[psychomansam]

Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?

Social mobility is important, but it's a subset of the equality issue. In a fully socialist state with full and total equality, there would be no social mobility. I'm not suggesting such a state, merely pointing out the difference. Social mobility is a subset of equality since it is essentially a certain type of equality of opportunity.

[Sloper]

Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?

Well, the discussion seems to have reached the point where we seem agreed that it's pretty hard to achieve equality and perhaps not as desirable as it would first seem?

I'd have to disagree on the "impossibility" of social mobility (my exaggeration) though.

Social mobility is entirely possible. It depends entirely on how motivated the individual is.

I am the first in my family to go on to HE. But I did it through vocational routes and funded it myself (read, spent every penny I could save and worked my arse off to raise the fees).

Upto and including a postgrad Dip in my thirties with a new born, studying at home and working full time.

I found numerous organisations, who assist people wanting to advance, within my (maritime) industry.

Most professional bodies seem to provide routes to Corporate membership (mine was IMAREST and IIMS but I also had a grant from The Institute of Mechanical Engineers).

And I went from Apprentice Fitter and Turner, to Chartered Engineer and Marine Surveyor.

If you have drive and work, you can raise your standard of living, regardless of where you start.

It's fair to say the lower you start, the harder it will be.

It will always be difficult to reach the very top and most people reach a point where the effort required to advance further seems to be a poor value trade. The cost too high.
They reach a point of Enough.

Sloper seems to be arguing for greater opportunity for social mobility. And really, that phrase means reward for industry and effort. Sam seems to have given up on the human race. And we all would like to see everything improved for the least able.
Can I ask what people think is "fair"?

If we wish to even things out a bit, how should we do it?

Indeed I am arguing for greater opportunities for social mobility as it is the ossification of social mobility which is substantially responsible for the increase in liquid asset / income inequality (capital asset and divi inequality is I think a separate issue and inequality here is driven by asset inflation etc).

Seekeing to resolve inequality by extracting monies from the wealthy and redistributing the same is doomed not only to failure but will tend to make the absolute poverty of those at the bottom worse when, as it must, the pot of cash to distribute runs dry.

[Sloper]

Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?

Social mobility is important, but it's a subset of the equality issue. In a fully socialist state with full and total equality, there would be no social mobility. I'm not suggesting such a state, merely pointing out the difference. Social mobility is a subset of equality since it is essentially a certain type of equality of opportunity.

JFCOAB, I do hope you're trolling. 

If you're not then dear god you need to think a little bit more about the Spartist bollocks that you post. 

and just to be clear; your post is a classic 'I'm not a racist . . . but'

[a dense loner]

Can someone just use words that a knobhead can understand?

[psychomansam]

Should this thread really be called the social mobility issue?

Social mobility is important, but it's a subset of the equality issue. In a fully socialist state with full and total equality, there would be no social mobility. I'm not suggesting such a state, merely pointing out the difference. Social mobility is a subset of equality since it is essentially a certain type of equality of opportunity.

JFCOAB, I do hope you're trolling. 

If you're not then dear god you need to think a little bit more about the Spartist bollocks that you post. 

and just to be clear; your post is a classic 'I'm not a racist . . . but'

There are three lines to your post and I can't see sense in any of them. Are you drunk?

[a dense loner]

I see 5 lines, but I have had a can and a small bottle so could be mistaken

[tomtom]

'I'm not a lawyer but....'

[andy popp]

Everyone interested in this topic should listen to Evan Davis interview renowned economic historian Deirdre McCloskey on Analysis on Radio 4 tomorrow (Monday) evening, 8.30

Agree with her or not McCloskey is always worth listening to.

[Falling Down]

He writes a good article on her and Spikety (sp?) in this weeks Speccie that should be online in a couple of days.

[andy popp]

Sounds good, I'm going to miss the broadcast as I'll be away but hope to hear it when I get back.

McCloskey and I may be kind of colleagues next year as I think we'll both have visiting posts at the same place. I hope to get a chance to meet her.

