Turn on thread page Beta

'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal' watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I've always believed in equality of opportunity, anybody with any common sense should...
    Aha, now you sound more like an old style Liberal :smile: Does this mean you're not a follower of Hayek?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are you sure? I've seen a few tables of immigrant numbers for various periods in US history and all of them show British immigration as the most. Not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious if you have any tables/figures for interest.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...Ancestries.jpg

    It took dreams on paper to suck in so many different people, and unify them into one strong nation.
    A bit more dreamy than the reality. They weren't keen on sucking in the Chinese at one time, and immigration restrictions were very popular ideas in the late 1910's.
    Only Asian Americans (despite Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese Internment) are as rich as average americans out of all minorities. The rest remain poor. And within those groups, the ones who are lighter skinned (like spanish descended Hispanics for example) and those who are most willing to adopt the white man's way of life, are more likely to do well. US history is steeped in WASP racism.
    So because the US was quite hostile to Asian immigrants at one point, it isn't a strong nation of unified immigrants from different ethnicities? Whether some groups were never truly sucked in or not, the fact remains that the US was sucessful in sucking in the majority of its population from various European ethnic groups. These groups do not ever conflict, because they don't even see each other separate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Aha, now you sound more like an old style Liberal :smile: Does this mean you're not a follower of Hayek?
    Huh? If you think Hayek opposed equality of opportunity, you don't know anything about him.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    These groups do not ever conflict, because they don't even see each other separate.
    The whites grouped together, sure. But you do find black riots, you did find the Indian occupation of alcatraz, you did have the Brown Berets etc

    Huh? If you think Hayek opposed equality of opportunity, you don't know anything about him.
    I meant his occasioanally poisonous references to the illiterate lazy working classes. Though I do not know much about him.
    Offline

    18
    Now see when i talk about poverty and poor health care amongst the poorest americans and th injustice of the system within america which seems to serve to hold the status quo i usually get bombarded with the american members shouting at me.
    Is it coz i iz liberal?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Americans seem to think liberal is synonymous with left wing. They have such a narrow spectrum that all mainstream politics is on the right.

    At least we have SNP, PC, SSP SDLF, SF, RESPECT, Greens etc to give some variety!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Now see when i talk about poverty and poor health care amongst the poorest americans and th injustice of the system within america which seems to serve to hold the status quo i usually get bombarded with the american members shouting at me.
    Is it coz i iz liberal?
    haha, that comment made me chuckle :p:

    To be fair, Healthcare doesn't really come into this at all, it is a completely different issue altogether that requires closer attention.

    The issue here is addressing social mobility, and it is focusing more on education and society rather than healthcare
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Americans seem to think liberal is synonymous with left wing. They have such a narrow spectrum that all mainstream politics is on the right.

    At least we have SNP, PC, SSP SDLF, SF, RESPECT, Greens etc to give some variety!
    Meh, the Americans have a Green Party, but its about as influential as the British green party (no seats)
    Most of the Parties you mention above a more like pressure groups really, I mean, I seriously doubt RESPECT are actually aiming to be in government, it just won't happen.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    But what do you mean by equality of opportunity? Do you mean everyone has a school to go to, everyone has a university place? Or do you mean we need to create a stable society and reintroduce family life so people aren't disadvantaged before they even go to school? To do that, we need to eradicate the social diseases Thatcherism caused.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, I seriously doubt RESPECT are actually aiming to be in government, it just won't happen.
    You haven't been so our meetings! Muahahah!

    At least SNP, PC, SDLP RESPECT have seats in parliament (as well as SF) and those and the others have a couple of hundred council seats between them at least. The USA doesn't even have that! Eve in the Great Depression the US left got very poor showings. At least here there is a trade union tradition entrenched into the fabric of the society.

    British Politics would be a lot more boring without them. Imagine election night with only 3 or 4 candidates in ever seat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    The whites grouped together, sure. But you do find black riots, you did find the Indian occupation of alcatraz, you did have the Brown Berets etc
    We should poll our American readers and ask them if they see themselves as Prussian, English, Belarusian or American.

    I meant his occasioanally poisonous references to the illiterate lazy working classes. Though I do not know much about him.
    I don't know much about those remarks, but if workers are illiterate and lazy, they aren't going to go up the social class ladder anyway. The middle-classes organise the production of wealth, and are responsible for most innovation. The middle-classes are a result of social mobility. Therefore, I think it's only natural for any clear-thinking economist to support as much social mobility as possible: Let the dead weight in the MCs sink, let the best WCs we breed rise and prosper.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    All men are created equal; no one said they must end up equally. The best indicator of future income is education level. More than half of Americans go to university, though have of them don't finish their degree. Just because many people choose not to be socially mobile by not getting an education doesn't mean that there is anything inherently wrong with our system. As long as everyone has the opportunity to make a good living, the system is fair. I don't see why some people want to see equal results.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why some people want to see equal results.
    Because they are socialists
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Because they are socialists
    Well as I said in the past, only 4 groups of people really care about equality:

    1. Intellectuals, because money is of no value to them. They're guaranteed a job regardless of the nonsense they spout.

    2. Students, because they are too idealistic and don't have any real knowledge of the way the world functions.

    3. The stupid, because a system based on merit will discriminate against them.

    4. The lazy, because they'd prefer to get paid the same amount of money regardless of how much (or little) they worked.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Well as I said in the past, only 4 groups of people really care about equality:

