8 ms·
America is separating into peasants and scholar-gentry
- busterarm 13y agoInteresting post. I pretty much agree on all points and don't see solutions either. It's not always so easy to peg down where we're at though. I grew up with a Fishtown income and family life but got the Belmont education. I've been wedged in between both groups my whole life and don't really feel a belonging to either. I know very well how both live. There are a lot of problems; class divide is rapidly getting worse. It looks like this is something that a lot of people are worried about too, so some large change in either direction might be on the horizon. I'd like to hope that change is the right one, but I can't.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoIf he thinks the split is bad now, he'd have loved the 1830's!
- coldtea 13y agoOr ancient Rome or Persia. Which is beside the point -- the point being that modern society was supposed (for most of the 20th century) to be moving AWAY from all that, not back to Dickensian times or worse.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoGiven that worldwide equality is falling each year, I'd say that all is well. Also I'd note that the "educated sophisticates" are a far higher proportion of population today than before.
- devilshaircut 13y agoI am no sociologist, but I think it would be rather safe to say that to it is going to take a lot for this to change. We've clearly adapted to the divide between the mega-rich and the "middle" class, so I am not sure it is a matter of survival so much as a matter of principle. I think it would take a lot of people collectively thinking and acting differently than we do now. I am just one person, but it is my goal to live my life with the intent of turning this situation around. I believe the spirit of entrepreneurship, which is generally well-supported on HN, is a piece of this - designing and building the next generation of companies who choose to conduct business in ways that support (rather than exploit) the middle class. Hence, I am an entrepreneur.
- mhurron 13y ago> Hence, I am an entrepreneur. Petite bourgeoisie. How wonderful, everything that was old is new again.
- devilshaircut 13y agoI suppose that is a derogatory remark, but I never claimed that to be an entrepreneur is a new thing. It is demonstrably not. What I did try to suggest is that it is perhaps a good way to deconstruct this problem.
- rayiner 13y agoHe didn't say that being an entrepreneur is a new thing. He made a reference to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ("Petite bourgeoisie ... is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.") Ultimately, I think business, whether you're talking about small ones or big ones, socially responsible ones or irresponsible ones, are neither the problem nor the solution. In a market economy, the health of the middle class is function of the supply versus the demand for labor. Being a well-intentioned entrepreneur isn't going to have any impact on the equilibrium. The minute you become big enough to have a non-zero impact, you'll be big enough to feel the heat of competition from China, India, etc, and will be forced to adopt whatever labor-saving measures they adopt.
- devilshaircut 13y agoI understand the term. I was trying to underscore (unsuccessfully, apparently) that my original point was to be an entrepreneur whose principles depart from that of the current establishment. In other words, what I was suggesting was the exact opposite. I could only interpret the response as a glib remark that to be an entrepreneur in any sense necessarily makes you an imitator of this establishment. My view on this, however, is slightly less cynical.
- morenoh149 13y agoI like this post. How do we solve this as a society? Sometimes I wonder when the earth will reach it's maximum number of human inhabitants. Will there me a meritocratic system for reproduction? What factors will/can be taken into account?
- nly 13y agoWhen the Earth reaches peak human occupancy, it's likely nobody will feel the need to do anything about it. Whatever reproduction rate we're at at equilibrium will then be perceived as completely normal.
- ams6110 13y agoJust the other day I got my hair cut in a poor white neighborhood, and the barber spent the whole time telling me about "that bitch" who was the mother of his children. Hm. My barber talks that way too, in fact that could easily be a direct quote. And his shop is in a very liberal, progressive university town. Maybe that's just the way guys talk when there's no women around?
- icarus127 13y agoNone of the guys I'm around, nor myself, think that's okay just because women aren't present.
- beachstartup 13y agoplenty of the guys i'm around do, and plenty don't. i would posit that you're not getting as whole a picture (definitely of men, possibly of women) as you could if nobody you know does.
- icarus127 13y agoMy point was not that no guys do, of course I know some do. The OP used 'guys' to seemingly include all men. My point was that, no, not all men do, so you don't get to play the "everyone does it so it's okay" rationalization card.
- beachstartup 13y agothat gave me a chuckle. good luck with passing judgment on what you think is "okay" and "not okay" to say on people in real life.
- rhizome 13y agoMy point was that, no, not all men do, so you don't get to play the "everyone does it so it's okay" rationalization card. Well, we aren't stupid either, and I'm sure most of us didn't take it that way, so if you want to address the contextual nature of his comment then maybe do that instead of scandalizing yourself in pity for the silent nongeneralizers.
- benaston 13y agoPeople with education and good parents are at the table playing the game. The poor and disadvantaged are playing a different game, with its own pressures and psychological frame. Decision making is dependant on psychological frame, and decisions made by players either game look strange to players in the other. The OP makes the mistake of moralising when he should be empathising.
- IanDrake 13y agoThe problem with that thinking is the poor and uneducated make demands on the educated and productive. If they want to live in squalor, who am I to judge. If they want what I have, I have something to say about that.