[Falling Down]

  Prof Popp, you're too cool for skool... That's great.

[Stu Littlefair]

That is a great article by Davis - who neatly identifies the issue at heart, who are the rich, really? Are they entrepreneurs who were first movers with important innovations, or lazy heiresses sitting on a pile of inherited wealth. The answer of course is both, and everyone seems to have their own instinctive feeling for which group dominates but I've never come across sound evidence either way.

BTW - the economist has a seemingly well-rounded blog on the "piketty made it up" accusations. My reading of that seems to be that there aren't really any problems you wouldn't find in any other vast collection of messy data, but that may be my inherent biases playing up - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/05/inequality-0

[Oldmanmatt]

This is great, interesting and revealing.
But.

Is it really the point?

Is the accumulation of wealth, by the few, actually the cause of poverty for so many?

Equality suggests an levelling of wealth and most seem to believe that redistribution of wealth is the answer.

Surely redistribution = devaluation.

Without motivation to trade, wealth is meaningless.

Equality is impossible with the current economic system and only possible with a radically different, global, paradigm shift to a wholly new form of society.

[ghisino]

That is a great article by Davis - who neatly identifies the issue at heart, who are the rich, really? Are they entrepreneurs who were first movers with important innovations, or lazy heiresses sitting on a pile of inherited wealth. The answer of course is both, and everyone seems to have their own instinctive feeling for which group dominates but I've never come across sound evidence either way.

wait a minute.

i see an intellectual problem.

the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.

to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.

thats a much better effort than divine right but still...

[Oldmanmatt]

That is a great article by Davis - who neatly identifies the issue at heart, who are the rich, really? Are they entrepreneurs who were first movers with important innovations, or lazy heiresses sitting on a pile of inherited wealth. The answer of course is both, and everyone seems to have their own instinctive feeling for which group dominates but I've never come across sound evidence either way.

wait a minute.

i see an intellectual problem.

the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.

to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.

thats a much better effort than divine right but still...

The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.

Not forced, implying a choice (albeit constrained by circumstance).

And, fundamentally, no different from paying a Carpenter to put in your new floor, or a Glazier to replace a broken window. If there was a market for shoe lickers, shoe lickers there would be.

We can't call the uber rich Capitalists without also including the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker.

If you work, in any way, you sell your abilities to someone, for your own profit.

And there is choice.

If you were a Barrister, you could continue to sell your professional skills, or; should you be willing to accept a smaller fee, work part time in a climbing wall and have as recompense greater free time.

For me, the problem is not the uber rich, rich, slightly rich, affluent or the slightly affluent et al.

Beyond a certain point of accumulation it all seems pretty pointless.

My concern is for those that cannot reach a sufficient or even basic state of comfort within this system and with it's apparent inability to regulate our voracious consumption and suicidal rush to planetary oblivion.

[slackline]

Equality suggests an levelling of wealth and most seem to believe that redistribution of wealth is the answer.

Said it further back in the thread but to me equality is not about who has the wealth, its about everyone having the same access to health care and education, and this should be provided by the state.

With the privatisation of everything the equality in both health care and education are being eroded, because those with money can afford more (although not necessarily better) of both, those without have to make do as they can't entertain forking out for private health care or education.

[ghisino]

to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.

thats a much better effort than divine right but still...

The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.
[/quote]

seems a case of moon and finger...

money is a tool. in some cases a tool of domination.
under most circumstances i'd consider the metaphorical shoelickers to be heavily dominated and the athlete to be massively dominant over them.

that's what i care about, not the exact zeroes or the fact that my shoelickers are not technically slaves...

[Sloper]

The problem with those ho support Pickeerty's thesis (I haven't read it yet, maybe over the summer) is that they appear to seek to correlate the accumulation of vast capital with those who have had vast capital to begin with; we can see some instances where this is true (Duke of Westminster) and those where it is not, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Google, Facebook etc.

While historically the accumulation of great capital required, in an easy form of shorthand, land, presently it does not; it requires a great idea, intelligence, hard work, and access to finance.

