6 ms·

I grew up thinking our world was egalitarian, but as an adult I see how untrue that is. I long for a society where privilege is not so pronounced. Where no one

I grew up thinking our world was egalitarian, but as an adult I see how untrue that is. I long for a society where privilege is not so pronounced. Where no one is so wealthy while others starve. We don’t live in that world yet, but I do believe it’s possible. We need to grow in to something better. The old ways aren’t working for all but a few of us.

strikelaserclaw 7y ago
I don't believe all people are equal but we should certainly aim to progress in incremental steps to a society which is more inline with the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.
- rhizome 7y ago
  This may sound beyond the pale, but I think nothing will happen along these lines until banks (at least) are allowed to fail. There's too much socialism among the privileged and too little among the less so. Society is way behind the people who have figured out how to externalize risks, such that equalization is criticized as oppression.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    There is no logical way to dispute your obviously-correct suggestion, and yet it will never come to pass in USA. Therefore, USA itself doesn't have a great deal of time remaining.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      it will never come to pass in USA Not with that attitude it won't!
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        You're right! If only we had voted harder, a single investment banker who caused the "financial crisis" might have gone to prison for a couple of days. Better luck next time! (Because all the bankers got rich instead of incarcerated, "next time" is inevitable.)
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > There's too much socialism among the privileged You can't have “socialism among he privileged”; that doesn't make any sense. If you want to say cronyism, say cronyism, and leave socialism, which has nothing to do with it, out of the description.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Maybe cronyism is a more correct term, but I don’t see why it’s such a problem to use the above phrasing.
      - 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
        The main point of socialism -- broadly construed -- is to secure self-determination for the working class by ending the dominance of the capitalist class. Redistribution of money is just one possible mechanism that might be employed to that end. In that sense, it's no more "socialist" to bail out or give generous tax incentives to powerful corporations or wealthy people than it is "open source" (let alone "free software") to release source code under a restrictive license.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Yes, and it's an extremely dumb saying that only makes sense within a particular misunderstanding of what “socialism” means that derives from hostile mischaracterization by capitalists. (Socialism about collective, rather than private, ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. The rich in America very much enjoy the benefits of private ownership of the means of production.)
        hollerith 7y ago
        Socialism has another meaning that fits better into the old saying: namely, the provision by the government of economic security to the individual.
ikeyany 7y ago
The appearance of a meritocracy is necessary so that people don't get discouraged and stop working hard. Almost every large organization acts as if things are fair, otherwise morale would plummet.
- munk-a 7y ago
  The problem is... the theatre is dissolving.
  - kingkawn 7y ago
    Not the problem. The problem is that it is not egalitarian
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      The thread hypothesis is that egalitarianism is a merely instrumental value, which we pursue (or perhaps pretend to pursue) in order to keep the workers working. If this theatre dissolution led to less egalitarianism but workers working yet more mindlessly, then that would be fine. You might disagree, but in that case your disagreement should be lodged further upthread.
  - wozniacki 7y ago
    It surely appears that way. However, if you had to prognosticate, how will admissions at elite institutions look like 12-15 years from now, after all the dust had settled? More of the same (since people have short memories & outrage is short-lived)? or genuine change for the better? edit: grammar
  - ikeyany 7y ago
    Then we need either better lies or a better reality.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Can I vote, personally, for the better reality?
cabaalis 7y ago
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I don't think it's as possible as you do. The money taken from billionaires/millionaires would eventually dry up. Also, with the incentive to acrue wealth removed, bank accounts are not a renewable resource. Simply too many mouths to feed worldwide. Does that mean don't try anything? Of course not. Life isn't black and white. I don't believe involuntary taking from those who have to give to those who do not is a sustainable plan. Rather, somehow incentivize those who have to help voluntarily. My suggestion: more proliferation of employee-owned companies.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > The money taken from billionaires/millionaires would eventually dry up. The Pareto principle remains. Wealth is measured. Ergo, there will always be people who maintain a network of wealth that far exceeds the norm.
- cbanek 7y ago
  > Also, with the incentive to accrue wealth removed, bank accounts are not a renewable resource. I don't think that people will stop trying to accrue wealth, it's more likely they will just do more to get around whatever regulations you propose. For example, Ireland and tech companies.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Except that wealth is quite sticky in the modern world - when you have wealth it's trivial to retain and grow it, it is hard to acquire. I'd prefer to see a silly non-sense good for parting fools from their wealth, like BMWs and Lambos or the custom cars that run up to a few million a luxury car is a great way to attach a big price tag, get the rich's money - and not deprive anyone of anything useful.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I’m not sure if you’re replying to me, but I’m not advocating for taking money from millionaires and billionaires really. I mean that may be part of an effective strategy but I’m talking about building a world where regular people no longer have to work for billionaires whose pockets those working people are constantly filling via their labor. If the people worked for themselves in a collective model, there wouldn’t be a person at the top skimming all the wealth off the business. I want to make billionaires obsolete.
