6 ms·

It seems pretty obvious that it usually takes more than one generation's effort to gain certain things in this world. My wife and I work very hard so we can aff

It seems pretty obvious that it usually takes more than one generation's effort to gain certain things in this world. My wife and I work very hard so we can afford to optimize the development of our children as best we can so they can eventually do better than we did. My parents did the same. My parent's parents did the same. If people struggle raising their children, then their children will be at a disadvantage. I guess you could say it's a kind of multi-generational meritocracy. Some people seem to imply that this reveals a flaw in our society, but I am having trouble seeing better systemic alternatives. Can someone please help me understand?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>Some people seem to imply that this reveals a flaw in our society, but I am having trouble seeing better alternatives. Can someone please help me understand? A society which doesn't massively privilege the children of the wealthy? What are you having trouble with? We just reduce the influence of class and wealth.
- itsjustme2 9y ago
  So instead of a multi-generational meritocracy, you want everyone in the same generation to have the same resources starting out? How do we determine the best resources for each generation? How do we distribute the wealth? How do we keep parents motivated to work when their main motivation is to provide a better life for their children?
  - danharaj 9y ago
    Multi-generational meritocracy sounds antithetical to post-enlightenment thinking. It sounds like someone sneezed while saying "aristocracy".
    - itsjustme2 9y ago
      Calling multi-generational meritocracy the same as aristocracy is a misunderstanding of what these two words mean. Yes, societies are messy, and what happens in one societal structure can sometimes happen in another, but that does not mean that the underlying rules defining the two are equivalent.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- nugget 9y ago
  > We just reduce the influence of class and wealth. How? Since the dawn of time, people have been split into rich and poor. It seems to be the most persistent bifurcation in the history of human civilization. Even in a society like the USSR, where there was little to no private property ownership, material wealth was controlled by a small cohort of politically-connected individuals who passed their influence to their children. The best antidote to wealth inequality has been criminality and chaos - plagues, world wars - which seem to be on the decline. It's easy to target a few thousand billionaires and apply some estate tax to recapture fortunes upon death. But the real reservoir of generational inequality - as you imply it to be - seems more likely to be the hundreds of thousands of upper class families who pass on intensive amounts of educational, cultural, social, and financial benefits to their kids in ways that are harder to track and harder to crack down on, and which no amount of Government programs for the poor are likely to replicate. With that in mind, what practical steps can you take to meaningfully reduce the influence of class and wealth?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Separate society into 'spheres.' So for example I'm of the mind that education and healthcare should be totally separate from wealth. You shouldn't be able to buy a better education for your kid and you shouldn't be able to buy better healthcare for yourself. We should all be 'in the same boat' so to speak. In this way the wealthy have to advocate for universal improvements instead of using their wealth to opt out of bad systems.
    - nugget 9y ago
      > You shouldn't be able to buy a better education for your kid Doesn't this miss the fact that a large amount of education - perhaps the majority of young childhood education - occurs at home, and is influenced by family environment? How does the Government recreate a two parent household with the time and resources to cook healthy dinners and spend hours every night reading to their children, for children who are essentially "on their own" once they leave school? Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  that's been tried multiple times (communism/socialism) with generally unpleasant outcomes.
  - marnett 9y ago
    What? Reducing the influence of wealth in a country is not the same as 1) having the state own all property or 2) a state ran for workers There are numerous ways to reduce that influence without flipping the entirety of our capitalist economic system.
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      We seem to be trying them without much luck. To be honest I don't really care where the ceiling is, as long as the floor is reasonable.
      - marnett 9y ago
        As far as our success is concerned, I am aligned entirely with you. I think radical change is necessary to slow down the self-destructive capitalist machine that is the U.S. Unfortunately so many people have been influenced by McCarthyian propaganda that whenever the topic of social and economic reform in the U.S. comes up they simply scream about Stalin and Mao and that is that.
k__ 9y ago
" My wife and I work very hard so we can afford to optimize the development of our children as best we can so they can eventually do better than we did. My parents did the same. My parent's parents did the same." yes, they all did... until they didn't and then you are stuck at the bottom because your parents or their parents failed.
- itsjustme2 9y ago
  You may be stuck, but in many such societies you can do things to give your children a chance to get unstuck.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    A society in which you're stuck by virtue of your parent's choices doesn't seem like a meritocracy at all. Why not just call it a "low mobility aristocracy" or a "bounded caste system" or something of the like?
    - itsjustme2 9y ago
      because in an aristocracy or caste system you're truly stuck and your descendants are as well. Not so in the society we live in.
  - k__ 9y ago
    But it shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't be stuck in the first place.
leggomylibro 9y ago
It's wrong that your personal success depends on a long chain of ancestry that you have no control over. Your success should depend on your intrinsic merits, which every individual should have an equal opportunity to assess and develop for themselves. Rich people are the same as poor people at birth, they just have more money. ...uh, is this a controversial opinion? I'm confused.
- grzm 9y ago
  The thread on "HN Ignore Downvotes CSS" reminded me that often the initial reaction may be negative, but over time if the comment is good it will go net positive. Sit back and enjoy the ride--or at least I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on one (or maybe two?) initial votes in the first couple of minutes. And keep in mind that the HN population is big enough that there will be noise, and more so as the topics become more contentious.
- zaroth 9y ago
  Highly. Because the corrollary to what you are saying is that parents “shouldn’t” do the best they can for their children. It’s not wrong at all to work hard so that your children have a better life. For many people, this is the singular reason they work so hard! I can only aspire to give my children the privilege of a first class education and upbringing, as my father did for me. It’s only recent political movements which try to cast this as something to be ashamed of, or something that needs to be counteracted, and I think many people rightly have a problem with that.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    I guess I can see why people would have that reaction as a knee-jerk. But shouldn't we strive for a world where everyone's children have the privilege of education and social standing, and parents can focus on spending time with them, teaching them empathy and understanding, and generally experiencing life with them? As opposed to one where the knives are out and people think that their children's entire futures must come at the cost of someone else's? And what does that attitude teach the children?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>Some people seem to imply that this reveals a flaw in our society, but I am having trouble seeing better alternatives. Can someone please help me understand? A society which doesn't massively privilege the children of the wealthy? What are you having trouble with? We just reduce the influence of class and wealth.

