4 ms·
> Also, "socio-economic status" is a spectrum between poor and wealthy, including all of them. Just like "race" includes all races. We don't call it "non-white-
by AnonCoward42 4y ago
> Also, "socio-economic status" is a spectrum between poor and wealthy, including all of them. Just like "race" includes all races. We don't call it "non-white-and-asian-based affirmative action", so i dont see why you have an issue with me not calling it "poor-based affirmative action". It is a sliding scale, with all groups within it having different weights attached. So calling it "poor-based affirmative action" makes zero sense to me.
In total: One can make up the groups ... and the weights. It's completely arbitrary. That's why socio-economic is closer to astrology than a clearly defined term. Sure, you can make up cool calculations (with statistics even!), but it does not mean anything.
- filoleg 4y agoWould that make my definition clearer and less arbitrary, if i said that by "socioeconomic status", in this specific scenario, I am referring to where you fall on the spectrum of "your family's income + savings"?
- AnonCoward42 4y agoYes, in that case you're actually calling for/proposing something specific. Socioeconomic is a placeholder term, where everyone can project something into it (and this is also regularly done).
- filoleg 4y agoI appreciate your response. I genuinely was assuming it was well and clearly understood what I meant by "socio-economic status", but looks like I was wrong. In light of that, I totally understand your initial pushback to it. I hate vague and non-explicitly-defined terms, when it comes to policymaking, as well.