readhn 7y ago
it is the same today as it was for centuries. Human nature will not change.
darawk 7y ago
This is such a popular sentiment lately, and I really have no idea where it comes from. The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. Far fewer people are starving than at any time in history, and even that number only looks to be shrinking as we gaze out into the immediate future. There are problems to be sure. But if your goal is eliminating poverty...well..we're already doing that quite rapidly. It seems more like this sentiment comes from envy of the super-rich, rather than compassion for the extremely poor. And that I understand, but it doesn't seem to me to be a very good reason to reshape civilization.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Look deeper. I may at times experience envy for the super rich, but that is not what motivates me. What motivates me is the obvious unfairness of a system where wealth determines your influence and where most everything in our world is controlled by a small percentage of the people. That leads to all kinds of problems in society and that’s what motivates me. The poor deserve more than a Walmart full of stuff. They deserve democratic representation in our society.
  - darawk 7y ago
    They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.
    - notacoward 7y ago
      That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means. Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? Is it still democratic representation when some people's votes count for less, either because of gerrymandering or because of extra seats in the senate and electoral college for thinly populated states? Is it still democratic representation when we can't verify that our voting systems are secure, but can verify that one party is doing everything they can to block improvement? How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right?
freeAgent 7y ago
I think the biggest lie told to me as a child was that if I studied hard and did well in school, I would easily be able to get a good job and be successful. In the real world quickly became clear that connections and relationships have an oversized influence on hiring and promotion decisions. For example, I couldn't even get a phone screen at my current employer when I applied through their standard jobs site. I found a way to get an employee referral a week or so later and went from being just another auto-reject to not only being hired, but being a high performer (for 5+ years and going). I'm sure that merit plays a large role, but I feel that relationships and connections are vastly under-emphasized when adults talk to children, including college students, about how things work. I wish I had known how this all worked much earlier in life.
- autokad 7y ago
  > "I would easily be able to get a good job and be successful" I think the misconception is on 'easily'. It took me a lot of work at every possible part of the chain to get to where I am. While it wasn't easy for me to get into a role I am very happy with, I wouldn't have gotten here without a lot of studying and hard work. going to your lack of phone screen issue, do not rely solely on applying to websites. I don't know what all the best things to do are, but you do need to approach it smarter. For example, try introducing yourself to the recruiters on linkedIn. The reply rate (for me, and for many others that I saw) is about 1/50 - harsh.
- somethoughts 7y ago
  I guess the curious question is when you reflecting on it - does this constitute using your network and connections unfairly to get your job? Should you have insisted on not using those connections and used only the standard job sites? Is this unfair to people who might not have those connections that you did? Are you perpetuating the problems with "the system"? Definitely I could see it either way. For sure you were smart, entrepreneurial and motivated and successfully figured out how to navigate "the system". In fact my main thought is that your comment seems like a great example of how it gets very grey about what the right thing to do is awfully quickly.
  - 7y ago
chaostheory 7y ago
imo That can only be possible if you can change human nature itself. Governments are just hacks for the worse aspects of humanity. There are limits to all known forms of government. Historically, humanity always finds some loophole to cheat.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I don’t think we need to change human nature. I think we need better (more democratic) institutions that people can rely on.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    How do you do that when corruption eventually seeps into everything given time? We’ve already seen it happen. You create regulatory bodies. At first they work. Fast forward a few decades: the people the regulatory bodies were supposed to watch are now in control of those reg bodies either directly or through heavy lobbying https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
eddyg 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness:_Ten_Reasons_We%27re_Wrong_About_the_World_–_and_Why_Things_Are_Better_Than_You_Think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness:_Ten_Reasons_We%27... > shows that the media systematically skew data, trends, and uses selective stories to make people think that the world is getting worse.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  I don't have the link, but it's like how reporting of crime, especially local crime, has gone up like 400% despite the average crime rate dropping considerably. It's doom and gloom on the TV when, in all likelihood, you're safer than ever.

