increasingly luxuries that even middle class folks cannot afford. Not having them is the barrier.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    First of all, a barrier to entry is a barrier which would prevent a high human capital poor person from entering. The fact that poor people don't have high human capital is a separate issue. Also, your narrative explaining why poor people have low human capital directly conflicts with the evidence. It's the hard working, highly stressed, wealthy people who's children are raised well. https://www.nber.org/digest/jul06/w11895.html https://www.nber.org/digest/jul06/w11895.html In contrast, the lower income people living a life of leisure are the ones who's children are raised poorly. http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working... I have no idea what you are talking about with "roof on your head". If you google statistics on working hours (you probably need to multiply annual hours worked and labor force participation), you'll see that hours worked per capita hasn't changed drastically since the 70's.
nanocyber 11y ago
I am suppressing my instinct to lob unsportsmanlike commentary akin to written rotten tomatoes sailing through fetid 1830 london swill-house atmosphere, in the event that doing so might invalidate my entrance ticket to an "elevated discourse". That being said, let me offer my primary criticism of this circular-masturbatory speech: The word "meritocracy" is the foundation of the orator's work, and that foundation is rotten, perverted, and foul. Why? Because the meritocracy of which he speaks does NOT encompass the world's population, does not include the democratic peoples of my United States, but is limited to that special community of between-the-liners and word-twisters that "practice law" in our United States. Oh, I understand that lawyers can do good - but the true meritocracy against which these persons should be measured is the COLLECTIVE good of the world's population. Merit should not be measured by the dollars grossed by useless class-action lawsuits, nor the suppressive use of patent law. A true meritocracy is not judged from within a special community, it is recognized from OUTSIDE that community. Merit in the legal community should be measured in the currency of reduced human suffering, of elevated souls, of JUSTICE exercised! THOSE merits are levied on a community of practice by the CUSTOMER, not the self-serving leaders of that community. Merit awarded for trampling the will of the less fortunate is merit dripping with blood and pain, steeped in sadness and depression, radiating with sadness. I know that the speaker offers a feeble plea to democratize the ivy aristocracy, but even that was done in an own-community-serving way, to offer a way out of the self "using up" lifestyle that Manhattan law offers. I don't believe his plea is strong enough to combat dreams of bespoken suits and three thousand-dollar Italian heels. I hope some of those graduates felt uncomfortable when hearing this speech, and were able to focus on why they felt that way, and hopefully will use their hard-earned skill to help the world suffer less. *edits to address the less elite parts of the speech
ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
It is funny how the parasitic Aristocratic leaches of yesteryear have re-manifested themselves as blood sucking lawyers today.
hyperion2010 11y ago
The problem described here seems to come primarily from the fact that nearly every single "meritocratic" measure that we use is highly correlated with income in large part because income is a VERY good predictor of future success. Finding a predictor of future success that cannot be gamed by income is exceedingly difficult and of vital importance of we wish to continue this pseudoquantitative approach to measuring human performance as a criteria for admission to ever more elite opportunities.
- ploxiln 11y ago
  ... or, for some of them, just correlated. Like expectation/demand of academic success in childhood.
- omonra 11y ago
  You're mixing things up. Parental income can be seen as the result of parental traits that (if passed to the offspring) will help them in life - intelligence & industry. Ie the parents are rich because they are smart and work hard. Those traits are passed to the children - who then follow suit.
teekert 11y ago
