6 ms·

>Since modern states don't have an entrenched hereditary aristocracy We absolutely do, but because we are bombarded with propaganda telling us they "earned it"

>Since modern states don't have an entrenched hereditary aristocracy We absolutely do, but because we are bombarded with propaganda telling us they "earned it" by "working hard" and "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" we pretend it is just a co-incidence that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there. >After public schooling became a things, suddenly just being able to read and write is not a distinguishing feature It never was. The aristocracy were educated specifically on economics, justice, etc. It wasn't simply a matter of being able to read.

fsloth 8y ago
Sure, I simplified a lot. The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was rather that the unwashed masses rose to their level, and it was not anymore sufficient to say that god has decreed duke X a distinguished gentleman and commoner Y a filthy peasant. It is not easy to rise social ladders, but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe. The pithy armchair psychologist in me would claim modern society is much more facilitating towards a growth mindset than a feodal one.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off. >The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was Well really that is exactly what aristocracy was, as originally conceived. Some places ended up with a corrupt form where it was rule by birth rather than rule by excellence (the literal definition of aristocracy), but mostly people just mistakenly refer to monarchies as aristocracies. >but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe. Why? The modern myth that nobility was defined purely by birth is just that, a myth. If you believe that excellence is given by god, it does not also follow that you must believe god only gives excellence to the offspring of others he gave excellence. In reality it was seen as no different than with livestock. If a good specimen is born you make it part of your breeding stock, even if its parents were not.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off. This smacks of rosy retrospective bias. Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable, we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies. We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. Also, the mentally ill are no longer shunned as harshly and so they don't die of starvation. Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable.
    - agsdfgsd 8y ago
      >Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products. >we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies. Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. You can't just look at rich countries now compared to everyone centuries ago. You have to compare like to like. We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies, and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis. >We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. People were not scrounging for survival then either. They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do. >Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable. We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Everything is debatable, but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. As population density grows, social cohesion, trust and relationships all decline. We just didn't evolve to be friends with 5 million people.
kortilla 8y ago
>that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there. The former isn’t true for income and doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations. The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst. Many of those people absolutely earned their position by busting their ass. You don’t become a successful spinal surgeon by having daddy grease the wheels. You do it by taking on $400k in debt and spending most of your 20s in school.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >The former isn’t true for income Wealth inequality is not about income is it? >doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed? >The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. >When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst. What part of "wealth inequality" would make you think repeating a deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?
  - kortilla 8y ago
    >only remains true for as long as it has existed? You are woefully misinformed if you think wealth inequality has only been around for 100-150 years. >statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. That’s not true though. A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation. And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math. Even with a complete turnover in one year, 98% didn’t move. >deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive? It’s not propaganda when it comes mostly from the people on the left using it to argue for higher income taxes. Higher income taxes are an attack on income inequality, not wealth inequality. You might think it’s propaganda, but it would behoove you to listen to people on the left to hear what they are proposing.

fsloth 8y ago

Sure, I simplified a lot. The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was rather that the unwashed masses rose to their level, and it was not anymore sufficient to say that god has decreed duke X a distinguished gentleman and commoner Y a filthy peasant. It is not easy to rise social ladders, but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe. The pithy armchair psychologist in me would claim modern society is much more facilitating towards a growth mindset than a feodal one.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off. >The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was Well really that is exactly what aristocracy was, as originally conceived. Some places ended up with a corrupt form where it was rule by birth rather than rule by excellence (the literal definition of aristocracy), but mostly people just mistakenly refer to monarchies as aristocracies. >but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe. Why? The modern myth that nobility was defined purely by birth is just that, a myth. If you believe that excellence is given by god, it does not also follow that you must believe god only gives excellence to the offspring of others he gave excellence. In reality it was seen as no different than with livestock. If a good specimen is born you make it part of your breeding stock, even if its parents were not.
- naasking 8y ago
  > We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off. This smacks of rosy retrospective bias. Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable, we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies. We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. Also, the mentally ill are no longer shunned as harshly and so they don't die of starvation. Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable.
  - agsdfgsd 8y ago
    >Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products. >we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies. Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. You can't just look at rich countries now compared to everyone centuries ago. You have to compare like to like. We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies, and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis. >We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. People were not scrounging for survival then either. They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do. >Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable. We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Everything is debatable, but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. As population density grows, social cohesion, trust and relationships all decline. We just didn't evolve to be friends with 5 million people.

kortilla 8y ago

>that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there. The former isn’t true for income and doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations. The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst. Many of those people absolutely earned their position by busting their ass. You don’t become a successful spinal surgeon by having daddy grease the wheels. You do it by taking on $400k in debt and spending most of your 20s in school.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>The former isn’t true for income Wealth inequality is not about income is it? >doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed? >The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%. The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. >When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst. What part of "wealth inequality" would make you think repeating a deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?
- kortilla 8y ago
  >only remains true for as long as it has existed? You are woefully misinformed if you think wealth inequality has only been around for 100-150 years. >statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there. That’s not true though. A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation. And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math. Even with a complete turnover in one year, 98% didn’t move. >deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive? It’s not propaganda when it comes mostly from the people on the left using it to argue for higher income taxes. Higher income taxes are an attack on income inequality, not wealth inequality. You might think it’s propaganda, but it would behoove you to listen to people on the left to hear what they are proposing.