strikelaserclaw 7y ago

I don't believe all people are equal but we should certainly aim to progress in incremental steps to a society which is more inline with the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.

rhizome 7y ago
This may sound beyond the pale, but I think nothing will happen along these lines until banks (at least) are allowed to fail. There's too much socialism among the privileged and too little among the less so. Society is way behind the people who have figured out how to externalize risks, such that equalization is criticized as oppression.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  There is no logical way to dispute your obviously-correct suggestion, and yet it will never come to pass in USA. Therefore, USA itself doesn't have a great deal of time remaining.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    it will never come to pass in USA Not with that attitude it won't!
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      You're right! If only we had voted harder, a single investment banker who caused the "financial crisis" might have gone to prison for a couple of days. Better luck next time! (Because all the bankers got rich instead of incarcerated, "next time" is inevitable.)
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > There's too much socialism among the privileged You can't have “socialism among he privileged”; that doesn't make any sense. If you want to say cronyism, say cronyism, and leave socialism, which has nothing to do with it, out of the description.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Maybe cronyism is a more correct term, but I don’t see why it’s such a problem to use the above phrasing.
    - 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
      The main point of socialism -- broadly construed -- is to secure self-determination for the working class by ending the dominance of the capitalist class. Redistribution of money is just one possible mechanism that might be employed to that end. In that sense, it's no more "socialist" to bail out or give generous tax incentives to powerful corporations or wealthy people than it is "open source" (let alone "free software") to release source code under a restrictive license.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Yes, and it's an extremely dumb saying that only makes sense within a particular misunderstanding of what “socialism” means that derives from hostile mischaracterization by capitalists. (Socialism about collective, rather than private, ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. The rich in America very much enjoy the benefits of private ownership of the means of production.)
      - hollerith 7y ago
        Socialism has another meaning that fits better into the old saying: namely, the provision by the government of economic security to the individual.

ikeyany 7y ago

The appearance of a meritocracy is necessary so that people don't get discouraged and stop working hard. Almost every large organization acts as if things are fair, otherwise morale would plummet.

munk-a 7y ago
The problem is... the theatre is dissolving.
- kingkawn 7y ago
  Not the problem. The problem is that it is not egalitarian
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    The thread hypothesis is that egalitarianism is a merely instrumental value, which we pursue (or perhaps pretend to pursue) in order to keep the workers working. If this theatre dissolution led to less egalitarianism but workers working yet more mindlessly, then that would be fine. You might disagree, but in that case your disagreement should be lodged further upthread.
- wozniacki 7y ago
  It surely appears that way. However, if you had to prognosticate, how will admissions at elite institutions look like 12-15 years from now, after all the dust had settled? More of the same (since people have short memories & outrage is short-lived)? or genuine change for the better? edit: grammar
- ikeyany 7y ago
  Then we need either better lies or a better reality.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Can I vote, personally, for the better reality?

cabaalis 7y ago

Maybe I'm a pessimist but I don't think it's as possible as you do. The money taken from billionaires/millionaires would eventually dry up. Also, with the incentive to acrue wealth removed, bank accounts are not a renewable resource. Simply too many mouths to feed worldwide. Does that mean don't try anything? Of course not. Life isn't black and white. I don't believe involuntary taking from those who have to give to those who do not is a sustainable plan. Rather, somehow incentivize those who have to help voluntarily. My suggestion: more proliferation of employee-owned companies.

reallydude 7y ago
> The money taken from billionaires/millionaires would eventually dry up. The Pareto principle remains. Wealth is measured. Ergo, there will always be people who maintain a network of wealth that far exceeds the norm.
cbanek 7y ago
> Also, with the incentive to accrue wealth removed, bank accounts are not a renewable resource. I don't think that people will stop trying to accrue wealth, it's more likely they will just do more to get around whatever regulations you propose. For example, Ireland and tech companies.
munk-a 7y ago
Except that wealth is quite sticky in the modern world - when you have wealth it's trivial to retain and grow it, it is hard to acquire. I'd prefer to see a silly non-sense good for parting fools from their wealth, like BMWs and Lambos or the custom cars that run up to a few million a luxury car is a great way to attach a big price tag, get the rich's money - and not deprive anyone of anything useful.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I’m not sure if you’re replying to me, but I’m not advocating for taking money from millionaires and billionaires really. I mean that may be part of an effective strategy but I’m talking about building a world where regular people no longer have to work for billionaires whose pockets those working people are constantly filling via their labor. If the people worked for themselves in a collective model, there wouldn’t be a person at the top skimming all the wealth off the business. I want to make billionaires obsolete.

