I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.
If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.
It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.
Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.
I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.
These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.
Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.
And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.
Well, that is the winning argument right there!
I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?
I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.
But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.
Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.
Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.
All my comments have been about handling the state system.
I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.
It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.
Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.
I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.
This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).
I don't quite get what you're hoping this example will demonstrate except the danger of inherited wealth.
If you run a company, you have moral obligation to choose the best successor to ensure your company survives. If that isn't your kids, that's a goddamn shame, but it isn't society's job to protect your empire.
This story shows that even if you go to college, you can still run the company into the ground. I'm not for banning rich people from college, I doubt anyone is, but the fairest way to run a state college program is to have it run on a meritocracy.
The point was just that sometimes people will fly against reason and put their company in the hands of their heir, regardless of credentials, and, acknowledging this unfortunate fact, I think it is worthwhile to break from ideas of strict merit based admissions (which I favor) to make sure these people get an education which will at least give them a chance of keeping an otherwise viable business afloat.
As a normative matter, I agree that we should never hand a company to someone who is not capable of running it, AND that admissions to college should be strictly merit based, but I am willing to bend the second belief when reality does not match the first.
You still haven't made a case for why there should be an exception, or how this exception would actually benefit society. In your anecdote, the wealthy heir had obtained an education and it still did not make him a suitable person to run the business.
There is no actual logic in your argument. It is a statement of "I support merit based college enrollment, except that I don't because there is a possibility that a wealthy person might be penalized at some point."
You are contradicting yourself. Wealthy people don't all own family businesses anyway, and the state shouldn't be in the business of trying to micromanage private businesses to make sure they passed down to people who will run them well anyway.
Any conservative or libertarian individual should completely agree with that last bit.
And you are saying you do agree with it, but then contradicting yourself and arguing for the exception.
I'm sorry but you either want the market to work or you don't. You want merit based or you don't. You sound like a "don't" in both cases.
All points that are well taken. I was making an exception to my normative beliefs based on a pragmatic concern about irrational company owners, and on further thought, I do not think it is neccessary or appropriate. I withdraw the argument.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The fact is if the CEO who started the company doesn't really care if John Q. Taxpayer is kicked out of a job. All the heirs need to be groomed for leadership positions, one who is poor has no understanding of the class structure nor of the rules that one is bound by. To ensure the survival of the precious middle class and poor class people seem to harp about you need companies to do business. Companies don't like CEO's out of a select group of people who are heirs because they have been groomed. By providing education for them, forcefully if need be, the company survives and the lower classes survive too.
I can see a lot more elimination of the middle class if the CEO isn't allowed to groom his heir. He might just close and shut down the company forcing people out of work until either they see the point of this policy or they are out of a job.
No one is arguing that an heir shouldn't be groomed or that CEO's can't pick their kids to replace them.
All I'm arguing is that it isn't society's job to pick up the slack if the CEO can't raise his kid properly and is to hardheaded to pick a different heir. And the state university system wasn't created to coddle the owners of corporations.
If one company falls, five more will take its place. That's how capitalism works.
And I think you'll find no one cares about the "class structure nor of the rules that one is bound by". If those rules mean your company fails, maybe its time to get new rules.
You should stick to history because your understanding of econ and business is laughable.
Corporations are not feudal kingdoms passed down from father to son. Large private businesses are the exception, not the rule, and public companies don't have to allow the son to run daddy's company unless they believe he is the best possible person for the job.
The fact is if the CEO who started the company doesn't really care if John Q. Taxpayer is kicked out of a job. All the heirs need to be groomed for leadership positions, one who is poor has no understanding of the class structure nor of the rules that one is bound by. To ensure the survival of the precious middle class and poor class people seem to harp about you need companies to do business. Companies don't like CEO's out of a select group of people who are heirs because they have been groomed. By providing education for them, forcefully if need be, the company survives and the lower classes survive too.
I can see a lot more elimination of the middle class if the CEO isn't allowed to groom his heir. He might just close and shut down the company forcing people out of work until either they see the point of this policy or they are out of a job. Closing down shops do not seem like a bad idea to the rich, no significant taxes, enough to live off of and enough to invest to see a stream of monetary fund continue. I dare say that the Middle Class and the Poor have little to no recourse to this type of funds.
