Personal success (Split thread)

[sheldrake]

I agree with that suggestion.

[plodder]

Its not contrarianism, its because I think a degree of inequality is actually necessary for a society to function well and this will inevitably lead to some inequality of opportunity if we're not to destroy important parental incentives.

You haven't responded to my "not all parents" point upthread. Hardly any parents strive for success. in fact being a parent is normally seen as being a barrier to success. Parents are mostly busy being parents and often see parenting as success enough.

Survivorship bias may be true, but there is a lot of data suggesting that parental socioeconomic class doesnt overwhelm everything else.

Do you have data to back up the importance of socio-economic background as a measure of success? Where I've worked men with deep loud voices with the right accent tend to do disproportionately well.

[plodder]

Pretty much the only concrete suggestion so far is banning private education, which would directly affect only about 10% of people. I think your criticism of it as levelling-down rather than levelling-up is a fair one, and the proposed pathways to improvement (rich parents would have more incentive to vote - even though richer demographics are already better-represented than poorer ones in elections) are, to be generous, wishy-washy and unevidenced.

Wealthy parents who had no choice but to intervene and support their local decaying school would be anything but wishy-washy.

[Gentleman Jim]

Oh, and "not many Americans in UK/Europe in private industry"?
Try taking a deep look into the Pharmaceutical industry

[plodder]

Oh, and "not many Americans in UK/Europe in private industry"?
Try taking a deep look into the Pharmaceutical industry

I missed the edit window but made a note - young Americans. Obvs we're world class at pharma and perhaps banking, that's only a limited pool. Neither appealed to a young me, for example (still don't tbh).

As for more ideas:

The state of UK housing is the obvious opportunity blocker for many people in the UK and abroad and needs a radical and planned rethink.

Attractive and convenient mixed communities with an emphasis on attracting retired people to move would be a smart place to start, freeing up old family homes for new families. Tenancy laws should be reformed and I fear we need to move away from the current system of semi-professional landlords getting the local council to pay off their second mortgage via a poor person's housing benefit.

A longer term strategy needs to be to disentangle personal wealth from property. Doing that is complex and risky, but it needs to be done. Don't have any clear suggestions for this.

Also - projects like HS2 are good at improving connectivity in non-London areas, which will improve the economic prospects of millions who can't commute to London or Manchester to do something trendy and fun, rather than grim and awful.

Also - rural areas need a proper rethink and land reform and opening up the countryside can create all sorts of opportunities for people to start businesses in places they're currently excluded from.

Also - others in other threads have touched on university admissions and "standards" and there's obviously lots of work to do here.

Also - ban interns

Also - support people with social care so we don't end up with an army of citizens trapped as being carers.

There are loads.

[Bird on a Fire]

Pretty much the only concrete suggestion so far is banning private education, which would directly affect only about 10% of people. I think your criticism of it as levelling-down rather than levelling-up is a fair one, and the proposed pathways to improvement (rich parents would have more incentive to vote - even though richer demographics are already better-represented than poorer ones in elections) are, to be generous, wishy-washy and unevidenced.

Wealthy parents who had no choice but to intervene and support their local decaying school would be anything but wishy-washy.

That's the status quo - schools in wealthier areas are already better resourced, which in turn drives up house prices in their catchment areas, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle of economic disparity in educational outcomes.

Levelling up would be providing equivalent conditions across the board, so that instead of a vast geographic disparity everybody gets the same treatment. Children who have parents without the social and economic capital to improve their education need more help from wider society, not less. I'm sure there are plenty of working-class parents with no formal qualifications and no career to speak of, who would still like their kids to go to university (e.g. my mum).

[cvb]

I would not bam private education but I would remove their charity status as that is a joke.

People will always pay for education if they want to. I paid for tutors for my sons for the transfer test, even though they really didn't need it. Virtually everybody who can afford pays tutors for this test. It is not particularly fair.

[lpm]

Oh, and "not many Americans in UK/Europe in private industry"?
Try taking a deep look into the Pharmaceutical industry

I missed the edit window but made a note - young Americans. Obvs we're world class at pharma and perhaps banking, that's only a limited pool. Neither appealed to a young me, for example (still don't tbh).