    1. Intellectuals, because money is of no value to them. They're guaranteed a job regardless of the nonsense they spout.

    2. Students, because they are too idealistic and don't have any real knowledge of the way the world functions.

    3. The stupid, because a system based on merit will discriminate against them.

    4. The lazy, because they'd prefer to get paid the same amount of money regardless of how much (or little) they worked.
    I care about equality of opportunity, and I can't relate to any of the above...
    Do you not feel it is important to have equality of opportunity? Would you rather society was modelled on an aristocracy, rather than opportunism and entrepreneurial ethos?
    IMO, you would have to be quite a mindless individual to "not care" about equality.

    Do you not believe in the American dream? Perhaps more importantly, do you want to believe in the American dream?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Now see when i talk about poverty and poor health care amongst the poorest americans and th injustice of the system within america which seems to serve to hold the status quo i usually get bombarded with the american members shouting at me.
    Is it coz i iz liberal?
    Healthcare is free for poor Americans.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I care about equality of opportunity, and I can't relate to any of the above...
    Do you not feel it is important to have equality of opportunity? Would you rather society was modelled on an aristocracy, rather than opportunism and entrepreneurial ethos?
    IMO, you would have to be quite a mindless individual to "not care" about equality.

    Do you not believe in the American dream? Perhaps more importantly, do you want to believe in the American dream?
    If someone has a choice to become rich, but doesn't take it, does that mean that he never had a choice in the first place? I went to a public university where 40% of the people were immigrants, over 90% of whom got a well-paying job straight out of uni, so I think I know what the American dream is and that it's alive and well. The only Americans who are poor are either lazy, stupid, or a combination of the two (I'll make an exception for the seriously ill).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If someone has a choice to become rich, but doesn't take it, does that mean that he never had a choice in the first place? I went to a public university where 40% of the people were immigrants, over 90% of whom got a well-paying job straight out of uni, so I think I know what the American dream is and that it's alive and well. The only Americans who are poor are either lazy, stupid, or a combination of the two (I'll make an exception for the seriously ill).
    Well I can understand why you feel the American dream is alive and well. A poll carried out by the New York Times revealed that twice as many Americans feel their chances of moving up a social class have increased in the past 30 years than those who feel their chances have gone down.
    Most Americans feel they are more well-off than their parents.
    It is therefore fair to say that there is plenty of optimism in the air, which is great.

    However, depite this growing optimism, fewer Americans are actually changing their social position. As I have already quoted somewhere, 15million less Americans today are moving up social classes than they were in the 1970s.
    Are you telling me theres 15million more lazy people in America now than there was in the 1970s?

    People from the lowest social groups are now being blocked out from the top jobs aswell. 70% of chief executives now have an HE degree, compared to less than 40% in 1970. This overwhelmingly is the preserve of those from higher social classes.

    Whilst i'm sure that 90% of those at your university got straight into a well-paid job, this is unfortunately not the case for the vast majority of Americans, with the lower classes struggling to get even a college degree.

    As the economist puts it: "If America is a ladder, the rungs have just been moved further apart".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    However, depite this growing optimism, fewer Americans are actually changing their social position. As I have already quoted somewhere, 15million less Americans today are moving up social classes than they were in the 1970s.
    And yet the rate of poverty in the last decade is the lowest America has ever seen. And once again, if more people are choosing a life of poverty, why does that mean that social mobility is dying? America is not a socialist country; our government (usually) doesn't force people to do things against their will, even if those things are considered to be for their own well-being.

    People from the lowest social groups are now being blocked out from the top jobs aswell. 70% of chief executives now have an HE degree, compared to less than 40% in 1970. This overwhelmingly is the preserve of those from higher social classes.
    Firstly, I never realized that the only way (or the best way for that matter) to succeed is to become a CEO. More importantly, what makes you think you have to be rich to get a Masters? Most people with business-related degrees from public universities have their employers pay for their MBA. A Masters degree from a top university will set you back less than $100,000 (including living expenses), which isn't that much considering that people going for these degrees are expected to have several years of work experience and get up to $18,500 in guaranteed government loans per year. Anyone with a will to get a Masters, will find a way to get one regardless of how poor they are. America is also not a corporatist state. The American dream is often defined as succeeding in your own business, not by becoming an executive for someone else's, and you'll find that successful entrepreneurs from Gates to Dell to Walton made their fortunes without having any college degrees.

    Whilst i'm sure that 90% of those at your university got straight into a well-paid job, this is unfortunately not the case for the vast majority of Americans, with the lower classes struggling to get even a college degree.

    As the economist puts it: "If America is a ladder, the rungs have just been moved further apart".
    If immigrants who come to the US with nothing can get a college degree, why can't native-born Americans? An education at a public university is virtually free, and any costs can be more than offset by grants from the government and student loans. Anyone can get a college degree if they so choose. You're excusing the criminal and blaming the society for the crime (i.e. not getting an education and therefore becoming poor).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    This shocking research suggests that "America is becoming a stratified society based on education: a meritocracy
    How is that shocking? America has always been a meritocracy. Thats the entire basis of it.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.