11 ms·

Part of the American dream is that the feeling that there is no rigid social class. Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder o

Part of the American dream is that the feeling that there is no rigid social class. Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder or be more clever—ideally both. To some extent, it is true. Realistically, however, it is rare to move more than one or two income brackets from where your parents were when they were your age. Race in America, however, is fraught. The history of racism is recent, overt, and systemic. It is impossible to deny the history of racism unless you are an idiot. The question is what, if anything, can be done about it that actually improves things. The answer is probably very little. Affirmative action is problematic and has some negative side effects, but it has probably been a net positive for society. It will also probably be struck down as it is now negatively and unfairly impacting another minority group.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
There’s only ~5 income brackets so moving “more than two” is indeed mathematically challenging for anyone in the middle.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  There are 7 us income tax brackets?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
briHass 4y ago
> Realistically, however, it is rare to move more than one or two income brackets from where your parents were when they were your age. You state that like it's a bad thing. If you can bump a bracket or two per generation, 2 generations can take you from near-penniless to upper-middle class.
- cocacola1 4y ago
  Cold comfort to the near-penniless and penniless.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Real life is filled with disappointments and limitations, even with the best social structures in place. The false promise of a social revolution that provides instant wealth and salvation for all is used by populists to gain power, but any attempt to realize this promise leads to worse outcomes for the public.
    - slondr 4y ago
      On the flipside, it's unclear to me why the penniless should care what the best outcome is for "the public," as nebulous of a concept that is.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope.
        kaibee 4y ago
        > I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. > They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. Should they? Sure. Will they? History says it is very unlikely. What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them. Person A decides the split, person B chooses whether to accept the split or reject the split, in which case the $100 is taken back and neither person gets anything. The problem with your whole philosophy is that it supposes that Person B will accept the split no matter how much it is skewed to Person A, because it is the 'rational' thing to do from an individual's perspective (any money is better than no money). However, what actually happens is that above the 60% - 70% mark, Person B will often reject the split, just to spite Person A. > They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope. Demagogues work to convince people that they are getting an unfair split and that they should reject the split. It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split.
gryBrd1987 4y ago
Race wars have been used to obfuscate a class war. Historically minorities were prevented from being capital owners and as that changed aristocrats appealed to skin color while also routinely sweeping the legs out from under poor whites as they still do today, after enraging them stupid shit like tan suits and public protests. Thanks to inflation, moving one or two income brackets is closer to staying in the same place. $100-200k year in the 80s is equivalent to $600-700k now. If parents made $50-60k then and junior makes $150k, the number tripled but the buying power is worse. I don’t really understand why we cling to the hallucinations of elders who, given their ages, when they were educated, are “behind us” when it comes to scientific knowledge and intuition, and are gripped by paranoia and anxieties from Cold War and the world at war in their prime years. They operate on economic models from a period of heavy demand due to war. Afflicted by sunk cost fallacy, evolved the behavior to disposable consumerism. The last 80 years of economic growth are entirely due to the rest of the world needing to rebuild and the US having functional infra. There’s no way it was sustainable, as the correctness of such activity is merely one generations memory, not some immutable law of reality. Any sufficiently numerate person can intuit the game being played. Bigger number! Oo! But prices on the market have gradually been inflated to prevent new workers being able to afford real assets, and as a result of other nations catching up and making the same demands.
- eru 4y ago
  > Historically minorities were prevented from being capital owners [...] That overlooks the elephant in the room: land ownership.
  - gryBrd1987 4y ago
    Capital is used here as a euphemism for land ownership. Net worth being mathematical inference of how well land owner “capitalizes” on the possession of land. Other asset classes came along because, well, useful land is finite, and to create new wealth holders to act as missionaries for the US dollar. “Yeah even this trash is worth money in the US!” Valuations are arbitrary numerical assessments based upon the whims of the assessors (assignment of currency value to stuff is a social tradition; there is no science that suggests the universe values any bit of itself what with entropy ripping the universes stuff apart), and routinely inflated to validate investors past decision to “buy into” Murica. Biology being largely unchanged in centuries (in a meaningful way given the context here), the issues in our culture can easily be assigned to political corruption as usual. All the high talk about separation of powers is laughable as DC pols rub elbows at private social events, discussing not systemic change for the public benefit but how to veil graft as justifiable given their intimate connection to our political norms. Simple really. Most white collar crime is still the same old “deflect, project, until we can change the rules” as policing is conveniently unfunded. The mathematical gap between classes must be maintained! Or Sauron himself will emerge from the lava of Mt Doom or some shit. I say we post up at home, stop going to work except to maintain our communities locally, make Jamie Dimon and co knock on every door in the US looking for rent. But I’m weird that way. Except for 2A, I really lean into progressive doctrine, which often aligns with conservative doctrine but media intentionally stokes this stupid culture war to obfuscate it.
marcusverus 4y ago
> Affirmative action is problematic and has some negative side effects, but it has probably been a net positive for society. I'm interested to see that you consider it to have been net positive for society. What tangible benefits outweigh the obvious negatives?
627467 4y ago
> Part of the American dream is that the feeling that there is no rigid social class. Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder or be more clever—ideally both. Recently I have been thinking in this vein too... This "American dream" is such a repeated cliché that some may think it's just that: a cliché in the minds of even Americans. But my current hypothesis is that many (most) Americans actually believe it. To the point of being blind of the actual nature of this "meritocracy". This blindness to the fact that individual agency is not really as powerful as the "dream" states basically reinforces the idea that certain hard to change property of an individual (ie. Race? Gender identity? Sexuality?) must be the core reason for lack of success/progress: the biggot believes not all people are what it takes to succeed, and the biggot's prey believe their core nature/mark is the main reason why others don't support their progress.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I believe that as far back as the 60's or 70's, George Carlin was already using his oft repeated line, "they call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it". Perhaps you're joining a new awakening (or an awokening).
- scarby2 4y ago
  > But my current hypothesis is that many (most) Americans actually believe it. I certainly believe that there is no rigid social class in America and it's definitely possible to move between income brackets with relatively little social stigma. In the UK for example no matter how much money a working class person makes they will never become upper class. Never be welcomed into the top social circles etc., they didn't go to the right schools (pre-college) or dont have the right accent... I'm not as blind to believe that parental wealth doesn't matter hugely. I also wonder if it might be more difficult to move income brackets in the USA due to the extremely high cost of education.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tootie 4y ago
The article specifically calls out legacy admissions and other non-academic preferences for white students. There was an article just recently about fencing being a very expensive sport to participate in and one the generates a lot of college scholarships.
kamaal 4y ago
>>Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder or be more clever—ideally both. Race is an unchangeable, decided at-birth deal. Class on the other hand changes based on how you succeed to that end. People do feel class as something that is not fixed, and can be changed. In some way getting rid of Racism means changing other people, and changing class requires one to change one's own ways.
- hjgjhyuhy 4y ago
- orestarod 4y ago
  The problem when you do not perceive class, is that you view those of the same class as adversaries on your way to the top rather than people on the same boat as you, needing to cooperate to improve your overall position and fix your problems. Lower class problems are other people's problems, because you are not really a part of it or won't be for long more (so you think). Basic human life conditions should really not be up to a game of "success" that by definition has few winners. In my opinion at least.
worik 4y ago
> The history of racism [in the USA] is recent, overt, and systemic I am not from the USA. But did racism not arrive, with the first white colonials, along with class? Why is racial prejudice more recent than class prejudice?

