Scrutable

sheldrake wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:23 pm 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.

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

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:27 pm 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.

Gentleman Jim wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:47 pm Oh, and "not many Americans in UK/Europe in private industry"?
Try taking a deep look into the Pharmaceutical industry

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:45 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:27 pm 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.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:56 pm

Gentleman Jim wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:47 pm 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.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:43 pm Hardly any parents strive for success.

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.

sheldrake wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:12 pm

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:43 pm 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'

lpm wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:36 pm You're not really mastering the art of posting just once, are you plodders mate.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:34 pm 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.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:43 pm 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.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:12 pm 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?

sheldrake wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:18 pm 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.

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:20 pm

sheldrake wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:18 pm 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?

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:40 pm 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"?

plodder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:40 pm 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.