It is very difficult to leave things to the free market that you can't reasonably say no to. The same problem is true for health care. In a free market there is a transaction when both (all) parties agree on a deal, every party is free to say no. In education and healthcare a one-sided "no" means a less secure future or even death respectively. It means rich will continue to have better resources, live longer and be healthier. It means their children, who did no work to obtain their wealth have better chances. I think a system where the schools/colleges/universities etc are paid with public money are more fair. Such a system provides a reset of opportunities for every generation. I think it will even lead to a better market as I can't imagine that "the top 1%" also provides the top 1% smartest and motivated children. Of course everyone is free to vote for their own system, I'm just saying I would prefer to live in a country where I'm helped when I'm ill, no questions asked and where I have the same chances as any other kid of my generation. Can you really blame Walter White for cooking meth when his life is on the line? Can you really blame a kid from a poor neighborhood when he ventures into crime? They are born with less chances than a kid that was born in better circumstances. The current American system judges and gives kids opportunities based on what their parents earn in stead of on their motivation and intelligence. It will be reflected in American markets. It will increase the gap between rich and poor because both are on a self amplifying course. And don't start about Darwinism, this is past that, this is Darwinism of ideas: memes. And any brain can be "infected" by a meme, good or bad. Memes are not restricted to a set of genes and they are much more at the root of the economy than DNA is. And memes are perpetuated and destroyed by raising kids and giving them quality education. I like the speech, it nicely points out the downsides of the current system for those on the inside of that system. Seems like the best way to start even though the people outside the system will probably shrug at the elites so called "problems".
ohazi 11y ago
If you'd rather watch/listen: https://youtu.be/jLtzbOupsEE?t=6049 https://youtu.be/jLtzbOupsEE?t=6049
forkandwait 11y ago
Modern aristocracies perpetuate themselves across generations by training at the school and in the family when young, and then so-called "competition" in the market place. The anthropology/ sociology theory that looks at these dynamics is generally known as Practice Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory The current system has the dual advantages of plausible deniability (anybody can, in theory, get into Stanford and become a master of the universe, but family income and culture radically boost your SATs and character), and it allows for new blood to enter the system more easily than when you needed a pedigree.
- rancur 11y ago
  I have friends that fuss when I use the term 'white privilege' but what you describe is exactly what I classify as 'privilege'. Buffett calls it the 'ovarian lottery'.
  - rce 11y ago
    There's nothing inherently white about privilege. In fact, whites are under-represented at Stanford compared to the US population as a whole.
    - 001sky 11y ago
      This is narrowly true, but broadly false. The concept of 'white privledge' relates to the concept of 'white man's burden', which is european in origin. Nobody debates that indians, japanese, and other asian societies aren't highly adept at elitism.
    - monknomo 11y ago
      White privilege is just one type of privilege, it's not the only one. Rich white guys get two sorts of privilege - not only are police less likely to stop them because of their race (for instance), if they do get stopped they will be better able to defend themselves in a legal manner (because of their wealth and probable education levels). Whereas a poor white kid might be less likely to be stopped, but also not really able to defend themselves if they are stopped. Finally, a poor black kid is more likely to get stopped and not really able to defend themselves if they are stopped.
paulsutter 11y ago
The old-timey prose is more appropriate than the speaker can possibly imagine. He still thinks law is an elite path to success, rather than the soul-degrading billable hour hell it is. He does get one paragraph /almost/ right. What a dick. Which is it? Is every incentive wrong? Or is that thought a chicanery? > I wish that I knew. I could tell you—and I would mean it—that when you find an opportunity to trade a little money or status for a lot of freedom, you should take it . . . you should take it every time. But that thought—although honest and heartfelt—is a chicanery, akin to insisting that the rat-race is over. The fact remains that, for each of you individually, all the forces that have brought you to this point remain in play. Every incentive is wrong.
cdi 11y ago
What this article ignores is that intelligence is at least 60% inheritable, and elite professionals are likely to merry other elite professionals. So wealth factor is not the only factor in this situation. There is probably an ongoing process of genetic fitness based stratification of the society. At least to a certain degree.

