It's always been the idea and should be that those who do right,act honest and work hard even if they don't work smart, should have upward mobility, as in regardless of birth you can enter the lower mid-class tier. Obviously your talent and skill should and would determine your mobility to upper and upper-middle class.
Society benefits when the best scientists are working on science, the best mathematicians at math, the best musicians are performing, and even when the best athletes are playing pro sports. I’d like these talented people to be able to develop, showcase, and benefit from their talents without regard to who their parents are.
Thomas More, Utopia
That kind of work is still valued, just less so than before. It makes sense to supplement low incomes with UBI or negative income tax, so that no one is denied a tolerably comfortable life. Our social safety nets are totally unfit for the present world, they're still built for the assumption that high-paying manual work is everywhere.
I hope those of us that didn't go to MIT like you have a place in this society.
Well, I suppose you could perform random shuffling. 50% of people will still end up with a below average outcome, though.
His point is that true social mobility would be literally hitting the random button repeatedly. It's obviously not a workable idea.
Someone has to lose, even if you perform a magical full reset once per year, in any given year half of the people will be below average.
The goal of course is that we make sure that everyone has a decent life even if they're not at the top.
I think you've jumped on his comment and assumed that he doesn't care at all about anyone who's not in the top N% which isn't a charitable reading.
Holding a 4-year bachelors degree puts you in about the top 1/3rd in academic outcomes (meaning you personally are 50/50 to be in the top 1/6th).
It's not for me nor anyone else to define your ceiling, but I would expect based on the limited data presented and, to the extent that academics is a predictor of outcome, that your outcome would be quite likely to be above the average. That you're engaged on news.yc is another generally positively correlated term I would think.
Doesn't sound like a desirable society.
I see every increment of improvement a parent (or other guiding figure) helps a child to achieve as being like a small hammer tap improving the future for that child and the society in which they will go on to live.
The fact that, regardless of anything anyone does, many will lead an average life is just straightforward application of the Intermediate Value Theorem. To be clear, I said “average” not “unenjoyable”; in fact, I tried to quite explicitly/literally say the opposite, but perhaps my words were chosen poorly or otherwise misled the reader.
A large number of these small hammer taps though can improve that average greatly over time, as we’ve experienced over the generations since humans have lived in societies. In about 14 generations we went from first proving the Earth revolved around the sun to landing humans on the moon. Fourteen! Four generations from the patent of the telephone to the release of NCSA Mosaic. Four! One more generation and most of us are carrying around Star Trek communicators that we can use to argue with each other about how to best shape educational processes for societal benefit.
The pace and inexorability of academic and technical progress blows my mind. I think we should be very cautious about disrupting that in the pursuit of perfect equality of outcome.
Of course parents should invest in their kids and try to give them every opportunity. But, there's a big difference between parents investing in their kids and advocating a status quo that every parent "scrimp, save, and sacrifice" to give their kids a fighting chance. It's a poor design.
One, it will invariably leave some kids behind, especially given our current wealth disparities. And, yes, even some "gifted" kids will be left behind.
Two, giving kids opportunities shouldn't bury parents and push them to the brink. Education is too high. Housing is too high, etc. In many cities, housing costs are driven by a desire for areas with better public schools, pushing them so high that they are out of reach for many.
So, no amount of scrimping, sacrificing, etc. will allow people of certain income levels to provide their kids certain opportunities. They're doing these things just to survive.
Three, there is an opportunity threshold that provides for a minimum reasonable expectation for a good quality life. Beyond that, it's largely incremental. For too many, that minimum threshold is uncrossable, irrespective of their best efforts.
And, this doesn't even speak to the fact that stressed out parents working multiple jobs to provide these opportunities spend less time with their kids--that being a proven marker of outcomes.
The result: what you advocate is unhealthy and unworkable. This "scrimp & sacrifice" scheme is sub-optimal for both personal fulfillment and maximizing social contributions. Both things are necessary for a happy, thriving society.
Elsewhere you said you'd like to "ensure people of all conditions can develop their potential". Advocating that each parent scrimp & sacrifice is in direct opposition to this.
>To be clear, I said “average” not “unenjoyable”
You also said:
>If you’re the average person, I think it’s reasonable to expect an average outcome. In the modern world that should still be quite an enjoyable life
If average people have average outcomes, leading to an enjoyable life, then it stands to reason that "below-average" people will have below average outcomes, leading to...what exactly?
I think you want to sweep that under the rug b/c it doesn't comport with your "hey, if all parents just scrimp & sacrifice everything will be OK" proposition.