As such the barriers to social and economic mobility that were significant in the past, while not vestigial now, are much lower than they have ever been.

[petejh]

...
wait a minute.

i see an intellectual problem.

the article has a tricky way to make you accept that, provided that you're not sitting at home doing nothing, then you are 100% entitled to any dominant position you might have, without further distinctions about the size of your privilege.

to use a metaphor, it is more or less like saying that if you climb 9c OS, and as a consequence your shoe sponsor pays you two assistants who lick your boots your soles clean before every attempt, there is a problem only if what got you there is freaky genetics...but if you climbed 9c out of training a technique genius, then it's fine.
...

The point being, the shoe lickers are PAID.

Not forced, implying a choice (albeit constrained by circumstance).

And, fundamentally, no different from paying a Carpenter to put in your new floor, or a Glazier to replace a broken window. If there was a market for shoe lickers, shoe lickers there would be.

We can't call the uber rich Capitalists without also including the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker.

If you work, in any way, you sell your abilities to someone, for your own profit.

And there is choice.

If you were a Barrister, you could continue to sell your professional skills, or; should you be willing to accept a smaller fee, work part time in a climbing wall and have as recompense greater free time.

The point being though, is that markets aren't inert 'things' which appear out of thin air like clouds. Markets are created by needs and wants; and needs/wants aren't all innocent or harmless for third parties or non-humans - the invisible elbow of the invisible hand.
An issue with the hyper-rich is that they create their own markets like mountains create their own weather systems, and the markets the rich create can be (not are) out of kilter with what's for the common good of the rest of society. I think that's the just of the point people such as Michel Sandel 'Moral Limits of Markets' and opponents of unrestrained capitalism are making.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/about/about-what-money-cant-buy/


If there were a market for slavery, than slavery there would be...

[Jaspersharpe]

Like on the construction sites in Dubai etc? I'm being a bit of a Sloperesque troll but surely the only reason there isn't such a market in more progressive societies is due to morals, not simple market forces.

[petejh]

Yes of course, but that's not what I was trying to say. The point  (according to some economic philosophers) is that the super-rich are capable of creating markets which are not beneficial to the wider population. So unlike markets that serve the needs/wants of the majority of society and drive useful technological progress (useful for the majority that is) - there now exist markets created by 'the top 1%' which are self-serving and detrimental to the well-being of the wider populace. The Milli-second scalping of digital stock market transactions by super-rich hedge-funds is one example.

[finbarrr]

Like on the construction sites in Dubai etc? I'm being a bit of a Sloperesque troll but surely the only reason there isn't such a market in more progressive societies is due to morals, not simple market forces.

"the yes men": slavery versus "more eficient remote labour"
http://youtu.be/FUtQ331-FBc?t=1m16s

[Oldmanmatt]

Yes of course, but that's not what I was trying to say. The point  (according to some economic philosophers) is that the super-rich are capable of creating markets which are not beneficial to the wider population. So unlike markets that serve the needs/wants of the majority of society and drive useful technological progress (useful for the majority that is) - there now exist markets created by 'the top 1%' which are self-serving and detrimental to the well-being of the wider populace. The Milli-second scalping of digital stock market transactions by super-rich hedge-funds is one example.

Slopers trolling always serves to provoke interesting debate and I suspect is more the product of a well trained debater and advocate; than of truly obnoxious rightwing philosophy.

I'd be surprised if the Uber rich have such a deleterious effect upon the general population. And Jasper, slavery exists, Dubai being one of those places where it's quite hard to ignore.
It wasn't on the construction sites though.

It could be found in dark bars and flashing disco lights.
In short skirts and high heels.

And it was not the fault of the Uber rich.

Much too easy to blame Caligula and ignore the bloodlust of the crowd.

[a dense loner]

I think you're confusing interesting debate with the same four or five people writing on the threads Matt.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think you're confusing interesting debate with the same four or five people writing on the threads Matt.

True.

But I guess we find it interesting.

And you always read it Dense.

Don't stop.

Your sarcasm is the Great Leveler, after all.