4 ms·

There is a big disconnect between Doctorow going on about his middle class Phd parents and the plight of 'the workers'. Phds are around 1% of the population and

There is a big disconnect between Doctorow going on about his middle class Phd parents and the plight of 'the workers'. Phds are around 1% of the population and their earnings typically put them in the top 20%. IMO it seems more likely that the interests of this class, and others similar -- the lawyers, doctors, engineers -- will align more with the elite than the serfs, and until that changes the possibility of true structural change in the US feels remote.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
That depends on the elites (presuming Doctorow's perspective is accurate). Truly smart elites would keep the top 10% in the game. But if Doctorow is right, the elites almost always eventually get greedy and blow this, and the system then collapses, because the elites are not competent to actually run it well (and, my own addition, because the 10% quit propping up the elites' incompetence).
legitster 4y ago
Also, a lot of this analysis only makes sense to children of the elite (ie, the child of a successful author). There's a natural regression to the mean. Kids of poor parents will be better off than their parents. Kids of rich parents will be worse off than their parents. So when he looks around at his peer group, he sees the same thing - people who were worse off than their parents. But it's really only a view shared by middle class white people.
advisedwang 4y ago
> IMO it seems more likely that the interests of this class, and others similar -- the lawyers, doctors, engineers -- will align more with the elite than the serfs. It often feels like this in the US. We (educated, well paid, middle class people) do have a closer cultural experience with the true elite. But despite the similar cultural experience the economic underpinnings are very different. Paying your bills from the wages of your job is categorically different from getting yield on an investment. This economic difference becomes apparent in how the system evolves - when jobs shift offshore, you might see the well paid jobs disappear while owners* continue to make profit from the offshored business. In other words, it turns out that well paid wage earners like me are actually in the same fundemental economic situation as "the serfs" even if our day to day lives look like the elite, for now. * Many working people do have stock, especially when you count retirement (thanks to the 401k). This does them owners in one sense - the do literally own part of corps and get some of their profit. But while that's still just a supplement to wages as the main income, it doesn't really matter. If you lose your job or it becomes low-paying, your ownership will dry up rapidly. It hasn't changed your position in the system.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >It often feels like this in the US. We (educated, well paid, middle class people) do have a closer cultural experience with the true elite. But despite the similar cultural experience the economic underpinnings are very different. Paying your bills from the wages of your job is categorically different from getting yield on an investment. Sure the "elite" and the "well educate and paid but still laboring for money" classes have very different economic reality but the cultural gulf between the techie and the plumber is an order of magnitude greater than any differences the "elites" and the "just barely not's" have.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Who in the United States are the "elites" exactly? This forum has many graduates from top schools in the United States and elsewhere. Many here have made millions from being early employees, investors, or founders of various startups and household name tech companies. Even Elon Musk has a day job. What does it mean to be "elite"?
  - advisedwang 4y ago
    We're agreeing on the economic and cultural realities, I think. What I'm saying is that it's the economic reality that matters, long term. The article is talking about generations long trends, and on that time scale culture is completely mutable.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

That depends on the elites (presuming Doctorow's perspective is accurate). Truly smart elites would keep the top 10% in the game. But if Doctorow is right, the elites almost always eventually get greedy and blow this, and the system then collapses, because the elites are not competent to actually run it well (and, my own addition, because the 10% quit propping up the elites' incompetence).

legitster 4y ago

Also, a lot of this analysis only makes sense to children of the elite (ie, the child of a successful author). There's a natural regression to the mean. Kids of poor parents will be better off than their parents. Kids of rich parents will be worse off than their parents. So when he looks around at his peer group, he sees the same thing - people who were worse off than their parents. But it's really only a view shared by middle class white people.

advisedwang 4y ago

> IMO it seems more likely that the interests of this class, and others similar -- the lawyers, doctors, engineers -- will align more with the elite than the serfs. It often feels like this in the US. We (educated, well paid, middle class people) do have a closer cultural experience with the true elite. But despite the similar cultural experience the economic underpinnings are very different. Paying your bills from the wages of your job is categorically different from getting yield on an investment. This economic difference becomes apparent in how the system evolves - when jobs shift offshore, you might see the well paid jobs disappear while owners* continue to make profit from the offshored business. In other words, it turns out that well paid wage earners like me are actually in the same fundemental economic situation as "the serfs" even if our day to day lives look like the elite, for now. * Many working people do have stock, especially when you count retirement (thanks to the 401k). This does them owners in one sense - the do literally own part of corps and get some of their profit. But while that's still just a supplement to wages as the main income, it doesn't really matter. If you lose your job or it becomes low-paying, your ownership will dry up rapidly. It hasn't changed your position in the system.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>It often feels like this in the US. We (educated, well paid, middle class people) do have a closer cultural experience with the true elite. But despite the similar cultural experience the economic underpinnings are very different. Paying your bills from the wages of your job is categorically different from getting yield on an investment. Sure the "elite" and the "well educate and paid but still laboring for money" classes have very different economic reality but the cultural gulf between the techie and the plumber is an order of magnitude greater than any differences the "elites" and the "just barely not's" have.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  Who in the United States are the "elites" exactly? This forum has many graduates from top schools in the United States and elsewhere. Many here have made millions from being early employees, investors, or founders of various startups and household name tech companies. Even Elon Musk has a day job. What does it mean to be "elite"?
- advisedwang 4y ago
  We're agreeing on the economic and cultural realities, I think. What I'm saying is that it's the economic reality that matters, long term. The article is talking about generations long trends, and on that time scale culture is completely mutable.