Thus heirs do need to be educated and the public especially John Q. Taxpayer better give a damn.
fun fact: the vast majority of private-sector GDP in Western nations are produced by publicly-listed companies with dispersed shareholdership, not family-owned businesses.
Two students are up for a place in Any State University. One is from a lower/middle class background. He'll need scholarships and grants to be able to afford to attend. Throughout high school he worked his ass off, saved up some money by working part time, took some dual enrollment courses, did some extracurriculars, and got a 3.7 GPA.
Student 2 is a rich kid, did well in school but not fantastic, and doesn't quite have the grades to get in on his own merits. Let's say he also played a sport and maybe was in a club or something. Took some upper level classes, was a solid B- student. But he's also the heir apparent to a big corporation and will one day be responsible for taking care of that corporation because his father won't hear of appointing a CEO from outside of the paternal line.
We should let which student in?
This really sounds like a false dilemma. People who get B's and do upper level classes don't have trouble getting into universities. He might not get into the best ones but I don't see why he at all has to.
If you change the criteria of student 2 to the point where he's genuinely too stupid to get into a university, then how is going to one anyhow going to teach him enough to run the company?
Erik
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Wait, you think that sort of thing is something to encourage? Cripes.
The thing which really destroys the tradition of family ownership is a combination of financialization and modernization in inheritance, when sons two, three, and four and any daughters start chomping at the bit for some of the family empire. Then the way to go is, yes, to distribute the company as shares.
Two students are up for a place in Any State University. One is from a lower/middle class background. He'll need scholarships and grants to be able to afford to attend. Throughout high school he worked his ass off, saved up some money by working part time, took some dual enrollment courses, did some extracurriculars, and got a 3.7 GPA.
Student 2 is a rich kid, did well in school but not fantastic, and doesn't quite have the grades to get in on his own merits. Let's say he also played a sport and maybe was in a club or something. Took some upper level classes, was a solid B- student. But he's also the heir apparent to a big corporation and will one day be responsible for taking care of that corporation because his father won't hear of appointing a CEO from outside of the paternal line.
We should let which student in?
This really sounds like a false dilemma. People who get B's and do upper level classes don't have trouble getting into universities. He might not get into the best ones but I don't see why he at all has to.
If you change the criteria of student 2 to the point where he's genuinely too stupid to get into a university, then how is going to one anyhow going to teach him enough to run the company?
That's a fair point. But the question is should wealth over balance the meritocracy and I think this example could be useful in that instance.
Honestly, it's an example I pulled out of my ass and there may well be better ones. I'm incredulous about this mythical Incompetent Hamlet in the first place because of the the existence of private universities and publicly traded companies.
SKFM seems to be arguing that even if the student is an idiot we should choose them over a poor because he could be in charge of a company and so it's society's job to protect that company.
Nomadic Circle wants us to return to the dark ages and to just trust in Divine Right to pick the winners and losers.
I love socialism for the rich, it's just fantastic.
You have a really odd conception of upper-middle income employment as something that one needs family connections and extensive bargaining to get, which says more about your alleged upbringing than the actual situation in the first world.
e: as much as we might moan about its imperfections, the West really are free market economies with governments that mostly engage in transfer and military spending rather than mass industrial or agricultural employment. You might need to tweak your intuitions a bit.
The fact is that Student B in your example already has a position and will contribute to a society in someway.
What guarantee is there that Student A will pay off all his debt and get a well paying job enough for the white picket fence house? There is no guarantee because he does not have the support to fall back on. Instead he might crash and burn at university and drop out. Or he might graduate but fail at making any headway and becoming another deadweight to society.
Student B can also crash and burn at university, or buy a boatload of heroin and die to death. And since this student is so integral to the future of society and has already been prepaid, everyone suffers even more from the bum investment.
You're reducing the pool of competitive students which ultimately makes for inbred incompetence that we saw in late monarchies.
You have to force Student B to be educated even if he doesn't want to be educated, and you're going to force Student A not to attend college even if he wants it. This motivation/education mismatch reduces the effectiveness of education overall.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The fact is that Student B in your example already has a position and will contribute to a society in someway.
This is why you fail. Others have explained why, but there is ZERO guarantee that somebody born into such a position will make any positive contribution to society. They could make a negative contribution, or somehow die or withdraw without making any contribution.