76 points by foobarqux 11y ago

Missed a huge chance to take on law schools for their absurd price structure. They have been increasing tuition at break neck speed, even as lawyer salaries have shrunk since the recession. /bitter ass lawyer who's working at 1 am to pay dem SOFI bills.

shostack 11y ago
Why do you think this might be? Hasn't demand for law degrees shrunk considerably at schools that aren't top tier since students aren't getting jobs?
- rhino369 11y ago
  Demand has definitely shrunk but prices keep going up. The demand curve for schools aren't rational.
  - kristianp 11y ago
    Is this just the top law schools?

jycool 11y ago

"At Harvard College and here, at Yale Law School (two places where students have skillfully and bravely compiled data that their Universities suppress), as many students come from households in the top one percent as from the entire bottom half of the income distribution." Stunning. But no surprise you invest in your kids credentials if you can afford it. Can someone propose a way the free market can be considered fair without the definition of 'fair' being defined as 'market-determined'?

plonh 11y ago
Also, those 1%ers pay for the scholarships that send the 50%ers to Harvard free and move those 50%ers into the 1% shortly after graduation
shoo 11y ago
One of the preceding sentences phrases it well: > But although it was once the engine of American social mobility, meritocracy today blocks equality of opportunity. This reminds me somewhat of the phrase "kicking away the ladder" that Chomsky mentions, in a different context: > Well, that’s what the intellectual property rights are for. In fact there’s a name for it in economic history. Friedrich List, famous German political economist in the 19th century, who was actually borrowing from Andrew Hamilton, called it “kicking away the ladder”. First you use state power and violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other people can’t do it. [1] Here is my poorly paraphrased version of the idea: 1. use whatever means are available to obtain a position of advantage (the ladder). 2. now, let us change the rules so from this moment forth we shall compete upon our equal merits, without resorting to such ugly means as "ladders" to obtain advantage. 3. note however, that i still remain in a position of absolute advantage, due to my previous use of the ladder, which you now cannot access. 4. ho ho ho, "meritocracy" / "free trade" / etc. [1] http://www.wsm.ie/c/noam-chomsky-intellectual-property-kicking-away-ladder http://www.wsm.ie/c/noam-chomsky-intellectual-property-kicki...
- rancur 11y ago
  sounds a bit like game theory... that is also what I have independently observed, though not phrased as eloquently. . (slightly off topic) I have to say I'm very thankful to have found HN. I grew up in a decent, moderately sized city (300k) going to a private religious school with children whose parents were similarly strongly interested in the intellectual development of their children. I had access to all the sports teams. I played soccer through Varsity, played with the golf team [but note I was not on the golf team...lol], and basketball in middle school. I played piano for 8 years. I attended one of the top 5 schools of my field in the nation, and graduated into a small company with other graduates from my school, MIT, etc. From 'good places'. Because of this, education was always something I always took for granted. I always valued it, but always took it for granted. Some of my education, however, took humans for granted. Your value to society was sometimes considered limited by what you could produce. Additionally, many of those I highschooled and undergraduated with (mainly other purported Christians who I have since determined were not living congruently with stated beliefs) held little reservation filtering people out of their life based on, I'll call it, 'being dumb'. This always bothered me. As fruit of my religion [mainly 'made in God's image', combined with looking at the life Jesus lived] I believed in the intrinsic value of the human, so I always sought to correct for it: because I always tried my hardest, it never occurred to me how people could willfully and knowingly not aspire themselves to something greater than what required minimal effort. Everyone I grew up with did [though, in hindsight, for different reasons than I], I did, and my parents did, so naturally I assumed everyone else did, too. As such, I was regularly perplexed at the value judgements certain colleagues would place on other members of humanity...like me...because they miscategorized generational challenges I was facing as 'being dumb'. Damaging prejudice. So I left that company, and struck out on my own. I have since discovered what a rare breed my background nurtured, and now understand the wisdom in filtering those you spend time with. Instead of a prideful superiority [which I certainly observed], I exercise with a cautious respect for, and in protection of, talent and time. I exercise without placing value judgements on the people I come in contact with, but I do judge the values of the people I spend time with. In this way I safely continue to respect their humanity, and avoid pride. It's only since I moved and became aware of my need to protect that I became aware of how hard it is to find knowledge seekers. And so, when I come across someone from a different field but similar excellence, who carries with them persuasive content helpful for advancement, I am thankful. I also realized I need to stop spending so much time trying to argue with people-- because most people aren't actually listening, aren't actually seeking. And so I am thankful to have found HackerNews, this article, and shared insights like yours. It's very important to surround yourself with excellence. You'll become the ones you're around, and believe their idiocy, if you're not careful. Be careful.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

waterlesscloud 11y ago

OK. Sure. The deck is stacked against you. And me too. And? What now? That's the only question that matters.

zachrose 11y ago
Shuffle the deck?
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Converting metaphor back into real life, I'm pretty sure shuffling the deck usually involves a whole lot of violence.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    Change on a massive scale has never been peaceful. We're at the precipice of a new Era much like the Industrial Revolution, the masses of society are about to see a paradigm shift.
chinathrow 11y ago
Don't privatize education. Yes, there are lots of countries where higher education is available at reasonable costs, including all top universities.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

