4 ms·

"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

by 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.
- bmir-alum-007 11y ago
  Let's face it. What's most important in life/business is social access and maintaining trust/confidence/respect to stay in those relevant circles in order to keep it. IOW, staying in the members' clubs, secret societies, party circuits, etc. Example: Could Luci have met Larry anywhere other than a Stanford party? Probably not.
- civilian 11y ago
  It's fine to include meritocracy in #4, but why free trade? I know that free trade is often a fiscally conservative issue, but it simply helps all of us by removing barriers to trade. The wealth of the world increases from it. ///edit: And actually, I want to continue and make a claim. Barriers to free trade _are_ an act of Kicking Out the Ladder. If we look at import taxes, they're just national protectionism. Which is possibly understandable if we're protecting a vital-to-war industry. But the U.S. has sugar import tariffs and makes our sugar ~40% more expensive than the rest of the world. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade-policy-gouges-american-sugar-consumers http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade-po... (I know heritage is a conservative thinktank, just using it for the graph.) Our sugar tariffs just protects a small handful of cane sugar farmers/refiners in the US, at the cost to everyone, and with lost business to poor countries in the caribbean, who could probably use some more sugar sales. We're helping people with this tariff, but they're well-off americans we're helping. We could be help caribbean economies!! And if we actually did want to protect vital resources, then why don't we ban hard-drive imports? You saw how Thailand's flooding knocked over hard drive production. What if a hostile government took over Thailand's hard drive production? And furthermore, most of the government's foray's into regulating the economy are, or eventually become, acts of Kicking out the Ladder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture By even giving this kind of power to the government, you're asking for it to be abused.
nickff 11y ago
If you clearly define "fairness" as you see it, you can test whether free markets or government controlled ones are the ones which come closest to satisfying your preferences. There are a number of paradigms, Haidt describes two visions of fairness: one of equality and another of proportionality.[1] Under most definitions of social justice (though not all the ones focusing on relative income distributions), the free market has better outcomes than more socialist systems. Free markets allow for liberty and greater prosperity, and this results in healthier, richer citizens with the freedom to pursue a good life. Free markets also encourage sympathy, trust, and fellow-feeling.[2] Focusing on a measure of equality such as national GINI coefficients, the USA is closest to Phillipines, Peru, Uruguay, and Cameroon.[3] Does the GINI translate to "fairness"? Which country of the five would you prefer to live in if you were at a given position of the income distribution? Which has the freest markets? Which is most "fair"? Does the GINI convey much information about being rich or poor in a country? [1] http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/of-freedom-and-fairness.php?page=all http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/of-freedom-and-fairness.p... [2] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762452-why-not-capitalism http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762452-why-not-capitali... [3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
- Steko 11y ago
  I think you've mistaken two desireable dimensions as a choice. A country like Norway beats the U.S. in both GDP per capita (PPP and nominal) and in all measures of inequality.
  - nickff 11y ago
    I was making a different point: that measures of equality are not equivalent to measures of 'goodness' or proportionality. The statistics you are using are biased against the USA because of the high rate of immigration to the USA; if you control for this, the non-immigrant US citizen PPP and per capita GDP are much closer to Norway's (though I'm not sure whether the US is higher or lower than Norway). I have lost the source for this, but can provide you with this citation that shows what a difference there is between the largely unskilled first generation immigrants (that make up a large portion of the US population), and later generations.[1] disclosure: I am neither American or Norwegian by country of birth or residence [1] http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by jycool 11y ago

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.
bmir-alum-007 11y ago
Let's face it. What's most important in life/business is social access and maintaining trust/confidence/respect to stay in those relevant circles in order to keep it. IOW, staying in the members' clubs, secret societies, party circuits, etc. Example: Could Luci have met Larry anywhere other than a Stanford party? Probably not.
civilian 11y ago
It's fine to include meritocracy in #4, but why free trade? I know that free trade is often a fiscally conservative issue, but it simply helps all of us by removing barriers to trade. The wealth of the world increases from it. ///edit: And actually, I want to continue and make a claim. Barriers to free trade _are_ an act of Kicking Out the Ladder. If we look at import taxes, they're just national protectionism. Which is possibly understandable if we're protecting a vital-to-war industry. But the U.S. has sugar import tariffs and makes our sugar ~40% more expensive than the rest of the world. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade-policy-gouges-american-sugar-consumers http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade-po... (I know heritage is a conservative thinktank, just using it for the graph.) Our sugar tariffs just protects a small handful of cane sugar farmers/refiners in the US, at the cost to everyone, and with lost business to poor countries in the caribbean, who could probably use some more sugar sales. We're helping people with this tariff, but they're well-off americans we're helping. We could be help caribbean economies!! And if we actually did want to protect vital resources, then why don't we ban hard-drive imports? You saw how Thailand's flooding knocked over hard drive production. What if a hostile government took over Thailand's hard drive production? And furthermore, most of the government's foray's into regulating the economy are, or eventually become, acts of Kicking out the Ladder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture By even giving this kind of power to the government, you're asking for it to be abused.

nickff 11y ago

If you clearly define "fairness" as you see it, you can test whether free markets or government controlled ones are the ones which come closest to satisfying your preferences. There are a number of paradigms, Haidt describes two visions of fairness: one of equality and another of proportionality.[1] Under most definitions of social justice (though not all the ones focusing on relative income distributions), the free market has better outcomes than more socialist systems. Free markets allow for liberty and greater prosperity, and this results in healthier, richer citizens with the freedom to pursue a good life. Free markets also encourage sympathy, trust, and fellow-feeling.[2] Focusing on a measure of equality such as national GINI coefficients, the USA is closest to Phillipines, Peru, Uruguay, and Cameroon.[3] Does the GINI translate to "fairness"? Which country of the five would you prefer to live in if you were at a given position of the income distribution? Which has the freest markets? Which is most "fair"? Does the GINI convey much information about being rich or poor in a country? [1] http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/of-freedom-and-fairness.php?page=all http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/of-freedom-and-fairness.p... [2] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762452-why-not-capitalism http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762452-why-not-capitali... [3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

Steko 11y ago
I think you've mistaken two desireable dimensions as a choice. A country like Norway beats the U.S. in both GDP per capita (PPP and nominal) and in all measures of inequality.
- nickff 11y ago
  I was making a different point: that measures of equality are not equivalent to measures of 'goodness' or proportionality. The statistics you are using are biased against the USA because of the high rate of immigration to the USA; if you control for this, the non-immigrant US citizen PPP and per capita GDP are much closer to Norway's (though I'm not sure whether the US is higher or lower than Norway). I have lost the source for this, but can provide you with this citation that shows what a difference there is between the largely unskilled first generation immigrants (that make up a large portion of the US population), and later generations.[1] disclosure: I am neither American or Norwegian by country of birth or residence [1] http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]