5 ms·

I think there was a historical change that has complicated our conversation about status. In the 50's, the peak of this, it seemed like many people got a 'deal

I think there was a historical change that has complicated our conversation about status. In the 50's, the peak of this, it seemed like many people got a 'deal' that went something like this: you & your work colleagues could afford a house, car, and the costs associated with several children, starting in your 20's. All of those things at a pretty high level actually (ie not a terrible unsafe house, not a broken down jalopy, etc.) In fact, only one of you in a marriage would have to work: one salary was enough. In that situation - and this is where a lot of these attitudes to status first evolved - high status can be treated as a "who cares?" thing. You and the 1950's CEO making 5x as much as you do both have a few well fed & healthy kids, right? In a hand-wavey sense you can say you're 'the same.' Well, times have changed. Now the fight is a lot more desperate. Higher status can be the difference between affording a house, or not; having kids, or not. The ability to live a middle class life is much more on the line. So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic, today, they're anything but.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Clubber 4y ago
>So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic, today, they're anything but. I disagree. There's plenty of people who are secure in their finances that you would never know about just by looking at them or hearing their name. Status is for the ego, security is way more important. You can go for status after you've achieved financial security if you so desire. The only status you need is when someone asks someone you worked with if you are good at your vocation, they say yes. If you are honest, they say yes. If you are a good person, they say yes.
robotresearcher 4y ago
> So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic Is this the same Fifties with white and colored water fountains, and where women had to leave office jobs when they married?
- atleastoptimal 4y ago
  This is an interesting, fallacious take. Basically: one thing about some time in the past was bad, thus everything about it was bad. Higher wealth disparity, based on its impact on social stability, measured independently, is bad. Racism/sexism are bad. The impact of things must be measured separately, so our ideas regarding how to improve society are higher resolution and more accurate.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Is this the 50s where you couldn't get any credit or open a brokerage account even with your good enough single salary if you weren’t white and male, heterosexual? Trying to spark introspection about how all of these things are interrelated, but clearly only to some of us.
    - atleastoptimal 4y ago
      Are you implying that the much higher home cost/average income ratio, CEO/worker pay ratio and necessity for households to be dual income to raise families nowadays vs the 50s are due to a lack of racism, sexism, and homophobia from lenders and brokers? The point of the original post was the general lower severe economic disparity in the United States in the 50s vs today. Since the 1980s the Gini coefficient in the United States has raised rapidly across all racial groups. Just because things are better for all deprivileged groups doesn't mean the American people, as a whole, aren't getting screwed over more via the increase in income inequality. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/psdt-07-12_economic_inequality-00-11/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-...
      - yieldcrv 4y ago
        No, I'm not implying that.
    - shakow 4y ago
      Are you implying it is contradictory to wish for both the wealth redistribution levels of the 50's and the human tolerance of now?
jseliger 4y ago
Now the fight is a lot more desperate. Higher status can be the difference between affording a house, or not This is a tragic statement on the way we've made abundance illegal and mandated scarcity instead—points further articulated in more detail here: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
jgil 4y ago
> it seemed like many people got a ‘deal’ > So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic, today, they're anything but. The “deal” you are referring to was largely codified racism. [1] And only cosmetic inasmuch as being granted pollution-free, affordable housing based on skin color would be considered “cosmetic.” [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-federal-government-built-white-suburbia https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-f...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Clubber 4y ago

>So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic, today, they're anything but. I disagree. There's plenty of people who are secure in their finances that you would never know about just by looking at them or hearing their name. Status is for the ego, security is way more important. You can go for status after you've achieved financial security if you so desire. The only status you need is when someone asks someone you worked with if you are good at your vocation, they say yes. If you are honest, they say yes. If you are a good person, they say yes.

robotresearcher 4y ago

> So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic Is this the same Fifties with white and colored water fountains, and where women had to leave office jobs when they married?

atleastoptimal 4y ago
This is an interesting, fallacious take. Basically: one thing about some time in the past was bad, thus everything about it was bad. Higher wealth disparity, based on its impact on social stability, measured independently, is bad. Racism/sexism are bad. The impact of things must be measured separately, so our ideas regarding how to improve society are higher resolution and more accurate.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Is this the 50s where you couldn't get any credit or open a brokerage account even with your good enough single salary if you weren’t white and male, heterosexual? Trying to spark introspection about how all of these things are interrelated, but clearly only to some of us.
  - atleastoptimal 4y ago
    Are you implying that the much higher home cost/average income ratio, CEO/worker pay ratio and necessity for households to be dual income to raise families nowadays vs the 50s are due to a lack of racism, sexism, and homophobia from lenders and brokers? The point of the original post was the general lower severe economic disparity in the United States in the 50s vs today. Since the 1980s the Gini coefficient in the United States has raised rapidly across all racial groups. Just because things are better for all deprivileged groups doesn't mean the American people, as a whole, aren't getting screwed over more via the increase in income inequality. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/psdt-07-12_economic_inequality-00-11/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-...
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      No, I'm not implying that.
  - shakow 4y ago
    Are you implying it is contradictory to wish for both the wealth redistribution levels of the 50's and the human tolerance of now?

jseliger 4y ago

Now the fight is a lot more desperate. Higher status can be the difference between affording a house, or not This is a tragic statement on the way we've made abundance illegal and mandated scarcity instead—points further articulated in more detail here: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

jgil 4y ago

> it seemed like many people got a ‘deal’ > So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic, today, they're anything but. The “deal” you are referring to was largely codified racism. [1] And only cosmetic inasmuch as being granted pollution-free, affordable housing based on skin color would be considered “cosmetic.” [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-federal-government-built-white-suburbia https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-f...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]