- benaston 13y agoSurely you don't begrudge them wanting/aspiring to something better. I presume you mean that if they expect to have the trappings of success without putting in any effort then you have something to say. But even then, that is merely an expectation that will remain unfulfilled. If a group of people actually receives the trappings of success without effort then, I agree with you, but this is not born out by everyday experience. The poor and disadvantaged are comparatively, well, poor and disadvantaged when compared to the successful. So, if my anecdotal experience matches reality then the problem becomes, "how best to help?".
- judk 13y agoYou were born poor an educated before wealth and educaion where poured on your head. OK, this is HN, so I'm sure you lifted yourself by your bootstraps out of the dirt. But the majority of your neighbors did not.
- mcantelon 13y ago>the American government was responsible for much of the social equality The people that fought for social equality are the ones who are responsible for making it politically desirable. After their fight came the post-war economic boom which made US labor an economically valuable resource worth treating well. Globalization and the rise of automation now brings us back to considering US labor a surplus to be had cheap. Government policy will likely claw back expenses that contribute to social equality accordingly until unrest grows.
- rodgerd 13y ago> The people that fought for social equality are the ones who are responsible for making it politically desirable. Absolutely, but I'm pretty sure when writing for a US audience it's foolish to so much as hint that good working conditions may in any way relate to the work of union organisation.
- amerika_blog 13y agoThe scholar-gentry are false elites who have no idea how disconnected from reality they are. Source: former one, fall from grace, mostly by choice.
- thenerdfiles 13y agoOP's picture of our economic reality is overly simplistic. The Urban Archipaelogo[0] is the new era of politics, not this false stratification/dichotomy of proletariat, bourgeoise, and archetypes in between, which cannot explain network effects. Class is a spectrum condition/disorder of society. Or to put it another way: Poverty is a disease of economies. [0]: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813
- zw123456 13y agoI saw that article as well and almost posted it. Very interesting cross thoughts between the Stranger article and the Noah Smith article. Everyone agrees that there is this is happening but no one seems to know what to do about it.
- frooxie 13y ago> scholar-gentry We prefer to be called "Eloi-American".
- jeorgun 13y agoGoing by Neal Stephenson, surely the scholar-class would be the Morlocks in this particular analogy :P
- MarkPNeyer 13y agowhat book is that from?
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoIn the Beginning was the Command Line
- r0s 13y agoPlease, Mentat.
- jfb 13y agoOf course, we're still just the shoe-shine boys of the ruling elite.
- judk 13y agoNo room for false humility here. The upper middle class are collaborators, taking part in the oppression of the working class in exchange for being lifted above it. The mercenaries of class warfare.
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoPretty much, except for those of us trying to find the big red button we push to bring the whole thing crashing down. Yes, I know how that sounds. Sorry, but I don't want to maintain and support a system in which my parents, my friends, and my children all face a steady worsening of their lives just because they're not programmers and don't have a million in assets. This society can either fix itself, or it is becoming something worth destroying.
- clarkm 13y agoThe book is really good and definitely worth a read, especially for the analysis he presents in the first few chapters. The "Fishtown" vs. "Belmont" graphs are brilliant. They do a great job illustrating just how much trends in marriage vary between classes. The upper 20% still marry and divorce at the same rates they did in the 60s, but the bottom 30% has changed dramatically. Murray also does great analysis on what he calls "SuperZIPs": the zip codes in the top 5% of combined income and education. You can see you score here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2013/11/09/washington-a-world-apart/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2013/11/09/washington... It's not just neighborhoods where the elites cluster -- it's entire regions.
- aidenn0 13y agoApparently, I grew up in 96th percentile zip-code, but bordered on a 99 and 2 98s.
- redthrowaway 13y agoCounterpoint from David Frum, a guy I disagree with on many issues but nonetheless respect immensely: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-murray-book-review.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-mur...
- tesseractive 13y agoThank you for this link. I've only gotten through part 1 so far, but it's a devastating critique of Murray's framing of the problem. One particularly interesting bit: > As I looked backward and forward in time, however, I had to face this awkward fact: America became more culturally stable between 1910 and 1960 as it became less economically and socially libertarian. As it became more economically and socially libertarian after 1970, America became culturally less stable: > "The greatest generation was also the statist generation. Like them or loathe them, the middle decades of the twentieth century were an entirely anomalous period in American history. Never had the state been so strong, never had people submitted as uncomplainingly, never had the country been more economically equal, never had it been more ethnically homogeneous, seldom was its political consensus more overpowering."
- AndrewKemendo 13y agoThis is another example of caging the eyes to a nation when the network effects are global. Worldwide inequality is falling, that is well documented. So the Keynesian prognostication about a life of desirable idleness based on re-investment of capital into local markets and automation was slowed because the capital found cheaper means than automation for growth. So when you want to talk about social equality look at the impact global capitalism had on South Korea from 1950-today (as just one example).
- notdrunkatall 13y ago>This is another example of caging the eyes to a nation when the network effects are global. Nicely said.