In all, your theories about how things should work necessarily omit the existence of a large portion of the population: everyone is somehow "average" and above, providing an "enjoyable" life for all, and parents investing in their kids means foregoing one extra Starbucks run per-week.
On the average life point, I think you're reading something into the text that isn't there. I think 95% of people or more have enjoyable lives. Everyone enjoys eating and socializing with their family and friends. Absent terrible health issues, most everyone can have an enjoyable life and those who don't probably are limited by medical, psychological, or other factors which are typically not primarily educational/financial.
Stating that the average life is quite enjoyable doesn't imply to me that the 25th percentile or 10th percentile life is dire. Both of my grandfathers had relatively tough lives, certainly much more difficult than my parents or my own. Both of them also seemed to relish every month and every year and enjoy it, even if they didn't enjoy every single hour (neither do I).
It would be as if saying "the average RGB pixel color of your screen is #aaaaaa, which is still quite bright" led to the conclusion that a great many pixels on the screen were #000000 and that's unfair.
Society doesn't benefit from this. Low-status jobs still have to be filled, at least until technology eliminates them. Making sure that your kids aren't the ones that do them isn't a benefit to anyone but you and your kids.
> I believe that having and even encouraging parents to strive, scrimp, save, and sacrifice for their children is an overall positive force for society.
This is less a thing that doctors have to do than a thing that plumbers have to do.
Its purely additive. Being well off doesn't mean you can't do these jobs, just that better options are available. Market forces will make the pay desirable if they are needed more than they currently are.
>This is less a thing that doctors have to do than a thing that plumbers have to do.
Sure, but it doesn't change the fact it's a good idea. I'd even argue that most blue collar jobs, in having less obligations and a more clock-in-clock-out mentality, frees up parents to spend more time with their children.
The alternative is that you end up with nonsense like hungry grads working at FAANG to fuck the world.
Channeling people into useful pursuits pays dividends.
It is not about society’s accommodation/assistance of specifically the gifted but rather about ensuring that people of all conditions can develop their potential. Society should care about this because it’s the long-term flywheel that improves the human condition.
The pie can get bigger, too. It’s not just about dividing a fixed pie most evenly.
The practical world is full of interesting problems. Gifted humans need to really feel useful (to put their gift at use) more than they need the matching income.
furthermore, there may be a lot of overlap between useful/important and interesting work, but I doubt they map perfectly. there probably needs to be some material reward for important work so that it gets done even if it's boring.
I certainly don't think we have a great state of affairs today. some people get paid huge amounts of money to do work that I feel is harmful. imo the goal should be to take care of everyone's basic needs, but also to reward people proportionately for their contribution to society.
Compared to what?
Doesn't society most benefit from members who are fulfilled via actualization of their potential? Wouldn't that mean more content people and more contributions to society?
Is requiring parents to "scrimp, save, and sacrifice" really the optimal design for achieving this?
I think it's likely that society will probably work better with high mobility vs the random draw that "perfect" mobility requires, but that's a fuzzy feeling based on human groups being complex, not the distilled moralization that you are using.
I suppose the less complicated discussion is about raising the baseline outcome being better than working to make outcomes the same. Raising the baseline is about absolute outcomes rather than relative outcomes, so the latter aren't as big a piece of the discussion.
Worse: you are punishing poor children who don't draw parents who sacrifice everything until they rest in an early grave, while rich children who have parents who don't remember how many kids they have after a few drinks get every opportunity in the world.
This is a specifically middle-class moralization that defines merit as the product of the ability to suffer and "giftedness," and measures merit by looking at outcomes.
There’s a huge distance between the majority of parents who “care” in that way and those who truly care about their children.
The flip side is that parents who could not ordinarily build for their kids' futures might feel better. I wonder if that's enough to compensate.
But I'm saying that I think that because humans and groups of humans are complicated, not just because I think it's important to reward parents that value and plan for their children's future.
I believe that raising the next generation is our most solemn obligation as parents. It seems overwhelmingly likely that this would confer some benefit to the more well-to-do that cannot be entirely eliminated short of universal boarding schools and even that might not be enough.
Why do children of professors grow up to be professors, doctors to doctors, plumbers to plumbers, etc? I’m sure there’s some genetic component, but I suspect the overwhelming influence is what they experienced and how they were raised. When I was growing up, both my parents were teachers and at some young age, I just assumed that literally every adult was a teacher. It was the only job I knew and saw daily.
I believe that having and even encouraging parents to strive, scrimp, save, and sacrifice for their children is an overall positive force for society. My parents benefited greatly from it, as did I, as will my kids. If you took the actions required to make outcomes totally uncorrelated, I think you’d remove a lot of this sacrifice and effort that society benefits from when parents raise their kids to be “better off” than they were.