That you failed to consider this obvious possibility shows just how fucked up your worldview is. And shows why you are completely unqualified to add anything to a discussion of how a modern civilized society should function.
TNC's point seems to be "we should just let rich people run the place and have all the shots at advancement because if we don't, they might just burn this fucker down to show us who is boss", with a side of somehow responsibility, rules, and success are all genetic(or at the very least bred).
The issue everyone else is pointing out is that the success is brought about by.. proper schooling. So it's in every first world nation's best interests to educate the living shit out of it's entire populace. I thought we'd already proven that repeatedly in the world. An educated populace is a huge boon to everyone who isn't oppressing their populace. Someone digging a ditch who happens to know advanced physics? Good for the country, oddly enough. Because you're not capping the potential of your workforce.
He's not going to cheer for standardized testing, you can see he left a deliberate path for those less bright but with monetary funds to buy their way to higher education nonetheless.
Eh if your family has money you can game your way past any standardized test. Just hire a squad of tutors to tell you exactly what's going to be on the test and memorize it.
It takes a lot of money to bypass stupidity or laziness
Of course as a tutor myself I've shot myself in the foot several times by refusing bribes to simply do someone's work for them. With my financial situation I should totally be writing papers for people instead of accepting the meager breadcrumbs the state pays me. If I ever have children I'm going to teach them to be exploitative and devious so they can get ahead in life easier.
I heard a story on the radio a few months ago about people paying others to take the SAT for them. When I heard the figure I was just stunned. It was like, $1000. To think I could have been rolling in so much scratch just for wearing a hat and taking a multiple choice test a couple times a month. Damn my integrity. And also the fact that no one ever asked me to.
I've never been able to get a handle around caste-type systems, and talking to people who endorse them sure doesn't seem to be helping.
Though that makes me wonder if TNC conversely just can't grasp the concept of a meritocracy.
He is like every other rich kid. While he probably knows that his high position is blind luck. He can't really admit it, because his social worth is so tied up in it. No different then a western trust fund kid at the core, except more willing to defend the societal position that luck gave him.
The system he advocates is really a way for the rich to control the poor. It is in no way a superior way of life, its just excuses for social control and there is a reason the west has turned its back on it. There is also a reason the west has the best universities in the world. Professors chosen by nepotism are not really a match for meritocratic ones.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Here is an idea that provides real "skin in the game." Why not require anyone who accepts state aid to provide some sort of civil service for a couple of years after graduation. Then the state could see a direct return on its investment by guaranteeing that it will have educated people available for beaurocratic positions. You could even pay less than you would pay to "real" government workers to reflect the money the government already laid out towards school. Best of all, when they entered the private jobs market, they would have their degree plus two years of experience on their resume.
That idea is so much more progressive than your earlier position that I'm pretty sure I saw it proposed on an episode of West Wing. I don't mean that to sound critical; I'm just trying to acknowledge that you're obviously trying to approach this with an open mind.
I would generally be down with that on a philosophical level. I think there would probably be some implementation hurdles which may or may not be surmountable; I don't know if we have enough civil service jobs to go around for everyone who accepts financial aid. I don't know what impact that would have on people who wanted to try and get a civil service job who were ineligible for financial aid initially. The biggest hurdle I see, though, is that states can barely afford to offer the financial aid in the first place; I'm not sure where they'll find the money to pay all of those graduates even the most basic cost-of-living wage while they're putting in their service.
If the various governments decided to spend money on it, there would be tons of opening in mental health and other social services that don't require a whole lot of job specific education before-hand. Of course, spending on social programs...
Two of my friends from college were a business and a music major, and both have spent the last couple years working for the county with kids who have behavioral problems.
Tofystedeth on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
TNC's point seems to be "we should just let rich people run the place and have all the shots at advancement because if we don't, they might just burn this fucker down to show us who is boss", with a side of somehow responsibility, rules, and success are all genetic(or at the very least bred).
The issue everyone else is pointing out is that the success is brought about by.. proper schooling. So it's in every first world nation's best interests to educate the living shit out of it's entire populace. I thought we'd already proven that repeatedly in the world. An educated populace is a huge boon to everyone who isn't oppressing their populace. Someone digging a ditch who happens to know advanced physics? Good for the country, oddly enough. Because you're not capping the potential of your workforce.