As for more ideas:

The state of UK housing is the obvious opportunity blocker for many people in the UK and abroad and needs a radical and planned rethink.

Attractive and convenient mixed communities with an emphasis on attracting retired people to move would be a smart place to start, freeing up old family homes for new families. Tenancy laws should be reformed and I fear we need to move away from the current system of semi-professional landlords getting the local council to pay off their second mortgage via a poor person's housing benefit.

A longer term strategy needs to be to disentangle personal wealth from property. Doing that is complex and risky, but it needs to be done. Don't have any clear suggestions for this.

Also - projects like HS2 are good at improving connectivity in non-London areas, which will improve the economic prospects of millions who can't commute to London or Manchester to do something trendy and fun, rather than grim and awful.

Also - rural areas need a proper rethink and land reform and opening up the countryside can create all sorts of opportunities for people to start businesses in places they're currently excluded from.

Also - others in other threads have touched on university admissions and "standards" and there's obviously lots of work to do here.

Also - ban interns

Also - support people with social care so we don't end up with an army of citizens trapped as being carers.

There are loads.

Maternity - invest in leave and fund nurseries, so women don't get ignored/overstretched/penalised

Post 50s - take people with a proven 30 year history of reliable work and skills, and invest to give them skills for another 20 years instead of leaving them un/underemployed

Mental health - invest, so people don't end up long-term ill

Schools - invest in breakfast clubs, after-school, food, clothing and similar services, so parents can work full hours without being overstretched and poor children match their better-off classmates

Schools - invest in more specialist support teachers, to bring "non-standard" pupils up to a high standard and make the most of the diversity of people

Schools - invest in services for immigrants / non-English speaking children, with special classes that recognise they are likely from hardworking entrepreneurial families

Universities - ban students from working in term time by, you guessed it, investing in students

Local differences - more transfers from richer to poorer areas

[sheldrake]

Hardly any parents strive for success.

I think this is just untrue. People's behaviour often (but not always) becomes more responsible when they become parents. not everybody is obsessed with earning 500k a year, but I don't think that extreme is necessary to say that 'having children is an incentive to work'

Do you have data to back up the importance of socio-economic background as a measure of success? Where I've worked men with deep loud voices with the right accent tend to do disproportionately well.

The studies mentioned earlier will do that, I'll dig more detail out.

[plodder]

Hardly any parents strive for success.

I think this is just untrue. People's behaviour often (but not always) becomes more responsible when they become parents. not everybody is obsessed with earning 500k a year, but I don't think that extreme is necessary to say that 'having children is an incentive to work'

An incentive to work, or an incentive to succeed? It's necessary to work in order to keep up with the average. To succeed you need to work smart, and hard, and get to the top of the pile. Most parents don't do that (if you ask them they'll be too busy with parenting, working normally etc).

[plodder]

I mean it's self evident that most people don't succeed relative to everyone else. So to suggest that parents are more likely to be successful in their careers is weird.

[lpm]

You're not really mastering the art of posting just once, are you plodders mate.

[plodder]

You're not really mastering the art of posting just once, are you plodders mate.

I get muddled with all these new buttons.

[sheldrake]

I mean it's self evident that most people don't succeed relative to everyone else. So to suggest that parents are more likely to be successful in their careers is weird.

I'm suggesting they're driven to be more conscientious than they would otherwise be. For a lot of people that means something very different than it does for very highly educated professionals in big cities.

[plodder]

Define "conscientious" in terms of success. And then demonstrate that parents are more conscientious than non-parents. You're labouring this point without any substantiation.

[sheldrake]

Define "conscientious" in terms of success. And then demonstrate that parents are more conscientious than non-parents. You're labouring this point without any substantiation.

Conscientiousness is a psychometric trait highly correlated with 'being employed', 'staying out of trouble with the police' and 'being able to hold a job'. I'm classing that as success relative to unemployment, prison or marginal minimum wage employment that you see students and hardcore stoners etc.. doing.