readhn 7y ago

it is the same today as it was for centuries. Human nature will not change.

darawk 7y ago

This is such a popular sentiment lately, and I really have no idea where it comes from. The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. Far fewer people are starving than at any time in history, and even that number only looks to be shrinking as we gaze out into the immediate future. There are problems to be sure. But if your goal is eliminating poverty...well..we're already doing that quite rapidly. It seems more like this sentiment comes from envy of the super-rich, rather than compassion for the extremely poor. And that I understand, but it doesn't seem to me to be a very good reason to reshape civilization.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Look deeper. I may at times experience envy for the super rich, but that is not what motivates me. What motivates me is the obvious unfairness of a system where wealth determines your influence and where most everything in our world is controlled by a small percentage of the people. That leads to all kinds of problems in society and that’s what motivates me. The poor deserve more than a Walmart full of stuff. They deserve democratic representation in our society.
- darawk 7y ago
  They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means. Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? Is it still democratic representation when some people's votes count for less, either because of gerrymandering or because of extra seats in the senate and electoral college for thinly populated states? Is it still democratic representation when we can't verify that our voting systems are secure, but can verify that one party is doing everything they can to block improvement? How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right?

freeAgent 7y ago

I think the biggest lie told to me as a child was that if I studied hard and did well in school, I would easily be able to get a good job and be successful. In the real world quickly became clear that connections and relationships have an oversized influence on hiring and promotion decisions. For example, I couldn't even get a phone screen at my current employer when I applied through their standard jobs site. I found a way to get an employee referral a week or so later and went from being just another auto-reject to not only being hired, but being a high performer (for 5+ years and going). I'm sure that merit plays a large role, but I feel that relationships and connections are vastly under-emphasized when adults talk to children, including college students, about how things work. I wish I had known how this all worked much earlier in life.

autokad 7y ago
> "I would easily be able to get a good job and be successful" I think the misconception is on 'easily'. It took me a lot of work at every possible part of the chain to get to where I am. While it wasn't easy for me to get into a role I am very happy with, I wouldn't have gotten here without a lot of studying and hard work. going to your lack of phone screen issue, do not rely solely on applying to websites. I don't know what all the best things to do are, but you do need to approach it smarter. For example, try introducing yourself to the recruiters on linkedIn. The reply rate (for me, and for many others that I saw) is about 1/50 - harsh.
somethoughts 7y ago
I guess the curious question is when you reflecting on it - does this constitute using your network and connections unfairly to get your job? Should you have insisted on not using those connections and used only the standard job sites? Is this unfair to people who might not have those connections that you did? Are you perpetuating the problems with "the system"? Definitely I could see it either way. For sure you were smart, entrepreneurial and motivated and successfully figured out how to navigate "the system". In fact my main thought is that your comment seems like a great example of how it gets very grey about what the right thing to do is awfully quickly.
- 7y ago

chaostheory 7y ago

imo That can only be possible if you can change human nature itself. Governments are just hacks for the worse aspects of humanity. There are limits to all known forms of government. Historically, humanity always finds some loophole to cheat.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I don’t think we need to change human nature. I think we need better (more democratic) institutions that people can rely on.
- chaostheory 7y ago
  How do you do that when corruption eventually seeps into everything given time? We’ve already seen it happen. You create regulatory bodies. At first they work. Fast forward a few decades: the people the regulatory bodies were supposed to watch are now in control of those reg bodies either directly or through heavy lobbying https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

eddyg 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness:_Ten_Reasons_We%27re_Wrong_About_the_World_–_and_Why_Things_Are_Better_Than_You_Think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness:_Ten_Reasons_We%27... > shows that the media systematically skew data, trends, and uses selective stories to make people think that the world is getting worse.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
I don't have the link, but it's like how reporting of crime, especially local crime, has gone up like 400% despite the average crime rate dropping considerably. It's doom and gloom on the TV when, in all likelihood, you're safer than ever.