In an idea economy, we can't compete without educating our best and brightest.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
TNC's point seems to be "we should just let rich people run the place and have all the shots at advancement because if we don't, they might just burn this fucker down to show us who is boss", with a side of somehow responsibility, rules, and success are all genetic(or at the very least bred).
The issue everyone else is pointing out is that the success is brought about by.. proper schooling. So it's in every first world nation's best interests to educate the living shit out of it's entire populace. I thought we'd already proven that repeatedly in the world. An educated populace is a huge boon to everyone who isn't oppressing their populace. Someone digging a ditch who happens to know advanced physics? Good for the country, oddly enough. Because you're not capping the potential of your workforce.
In an idea economy, we can't compete without educating our best and brightest.
Which is why you have a meritocracy.
There's nothing inherently best or brightest about the rich. At all. Especially not if they're born into it.
Thing is rich people won't burn down anything. Without the structure, they're not rich.
Tribalism is stupid because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you. Which is kind of why the western world moved away from that roughly, what, 1200 years ago? I jest, it hasn't quite been that long. I mean if they really want to rile up 99% of the population, uh, good on them. It doesn't last very long.
Arizona: Trying to beat Wisconsin in the crazy.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I would take the kid who works hard and grew up poor just because he's probably had to overcome more significant challenges in his life than the rich kid who coasted with mediocre grades. The goal is to matriculate the people who can do things like tackle tough problems and handle the stressful situations.
The military selection boards for officer candiates have a thing called the "whole person concept". They pick the most well-rounded people, those who have paid their way in life and are humble enough and confident enough to possess the leadership necessary to succeed in their job. University acceptance is similar, as it should be.
It is because there are people who are bigger and stronger than you that tribalism is attractive. You and your extended family against the world. The state is a wholly different solution, more akin to getting the biggest and strongest person around to play peacemaker.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It is because there are people who are bigger and stronger than you that tribalism is attractive. You and your extended family against the world. The state is a wholly different solution, more akin to getting the biggest and strongest person around to play peacemaker.
This sounds like gang culture.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It is because there are people who are bigger and stronger than you that tribalism is attractive. You and your extended family against the world. The state is a wholly different solution, more akin to getting the biggest and strongest person around to play peacemaker.
This sounds like gang culture.
All cultures are similar, only with varying degrees of violence, force, and liberty.
It is because there are people who are bigger and stronger than you that tribalism is attractive. You and your extended family against the world. The state is a wholly different solution, more akin to getting the biggest and strongest person around to play peacemaker.
It seems like modern tribalism thrives in areas where the state fails to provide the sort of social services and basic stability (and sense of belonging and identity) that tribes ideally do. It's quite possible that tribal identifications also actively prevent a centralized government from stepping in and replacing those functions, as well.
What's interesting to me is when both structures exist at the same time and influence each other, since a lot of the practices that make tribal support structures run (mutual favors, nepotism, defining those in your tribe as having more value than those outside of it) turn into dysfunction and corruption when applied to the practices of running a state.
I'm morbidly fascinated by how TNC thinks that's actually a good thing, and should be the model for any nation to follow.
Thing is rich people won't burn down anything. Without the structure, they're not rich.
Tribalism is stupid because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you. Which is kind of why the western world moved away from that roughly, what, 1200 years ago? I jest, it hasn't quite been that long. I mean if they really want to rile up 99% of the population, uh, good on them. It doesn't last very long.
Arizona: Trying to beat Wisconsin in the crazy.
Have you been paying attention lately?
The policies they've been paying the right to spouse aren't good for anybody long term. I guess it could be argued they're good enough for them until they die though, who cares about after that.
Thing is rich people won't burn down anything. Without the structure, they're not rich.
Tribalism is stupid because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you. Which is kind of why the western world moved away from that roughly, what, 1200 years ago? I jest, it hasn't quite been that long. I mean if they really want to rile up 99% of the population, uh, good on them. It doesn't last very long.
Arizona: Trying to beat Wisconsin in the crazy.
Have you been paying attention lately?
The policies they've been paying the right to spouse aren't good for anybody long term. I guess it could be argued they're good enough for them until they die though, who cares about after that.
Or they'll do what wealthy Saudis are doing now: pack up and move to London.
Thing is rich people won't burn down anything. Without the structure, they're not rich.