It's interesting how this article undermines most modern narratives about inequality while simultaneously maintaining a proper liberal mood affiliation. According to the article, the "aristocracy" preserves itself by educating it's children well and teaching them to succeed on their own merits. Even then, those children must work extremely hard in order to maintain their position. And there are no real barriers to entry; in principle, anyone can do this, it's just that the wealthy are the ones who actually wind up doing this (probably because they are the ones who recognize the value of it). In short, the 1% are the 1% because they are better than the rest, and through hard work and good parenting the same is true of their children. Yet somehow, the article makes these exact same claims in a manner that will probably avoid anger by left wing sorts. I'm impressed.

cup 11y ago
> in principle, anyone can do this. Anyone with the money. It's important that we don't forget how significant financial capital is on the outcome of childrens lives. A good case study is on those two Colombian twins that were separated at birth.
pen2l 11y ago
> And there are no real barriers to entry There are barriers to entry. Children taught with care, with consistent discipline, attention, etc. will do better. When mom and dad are out working and unavailable to lend a hand with homework, children will not do well. When mom and dad work blue collar jobs where they don't use skills that are marketable for the world tomorrow, children are left on their own to do things children do. When mom and dad are angry and bitter because of their misfortunes, children will very possibly be on the receiving end of unwarranted yelling. Time, stress-free lives, roof on your head -- these are increasingly luxuries that even middle class folks cannot afford. Not having them is the barrier.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  First of all, a barrier to entry is a barrier which would prevent a high human capital poor person from entering. The fact that poor people don't have high human capital is a separate issue. Also, your narrative explaining why poor people have low human capital directly conflicts with the evidence. It's the hard working, highly stressed, wealthy people who's children are raised well. https://www.nber.org/digest/jul06/w11895.html https://www.nber.org/digest/jul06/w11895.html In contrast, the lower income people living a life of leisure are the ones who's children are raised poorly. http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working... I have no idea what you are talking about with "roof on your head". If you google statistics on working hours (you probably need to multiply annual hours worked and labor force participation), you'll see that hours worked per capita hasn't changed drastically since the 70's.

nanocyber 11y ago

I am suppressing my instinct to lob unsportsmanlike commentary akin to written rotten tomatoes sailing through fetid 1830 london swill-house atmosphere, in the event that doing so might invalidate my entrance ticket to an "elevated discourse". That being said, let me offer my primary criticism of this circular-masturbatory speech: The word "meritocracy" is the foundation of the orator's work, and that foundation is rotten, perverted, and foul. Why? Because the meritocracy of which he speaks does NOT encompass the world's population, does not include the democratic peoples of my United States, but is limited to that special community of between-the-liners and word-twisters that "practice law" in our United States. Oh, I understand that lawyers can do good - but the true meritocracy against which these persons should be measured is the COLLECTIVE good of the world's population. Merit should not be measured by the dollars grossed by useless class-action lawsuits, nor the suppressive use of patent law. A true meritocracy is not judged from within a special community, it is recognized from OUTSIDE that community. Merit in the legal community should be measured in the currency of reduced human suffering, of elevated souls, of JUSTICE exercised! THOSE merits are levied on a community of practice by the CUSTOMER, not the self-serving leaders of that community. Merit awarded for trampling the will of the less fortunate is merit dripping with blood and pain, steeped in sadness and depression, radiating with sadness. I know that the speaker offers a feeble plea to democratize the ivy aristocracy, but even that was done in an own-community-serving way, to offer a way out of the self "using up" lifestyle that Manhattan law offers. I don't believe his plea is strong enough to combat dreams of bespoken suits and three thousand-dollar Italian heels. I hope some of those graduates felt uncomfortable when hearing this speech, and were able to focus on why they felt that way, and hopefully will use their hard-earned skill to help the world suffer less. *edits to address the less elite parts of the speech

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago

It is funny how the parasitic Aristocratic leaches of yesteryear have re-manifested themselves as blood sucking lawyers today.

hyperion2010 11y ago

The problem described here seems to come primarily from the fact that nearly every single "meritocratic" measure that we use is highly correlated with income in large part because income is a VERY good predictor of future success. Finding a predictor of future success that cannot be gamed by income is exceedingly difficult and of vital importance of we wish to continue this pseudoquantitative approach to measuring human performance as a criteria for admission to ever more elite opportunities.