itsjustme2 9y ago
So instead of a multi-generational meritocracy, you want everyone in the same generation to have the same resources starting out? How do we determine the best resources for each generation? How do we distribute the wealth? How do we keep parents motivated to work when their main motivation is to provide a better life for their children?
- danharaj 9y ago
  Multi-generational meritocracy sounds antithetical to post-enlightenment thinking. It sounds like someone sneezed while saying "aristocracy".
  - itsjustme2 9y ago
    Calling multi-generational meritocracy the same as aristocracy is a misunderstanding of what these two words mean. Yes, societies are messy, and what happens in one societal structure can sometimes happen in another, but that does not mean that the underlying rules defining the two are equivalent.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nugget 9y ago
> We just reduce the influence of class and wealth. How? Since the dawn of time, people have been split into rich and poor. It seems to be the most persistent bifurcation in the history of human civilization. Even in a society like the USSR, where there was little to no private property ownership, material wealth was controlled by a small cohort of politically-connected individuals who passed their influence to their children. The best antidote to wealth inequality has been criminality and chaos - plagues, world wars - which seem to be on the decline. It's easy to target a few thousand billionaires and apply some estate tax to recapture fortunes upon death. But the real reservoir of generational inequality - as you imply it to be - seems more likely to be the hundreds of thousands of upper class families who pass on intensive amounts of educational, cultural, social, and financial benefits to their kids in ways that are harder to track and harder to crack down on, and which no amount of Government programs for the poor are likely to replicate. With that in mind, what practical steps can you take to meaningfully reduce the influence of class and wealth?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Separate society into 'spheres.' So for example I'm of the mind that education and healthcare should be totally separate from wealth. You shouldn't be able to buy a better education for your kid and you shouldn't be able to buy better healthcare for yourself. We should all be 'in the same boat' so to speak. In this way the wealthy have to advocate for universal improvements instead of using their wealth to opt out of bad systems.
  - nugget 9y ago
    > You shouldn't be able to buy a better education for your kid Doesn't this miss the fact that a large amount of education - perhaps the majority of young childhood education - occurs at home, and is influenced by family environment? How does the Government recreate a two parent household with the time and resources to cook healthy dinners and spend hours every night reading to their children, for children who are essentially "on their own" once they leave school? Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?
beaconstudios 9y ago
that's been tried multiple times (communism/socialism) with generally unpleasant outcomes.
- marnett 9y ago
  What? Reducing the influence of wealth in a country is not the same as 1) having the state own all property or 2) a state ran for workers There are numerous ways to reduce that influence without flipping the entirety of our capitalist economic system.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    We seem to be trying them without much luck. To be honest I don't really care where the ceiling is, as long as the floor is reasonable.
    - marnett 9y ago
      As far as our success is concerned, I am aligned entirely with you. I think radical change is necessary to slow down the self-destructive capitalist machine that is the U.S. Unfortunately so many people have been influenced by McCarthyian propaganda that whenever the topic of social and economic reform in the U.S. comes up they simply scream about Stalin and Mao and that is that.

k__ 9y ago

" My wife and I work very hard so we can afford to optimize the development of our children as best we can so they can eventually do better than we did. My parents did the same. My parent's parents did the same." yes, they all did... until they didn't and then you are stuck at the bottom because your parents or their parents failed.

itsjustme2 9y ago
You may be stuck, but in many such societies you can do things to give your children a chance to get unstuck.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  A society in which you're stuck by virtue of your parent's choices doesn't seem like a meritocracy at all. Why not just call it a "low mobility aristocracy" or a "bounded caste system" or something of the like?
  - itsjustme2 9y ago
    because in an aristocracy or caste system you're truly stuck and your descendants are as well. Not so in the society we live in.
- k__ 9y ago
  But it shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't be stuck in the first place.

leggomylibro 9y ago

It's wrong that your personal success depends on a long chain of ancestry that you have no control over. Your success should depend on your intrinsic merits, which every individual should have an equal opportunity to assess and develop for themselves. Rich people are the same as poor people at birth, they just have more money. ...uh, is this a controversial opinion? I'm confused.

grzm 9y ago
The thread on "HN Ignore Downvotes CSS" reminded me that often the initial reaction may be negative, but over time if the comment is good it will go net positive. Sit back and enjoy the ride--or at least I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on one (or maybe two?) initial votes in the first couple of minutes. And keep in mind that the HN population is big enough that there will be noise, and more so as the topics become more contentious.
zaroth 9y ago
Highly. Because the corrollary to what you are saying is that parents “shouldn’t” do the best they can for their children. It’s not wrong at all to work hard so that your children have a better life. For many people, this is the singular reason they work so hard! I can only aspire to give my children the privilege of a first class education and upbringing, as my father did for me. It’s only recent political movements which try to cast this as something to be ashamed of, or something that needs to be counteracted, and I think many people rightly have a problem with that.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  I guess I can see why people would have that reaction as a knee-jerk. But shouldn't we strive for a world where everyone's children have the privilege of education and social standing, and parents can focus on spending time with them, teaching them empathy and understanding, and generally experiencing life with them? As opposed to one where the knives are out and people think that their children's entire futures must come at the cost of someone else's? And what does that attitude teach the children?