Tribalism is stupid because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you. Which is kind of why the western world moved away from that roughly, what, 1200 years ago? I jest, it hasn't quite been that long. I mean if they really want to rile up 99% of the population, uh, good on them. It doesn't last very long.
Arizona: Trying to beat Wisconsin in the crazy.
Have you been paying attention lately?
The policies they've been paying the right to spouse aren't good for anybody long term. I guess it could be argued they're good enough for them until they die though, who cares about after that.
I'd argue that at this point, a good number of the very rich, far-right folks don't care if the structure of the state is burned down (to one extent or another), since they can afford to build their own privatized structures to protect their wealth and their lives.
Once you can afford your own private army and police force, and your own private hospital, your own private legal and judicial system, and your own private transportation network, the state becomes less of a benefit and more of a burden.
You can't afford anything if your wealth is meaningless. If the society around you collapses, what good does USD do you? Hell even gold is potentially worthless over bullets. You can't pay a doctor, you can't pay a guard, what do you offer? Dates to sell on Ramadan?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I have only been in Arizona for a few months, but after being here a short period of time it became painfully obvious how idiotic this state is.
This new legislation isn't surprising at all. Arizona legislators are morons.
What society needs to avoid is putting our young people into debt. An educated society is a civilized society. The argument that unless you pay for something you will take it for granted, is flawed.
I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.
If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.
It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.
Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.
I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.
These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.
Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.
And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.
Well, that is the winning argument right there!
I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?
I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.
But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.
Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.
Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.
All my comments have been about handling the state system.
I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.
It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.
Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.
I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.
This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).
Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.
Thing is rich people won't burn down anything. Without the structure, they're not rich.
Tribalism is stupid because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you. Which is kind of why the western world moved away from that roughly, what, 1200 years ago? I jest, it hasn't quite been that long. I mean if they really want to rile up 99% of the population, uh, good on them. It doesn't last very long.
Arizona: Trying to beat Wisconsin in the crazy.
Have you been paying attention lately?
The policies they've been paying the right to spouse aren't good for anybody long term. I guess it could be argued they're good enough for them until they die though, who cares about after that.
Or they'll do what wealthy Saudis are doing now: pack up and move to London.
Another place short sighted rich people are fucking everything up.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It is because there are people who are bigger and stronger than you that tribalism is attractive. You and your extended family against the world. The state is a wholly different solution, more akin to getting the biggest and strongest person around to play peacemaker.
Posts
All points that are well taken. I was making an exception to my normative beliefs based on a pragmatic concern about irrational company owners, and on further thought, I do not think it is neccessary or appropriate. I withdraw the argument.
No one is arguing that an heir shouldn't be groomed or that CEO's can't pick their kids to replace them.
All I'm arguing is that it isn't society's job to pick up the slack if the CEO can't raise his kid properly and is to hardheaded to pick a different heir. And the state university system wasn't created to coddle the owners of corporations.
If one company falls, five more will take its place. That's how capitalism works.
And I think you'll find no one cares about the "class structure nor of the rules that one is bound by". If those rules mean your company fails, maybe its time to get new rules.
Well, no. They'll donate generously to the campaigns of Senators and get free money from the government.
Corporations are not feudal kingdoms passed down from father to son. Large private businesses are the exception, not the rule, and public companies don't have to allow the son to run daddy's company unless they believe he is the best possible person for the job.
Right, right, my mistake. But either way, problem solved amirite?
fun fact: the vast majority of private-sector GDP in Western nations are produced by publicly-listed companies with dispersed shareholdership, not family-owned businesses.
This really sounds like a false dilemma. People who get B's and do upper level classes don't have trouble getting into universities. He might not get into the best ones but I don't see why he at all has to.
If you change the criteria of student 2 to the point where he's genuinely too stupid to get into a university, then how is going to one anyhow going to teach him enough to run the company?
It was annoying when spacekungfuman engaged in rhetorical hyperbole - in his case, about Lost American Values - and it's as annoying when you do it
That's a fair point. But the question is should wealth over balance the meritocracy and I think this example could be useful in that instance.
Honestly, it's an example I pulled out of my ass and there may well be better ones. I'm incredulous about this mythical Incompetent Hamlet in the first place because of the the existence of private universities and publicly traded companies.
SKFM seems to be arguing that even if the student is an idiot we should choose them over a poor because he could be in charge of a company and so it's society's job to protect that company.
