4 ms·

> People are permitted to pursue alternatives and aren’t forbidden. Systematic barriers are seldom built consciously, yet they exist and without conscious effo

> People are permitted to pursue alternatives and aren’t forbidden. Systematic barriers are seldom built consciously, yet they exist and without conscious effort to break down continue to be perpetuated. From the point of view of opportunities/privileges available to an individual, is there really a difference between the caste system and a class system?

sokoloff 5y ago
I think there is a difference. As I understand the caste system, it’s inherited durably. If I’m X, not only will I always be X, but my kids and grandkids will also be X, so there’s no point in trying to become “not X”. Not so for socioeconomic class. My grandfathers milled steel and mined coal. They made sure their kids became the first generation in the family to attend college. My parents became teachers and made sure their kids focused on education and we all attended “good colleges” and have built careers. My generation is saving for college while the kids are still in diapers. That’s still systemic advantages from the family, but it’s marked change in economic class in just two generations, which is IMO dramatically different from the Indian caste system. It still matters who your parents are, but in a significantly different (and I think more fair) way.
- devnonymous 5y ago
  > It still matters who your parents are, but in a significantly different (and I think more fair) way. It amazes me when people think the current socioeconomic structures are fair. You do realise that most people here, including perhaps you are, economically speaking, closer to being poor than being part of the 1% rich, right? The economic gap between those you might consider poor and yourself is a rounding error magnitude of the gap between yourself and the super rich. This is not an accident. God forbid, but you and your kids are perhaps one or two medical, legal or natural calamities away from that few generations of advancement you talk about.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    More fair =/= perfectly fair. I don’t care that someone has well over 5 orders of magnitude more wealth than I have. It doesn’t materially negatively affect my life in the least and, on the contrary, their inventions make my daily life better by wildly more than any negative impacts their houses, yachts, airplanes, or rockets could possibly have. I’m here to spend my life energy and time pursuing the things that are important to me: raising and loving my family, doing work and hobbies I find stimulating, traveling and learning about the world. Bellyaching that I’m not a literal or figurative monarch is not among the ways I choose to spend my time and energy.
    - devnonymous 5y ago
      All of what you said is fine but the 'more fair' part has come about in a large part due to people recognising inequity and fighting to remove it. Just because it no longer affects you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That the whole damn point of the original article. Anyways cheers yeah mate, current socioeconomic structures are fair. /s
      - mlyle 5y ago
        This pretty badly breaks the site guidelines and willfully strawmans what the other person is saying to you.
    - webmaven 5y ago
      > I don’t care that someone has well over 5 orders of magnitude more wealth than I have. It doesn’t materially negatively affect my life in the least and, on the contrary, their inventions make my daily life better by wildly more than any negative impacts their houses, yachts, airplanes, or rockets could possibly have. Wait, are you under the impression that people with extreme wealth typically got it by inventing something? It's called capitalism because the owners of capital reap most of society's economic rewards. Which is in the form of more capital. IOW, the rich get richer. The optimal wealth investment strategy to grow a large pile of money into a larger pile over the long term is pretty simple too (rebalance your portfolio annually, buy and hold), and attempts at a 'smarter' strategy tend to fail pretty miserably. The American story used to be rags-to-riches-to-rags, but not anymore. These days once you've reached 'riches' your descendants are fairly likely to stay rich, and laziness on their part (ie. leaving the money pile on autopilot) is actually an asset (eg. Donald Trump would be a wealthier today if he had invested his inheritance and just left it alone). Conversely, it is harder than ever to go from rags-to-riches in the first place. You do not benefit from the wealthy in society pulling the ladder up behind themselves.

sokoloff 5y ago

I think there is a difference. As I understand the caste system, it’s inherited durably. If I’m X, not only will I always be X, but my kids and grandkids will also be X, so there’s no point in trying to become “not X”. Not so for socioeconomic class. My grandfathers milled steel and mined coal. They made sure their kids became the first generation in the family to attend college. My parents became teachers and made sure their kids focused on education and we all attended “good colleges” and have built careers. My generation is saving for college while the kids are still in diapers. That’s still systemic advantages from the family, but it’s marked change in economic class in just two generations, which is IMO dramatically different from the Indian caste system. It still matters who your parents are, but in a significantly different (and I think more fair) way.

devnonymous 5y ago
> It still matters who your parents are, but in a significantly different (and I think more fair) way. It amazes me when people think the current socioeconomic structures are fair. You do realise that most people here, including perhaps you are, economically speaking, closer to being poor than being part of the 1% rich, right? The economic gap between those you might consider poor and yourself is a rounding error magnitude of the gap between yourself and the super rich. This is not an accident. God forbid, but you and your kids are perhaps one or two medical, legal or natural calamities away from that few generations of advancement you talk about.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  More fair =/= perfectly fair. I don’t care that someone has well over 5 orders of magnitude more wealth than I have. It doesn’t materially negatively affect my life in the least and, on the contrary, their inventions make my daily life better by wildly more than any negative impacts their houses, yachts, airplanes, or rockets could possibly have. I’m here to spend my life energy and time pursuing the things that are important to me: raising and loving my family, doing work and hobbies I find stimulating, traveling and learning about the world. Bellyaching that I’m not a literal or figurative monarch is not among the ways I choose to spend my time and energy.
  - devnonymous 5y ago
    All of what you said is fine but the 'more fair' part has come about in a large part due to people recognising inequity and fighting to remove it. Just because it no longer affects you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That the whole damn point of the original article. Anyways cheers yeah mate, current socioeconomic structures are fair. /s
    - mlyle 5y ago
      This pretty badly breaks the site guidelines and willfully strawmans what the other person is saying to you.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > I don’t care that someone has well over 5 orders of magnitude more wealth than I have. It doesn’t materially negatively affect my life in the least and, on the contrary, their inventions make my daily life better by wildly more than any negative impacts their houses, yachts, airplanes, or rockets could possibly have. Wait, are you under the impression that people with extreme wealth typically got it by inventing something? It's called capitalism because the owners of capital reap most of society's economic rewards. Which is in the form of more capital. IOW, the rich get richer. The optimal wealth investment strategy to grow a large pile of money into a larger pile over the long term is pretty simple too (rebalance your portfolio annually, buy and hold), and attempts at a 'smarter' strategy tend to fail pretty miserably. The American story used to be rags-to-riches-to-rags, but not anymore. These days once you've reached 'riches' your descendants are fairly likely to stay rich, and laziness on their part (ie. leaving the money pile on autopilot) is actually an asset (eg. Donald Trump would be a wealthier today if he had invested his inheritance and just left it alone). Conversely, it is harder than ever to go from rags-to-riches in the first place. You do not benefit from the wealthy in society pulling the ladder up behind themselves.