ploxiln 11y ago
... or, for some of them, just correlated. Like expectation/demand of academic success in childhood.
omonra 11y ago
You're mixing things up. Parental income can be seen as the result of parental traits that (if passed to the offspring) will help them in life - intelligence & industry. Ie the parents are rich because they are smart and work hard. Those traits are passed to the children - who then follow suit.

teekert 11y ago

It is very difficult to leave things to the free market that you can't reasonably say no to. The same problem is true for health care. In a free market there is a transaction when both (all) parties agree on a deal, every party is free to say no. In education and healthcare a one-sided "no" means a less secure future or even death respectively. It means rich will continue to have better resources, live longer and be healthier. It means their children, who did no work to obtain their wealth have better chances. I think a system where the schools/colleges/universities etc are paid with public money are more fair. Such a system provides a reset of opportunities for every generation. I think it will even lead to a better market as I can't imagine that "the top 1%" also provides the top 1% smartest and motivated children. Of course everyone is free to vote for their own system, I'm just saying I would prefer to live in a country where I'm helped when I'm ill, no questions asked and where I have the same chances as any other kid of my generation. Can you really blame Walter White for cooking meth when his life is on the line? Can you really blame a kid from a poor neighborhood when he ventures into crime? They are born with less chances than a kid that was born in better circumstances. The current American system judges and gives kids opportunities based on what their parents earn in stead of on their motivation and intelligence. It will be reflected in American markets. It will increase the gap between rich and poor because both are on a self amplifying course. And don't start about Darwinism, this is past that, this is Darwinism of ideas: memes. And any brain can be "infected" by a meme, good or bad. Memes are not restricted to a set of genes and they are much more at the root of the economy than DNA is. And memes are perpetuated and destroyed by raising kids and giving them quality education. I like the speech, it nicely points out the downsides of the current system for those on the inside of that system. Seems like the best way to start even though the people outside the system will probably shrug at the elites so called "problems".

ohazi 11y ago

If you'd rather watch/listen: https://youtu.be/jLtzbOupsEE?t=6049 https://youtu.be/jLtzbOupsEE?t=6049

forkandwait 11y ago

Modern aristocracies perpetuate themselves across generations by training at the school and in the family when young, and then so-called "competition" in the market place. The anthropology/ sociology theory that looks at these dynamics is generally known as Practice Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory The current system has the dual advantages of plausible deniability (anybody can, in theory, get into Stanford and become a master of the universe, but family income and culture radically boost your SATs and character), and it allows for new blood to enter the system more easily than when you needed a pedigree.

rancur 11y ago
I have friends that fuss when I use the term 'white privilege' but what you describe is exactly what I classify as 'privilege'. Buffett calls it the 'ovarian lottery'.
- rce 11y ago
  There's nothing inherently white about privilege. In fact, whites are under-represented at Stanford compared to the US population as a whole.
  - 001sky 11y ago
    This is narrowly true, but broadly false. The concept of 'white privledge' relates to the concept of 'white man's burden', which is european in origin. Nobody debates that indians, japanese, and other asian societies aren't highly adept at elitism.
  - monknomo 11y ago
    White privilege is just one type of privilege, it's not the only one. Rich white guys get two sorts of privilege - not only are police less likely to stop them because of their race (for instance), if they do get stopped they will be better able to defend themselves in a legal manner (because of their wealth and probable education levels). Whereas a poor white kid might be less likely to be stopped, but also not really able to defend themselves if they are stopped. Finally, a poor black kid is more likely to get stopped and not really able to defend themselves if they are stopped.

paulsutter 11y ago

The old-timey prose is more appropriate than the speaker can possibly imagine. He still thinks law is an elite path to success, rather than the soul-degrading billable hour hell it is. He does get one paragraph /almost/ right. What a dick. Which is it? Is every incentive wrong? Or is that thought a chicanery? > I wish that I knew. I could tell you—and I would mean it—that when you find an opportunity to trade a little money or status for a lot of freedom, you should take it . . . you should take it every time. But that thought—although honest and heartfelt—is a chicanery, akin to insisting that the rat-race is over. The fact remains that, for each of you individually, all the forces that have brought you to this point remain in play. Every incentive is wrong.

cdi 11y ago

What this article ignores is that intelligence is at least 60% inheritable, and elite professionals are likely to merry other elite professionals. So wealth factor is not the only factor in this situation. There is probably an ongoing process of genetic fitness based stratification of the society. At least to a certain degree.