- warfangle 13y agoLet's also talk about the impact of global capitalism on Nigeria (as a counter-example)[0]. 0. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/africa_polluting_nigeria/html/1.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/afr...
- AndrewKemendo 13y agoDepends on your measure. The Nigerian GDP is a hockey stick from 2000 to today while the GINI is mixed. http://data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria http://data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria
- warfangle 13y agoGDP isn't the only variable that matters.
- capisce 13y agoWhere is the documentation for worldwide inequality falling? According to this page for instance GINI (a measure of inequality) has been rising in most countries since the 1980s: http://geo-mexico.com/?p=5044 http://geo-mexico.com/?p=5044
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- steveplace 13y agoRemember when HN was about programming and startups, not class warfare and income inequality? That was nice.
- fiatmoney 13y agoWhat does it say that HN is becoming increasingly aware of these issues? For that matter, a hell of a lot of startups are predicated on the existence of a large middle class as a mass consumer market.
- tesseractive 13y agoIndeed. And middle-class consumer demand not only drives significant parts of the economy directly, it has major spin-off effects that impact the health as the economy as a whole and the potential healthy growth rate of the economy. For anyone who depends on a healthy, growing economy for their livelihood and/or wealth, there's a pretty good case to be made that it is in your enlightened self-interest to do anything within reason to promote a large, prosperous middle class with the surplus purchasing power to drive future economic growth.
- a3n 13y agoThis should be on every CEO's wall when he wakes up in the morning.
- tsotha 13y ago>What does it say that HN is becoming increasingly aware of these issues? All it says is HN is more of a general social media site instead of one with a laser focus on startups.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago>For that matter, a hell of a lot of startups are predicated on the existence of a large middle class as a mass consumer market. And an economy dominated by the Finance, Insurance and Real-Estate sector can't support the mass consumer market start-ups need.
- jseliger 13y agoBasically, America is separating into aristocrats and peasants. There's one very, very important difference: aristocrats were generally in a heritable position that couldn't be taken from them, and peasants were generally in a heritable position from which they couldn't rise. In the U.S., at least, relatively wealthy / successful people can fall and relatively poor / unsuccessful people can rise. In classic feudal societies, this was basically impossible without revolutions. To be honest, I have no idea what will do the trick. There is unlikely to be another WW2, another G.I. bill, another 50s-type broad-based economic boom. This is really true, and it's arguably the most important part of this blog post, of Tyler Cowen's recent book Average is Over, and in many of the more honest discussions by people who are trying to get a handle of what's going on in the larger world.
- smtddr 13y ago>>There's one very, very important difference: aristocrats were generally in a heritable position that couldn't be taken from them, and peasants were generally in a heritable position from which they couldn't rise. In the U.S., at least, relatively wealthy / successful people can fall and relatively poor / unsuccessful people can rise. In classic feudal societies, this was basically impossible without revolutions. That's true for now. But the way things are heading; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The barrier dividing the 2 gets a little harder to cross every year.
- Spooky23 13y agoYou're right -- Ye olden aristocrats had land, and land produced rents and taxes. Today's plutocrats aren't in as stable a position as a feudal lord, but many are in effect landlords, either literally or figuratively via control of critical businesses. The postwar US was a totally different story. Europe and Asia's losses were our gain. The government had billions of dollars in off book debt, (ie. social security trust fund) and used that capital to launch the computer revolution. Will it happen again? I wouldn't dismiss it... No nation is more strategically embedded in the new information economy than the US. At the end of the day, the US is the devil the world knows and needs.
- 13y ago
- InclinedPlane 13y agoSome reasons why this is becoming so: Labor laws make it difficult for people in lower income tiers to climb up the income ladder. It's difficult for people who are working less than fulltime jobs to work more hours because of the "40hr = benefits" laws, so instead folks have to work multiple jobs which adds transportation costs and scheduling complexities. The preponderance of regulations and complex taxes has made it more difficult to start many types of companies as an individual, putting them out of reach of folks who don't have significant savings and existing income. Public education is no longer as much of a guarantor of basic literacy as it once was, so college education is increasingly becoming a necessary credential for many office work, knowledge work, and "professional" jobs, putting those out of the reach of many low income folks who are put off by taking on so much student loan debt or can't afford to support themselves and put themselves through college at the same time. Similarly, anti-blue-collar sentiment has grown, devaluing such jobs culturally and discouraging people from pursuing such positions, even though many are well paying and can serve as spring boards to even higher paying jobs (e.g. self-employment). Moreover, the reduction in vocational training, shop classes, and so forth in public schooling has pushed a lot of those jobs even farther away from the average American adult. The War on Drugs: which impacts lower income, blue-collar, and non-white people more. If you get caught with weed as a sub-urban white teen you'll face different consequences than if you're an inner-city black teen. Some of these trends will hopefully turn around, especially with the help of the internet in terms of education, crowd funding, and so forth, but it's still going to be a pretty difficult problem for some time.