zeroonetwothree 4y ago

There’s only ~5 income brackets so moving “more than two” is indeed mathematically challenging for anyone in the middle.

reducesuffering 4y ago
There are 7 us income tax brackets?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

briHass 4y ago

> Realistically, however, it is rare to move more than one or two income brackets from where your parents were when they were your age. You state that like it's a bad thing. If you can bump a bracket or two per generation, 2 generations can take you from near-penniless to upper-middle class.

cocacola1 4y ago
Cold comfort to the near-penniless and penniless.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Real life is filled with disappointments and limitations, even with the best social structures in place. The false promise of a social revolution that provides instant wealth and salvation for all is used by populists to gain power, but any attempt to realize this promise leads to worse outcomes for the public.
  - slondr 4y ago
    On the flipside, it's unclear to me why the penniless should care what the best outcome is for "the public," as nebulous of a concept that is.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope.
      - kaibee 4y ago
        > I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. > They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. Should they? Sure. Will they? History says it is very unlikely. What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them. Person A decides the split, person B chooses whether to accept the split or reject the split, in which case the $100 is taken back and neither person gets anything. The problem with your whole philosophy is that it supposes that Person B will accept the split no matter how much it is skewed to Person A, because it is the 'rational' thing to do from an individual's perspective (any money is better than no money). However, what actually happens is that above the 60% - 70% mark, Person B will often reject the split, just to spite Person A. > They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope. Demagogues work to convince people that they are getting an unfair split and that they should reject the split. It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split.

gryBrd1987 4y ago

Race wars have been used to obfuscate a class war. Historically minorities were prevented from being capital owners and as that changed aristocrats appealed to skin color while also routinely sweeping the legs out from under poor whites as they still do today, after enraging them stupid shit like tan suits and public protests. Thanks to inflation, moving one or two income brackets is closer to staying in the same place. $100-200k year in the 80s is equivalent to $600-700k now. If parents made $50-60k then and junior makes $150k, the number tripled but the buying power is worse. I don’t really understand why we cling to the hallucinations of elders who, given their ages, when they were educated, are “behind us” when it comes to scientific knowledge and intuition, and are gripped by paranoia and anxieties from Cold War and the world at war in their prime years. They operate on economic models from a period of heavy demand due to war. Afflicted by sunk cost fallacy, evolved the behavior to disposable consumerism. The last 80 years of economic growth are entirely due to the rest of the world needing to rebuild and the US having functional infra. There’s no way it was sustainable, as the correctness of such activity is merely one generations memory, not some immutable law of reality. Any sufficiently numerate person can intuit the game being played. Bigger number! Oo! But prices on the market have gradually been inflated to prevent new workers being able to afford real assets, and as a result of other nations catching up and making the same demands.