Is it really controversial to you that having children would tend to make people more concerned about being able to pay their bills, have savings, calm down a bit on nights out, be able to afford a family sized home etc.. ?

[plodder]

But these are signifiers of being average, not successful. Unless we're redefining successful to mean "content with their lot" rather than "having done better than most others". If you want to define personal success in terms of happiness etc for most people that isn't working long hours and brown-nosing to get the promotion.

Which is it?

[plodder]

This conversation is about obstacles to success, and after god knows how many posts perhaps we'd better agree on a definition of "success".

[sheldrake]

But these are signifiers of being average, not successful. Unless we're redefining successful to mean "content with their lot" rather than "having done better than most others". If you want to define personal success in terms of happiness etc for most people that isn't working long hours and brown-nosing to get the promotion.

Which is it?

I think we're using success to mean different things. I'm talking about economic success rather than something more abstract and personal, but for most people having their own place and staying out of unemployment is success, relative to being stoned most of the time and occasionally picking up the odd minimum wage gig.

A highly conscientious person will take the best job that they can get and be punctual and reliable. They'll stay on top of their debts and are more likely to save at the same level of income. They'll push themselves to try and do a good job. For most people this doesn't lead to being the CEO, but they're better off economically than if they hadn't bothered, on average. Concientiousness is the psychological trait most highly correlated with the types of choices people make there. It's trainable and affected by cultural messages and policy.

[plodder]

for most people having their own place and staying out of unemployment is success, relative to being stoned most of the time and occasionally picking up the odd minimum wage gig.

Sorry what? For most people? Do you mean for most people they would tend to hang out on the dole stoned until old age? What's this based on?

[sheldrake]

for most people having their own place and staying out of unemployment is success, relative to being stoned most of the time and occasionally picking up the odd minimum wage gig.

Sorry what? For most people? Do you mean for most people they would tend to hang out on the dole stoned until old age? What's this based on?

I f.cking would. For me being employed continuously for almost 20 years is a huge success. Ditto for lots of people I know.

You've noticed people's behaviour change with age and parenthood, no?

You've noticed some people are more likely to do this than others ?

That thing that's different between the younger and older verison of the same person, and between different people, is conscientiousness.

[plodder]

So hang on here just a minute.

Your entire political philosophy is based on resolving the personal psychodrama that occurred when you were forced to mature (presumably shortly after you shat yourself at the reality of it all) once you had kids? And this what you label as "success"?

I now understand why you don't recognise societal barriers to success as being important - yours were self-imposed. That's really not the case for people as a whole.

f.cking tories, honestly.

[sheldrake]

So hang on here just a minute.

Your entire political philosophy is based on resolving the personal psychodrama that occurred when you were forced to mature (presumably shortly after you shat yourself at the reality of it all) once you had kids? And this what you label as "success"?

No, it's based on very obvious large scale social behaviours. Come on, lets not argue over silly obvious things.

[Imrael]

My personal experience (but also observed in a few others) is that parenthood made me more small-c conservative - less likely to job hop, take business risks etc. And quite a lot less geographically mobile. Which probably made me more "average" for my background, skills and experience.

Conscientious is interesting - for me conscience pulled me out of long hours burnout projects to attempt "work life balance", but (rather contradicting that) didnt stop me from taking a contract role in a "panic" project that promised to pay very well but meant weekdays away.

Since we've not really defined success, maybe thats it.

[Bird on a Fire]

So hang on here just a minute.

Your entire political philosophy is based on resolving the personal psychodrama that occurred when you were forced to mature (presumably shortly after you shat yourself at the reality of it all) once you had kids? And this what you label as "success"?

I now understand why you don't recognise societal barriers to success as being important - yours were self-imposed. That's really not the case for people as a whole.

f.cking tories, honestly.

lmao

I have long harboured a suspicion that a lot of right-wing positions are simply projections of perceived personal shortcomings onto the populus at large:

"People are inherently lazy / selfish / tribalistic," they opine. "It's human nature." Which therefore excuses accepting the status quo, choosing not to help others or even empathise, and scapegoating outgroups. Just like how Trump is doing everything he falsely accused Obama of.