eru 4y ago
> Historically minorities were prevented from being capital owners [...] That overlooks the elephant in the room: land ownership.
- gryBrd1987 4y ago
  Capital is used here as a euphemism for land ownership. Net worth being mathematical inference of how well land owner “capitalizes” on the possession of land. Other asset classes came along because, well, useful land is finite, and to create new wealth holders to act as missionaries for the US dollar. “Yeah even this trash is worth money in the US!” Valuations are arbitrary numerical assessments based upon the whims of the assessors (assignment of currency value to stuff is a social tradition; there is no science that suggests the universe values any bit of itself what with entropy ripping the universes stuff apart), and routinely inflated to validate investors past decision to “buy into” Murica. Biology being largely unchanged in centuries (in a meaningful way given the context here), the issues in our culture can easily be assigned to political corruption as usual. All the high talk about separation of powers is laughable as DC pols rub elbows at private social events, discussing not systemic change for the public benefit but how to veil graft as justifiable given their intimate connection to our political norms. Simple really. Most white collar crime is still the same old “deflect, project, until we can change the rules” as policing is conveniently unfunded. The mathematical gap between classes must be maintained! Or Sauron himself will emerge from the lava of Mt Doom or some shit. I say we post up at home, stop going to work except to maintain our communities locally, make Jamie Dimon and co knock on every door in the US looking for rent. But I’m weird that way. Except for 2A, I really lean into progressive doctrine, which often aligns with conservative doctrine but media intentionally stokes this stupid culture war to obfuscate it.

marcusverus 4y ago

> Affirmative action is problematic and has some negative side effects, but it has probably been a net positive for society. I'm interested to see that you consider it to have been net positive for society. What tangible benefits outweigh the obvious negatives?

627467 4y ago

> Part of the American dream is that the feeling that there is no rigid social class. Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder or be more clever—ideally both. Recently I have been thinking in this vein too... This "American dream" is such a repeated cliché that some may think it's just that: a cliché in the minds of even Americans. But my current hypothesis is that many (most) Americans actually believe it. To the point of being blind of the actual nature of this "meritocracy". This blindness to the fact that individual agency is not really as powerful as the "dream" states basically reinforces the idea that certain hard to change property of an individual (ie. Race? Gender identity? Sexuality?) must be the core reason for lack of success/progress: the biggot believes not all people are what it takes to succeed, and the biggot's prey believe their core nature/mark is the main reason why others don't support their progress.

hotpotamus 4y ago
I believe that as far back as the 60's or 70's, George Carlin was already using his oft repeated line, "they call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it". Perhaps you're joining a new awakening (or an awokening).
scarby2 4y ago
> But my current hypothesis is that many (most) Americans actually believe it. I certainly believe that there is no rigid social class in America and it's definitely possible to move between income brackets with relatively little social stigma. In the UK for example no matter how much money a working class person makes they will never become upper class. Never be welcomed into the top social circles etc., they didn't go to the right schools (pre-college) or dont have the right accent... I'm not as blind to believe that parental wealth doesn't matter hugely. I also wonder if it might be more difficult to move income brackets in the USA due to the extremely high cost of education.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tootie 4y ago

The article specifically calls out legacy admissions and other non-academic preferences for white students. There was an article just recently about fencing being a very expensive sport to participate in and one the generates a lot of college scholarships.

kamaal 4y ago

>>Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder or be more clever—ideally both. Race is an unchangeable, decided at-birth deal. Class on the other hand changes based on how you succeed to that end. People do feel class as something that is not fixed, and can be changed. In some way getting rid of Racism means changing other people, and changing class requires one to change one's own ways.

hjgjhyuhy 4y ago
orestarod 4y ago
The problem when you do not perceive class, is that you view those of the same class as adversaries on your way to the top rather than people on the same boat as you, needing to cooperate to improve your overall position and fix your problems. Lower class problems are other people's problems, because you are not really a part of it or won't be for long more (so you think). Basic human life conditions should really not be up to a game of "success" that by definition has few winners. In my opinion at least.

worik 4y ago

> The history of racism [in the USA] is recent, overt, and systemic I am not from the USA. But did racism not arrive, with the first white colonials, along with class? Why is racial prejudice more recent than class prejudice?