Nomadic Circle wants us to return to the dark ages and to just trust in Divine Right to pick the winners and losers.
I love socialism for the rich, it's just fantastic.
So...
What makes the rich so intrinsically better than the poor that they should have some special place?
Every rich man's family was poor at some point.
What's that old Hawthorne quote from The Departed, families are always rising and falling in America?
The idea behind that is that everyone should have a shot to get ahead, not just those born with means because of an accident of birth.
e: as much as we might moan about its imperfections, the West really are free market economies with governments that mostly engage in transfer and military spending rather than mass industrial or agricultural employment. You might need to tweak your intuitions a bit.
Student B can also crash and burn at university, or buy a boatload of heroin and die to death. And since this student is so integral to the future of society and has already been prepaid, everyone suffers even more from the bum investment.
You're reducing the pool of competitive students which ultimately makes for inbred incompetence that we saw in late monarchies.
You have to force Student B to be educated even if he doesn't want to be educated, and you're going to force Student A not to attend college even if he wants it. This motivation/education mismatch reduces the effectiveness of education overall.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is why you fail. Others have explained why, but there is ZERO guarantee that somebody born into such a position will make any positive contribution to society. They could make a negative contribution, or somehow die or withdraw without making any contribution.
That you failed to consider this obvious possibility shows just how fucked up your worldview is. And shows why you are completely unqualified to add anything to a discussion of how a modern civilized society should function.
The issue everyone else is pointing out is that the success is brought about by.. proper schooling. So it's in every first world nation's best interests to educate the living shit out of it's entire populace. I thought we'd already proven that repeatedly in the world. An educated populace is a huge boon to everyone who isn't oppressing their populace. Someone digging a ditch who happens to know advanced physics? Good for the country, oddly enough. Because you're not capping the potential of your workforce.
Though that makes me wonder if TNC conversely just can't grasp the concept of a meritocracy.
He is like every other rich kid. While he probably knows that his high position is blind luck. He can't really admit it, because his social worth is so tied up in it. No different then a western trust fund kid at the core, except more willing to defend the societal position that luck gave him.
The system he advocates is really a way for the rich to control the poor. It is in no way a superior way of life, its just excuses for social control and there is a reason the west has turned its back on it. There is also a reason the west has the best universities in the world. Professors chosen by nepotism are not really a match for meritocratic ones.
Two of my friends from college were a business and a music major, and both have spent the last couple years working for the county with kids who have behavioral problems.
In an idea economy, we can't compete without educating our best and brightest.
Which is why you have a meritocracy.
There's nothing inherently best or brightest about the rich. At all. Especially not if they're born into it.
Tribalism is stupid because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you. Which is kind of why the western world moved away from that roughly, what, 1200 years ago? I jest, it hasn't quite been that long. I mean if they really want to rile up 99% of the population, uh, good on them. It doesn't last very long.
Arizona: Trying to beat Wisconsin in the crazy.
The military selection boards for officer candiates have a thing called the "whole person concept". They pick the most well-rounded people, those who have paid their way in life and are humble enough and confident enough to possess the leadership necessary to succeed in their job. University acceptance is similar, as it should be.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
This sounds like gang culture.
All cultures are similar, only with varying degrees of violence, force, and liberty.
It seems like modern tribalism thrives in areas where the state fails to provide the sort of social services and basic stability (and sense of belonging and identity) that tribes ideally do. It's quite possible that tribal identifications also actively prevent a centralized government from stepping in and replacing those functions, as well.
What's interesting to me is when both structures exist at the same time and influence each other, since a lot of the practices that make tribal support structures run (mutual favors, nepotism, defining those in your tribe as having more value than those outside of it) turn into dysfunction and corruption when applied to the practices of running a state.
I'm morbidly fascinated by how TNC thinks that's actually a good thing, and should be the model for any nation to follow.
Have you been paying attention lately?
The policies they've been paying the right to spouse aren't good for anybody long term. I guess it could be argued they're good enough for them until they die though, who cares about after that.
Or they'll do what wealthy Saudis are doing now: pack up and move to London.
I'd argue that at this point, a good number of the very rich, far-right folks don't care if the structure of the state is burned down (to one extent or another), since they can afford to build their own privatized structures to protect their wealth and their lives.
Once you can afford your own private army and police force, and your own private hospital, your own private legal and judicial system, and your own private transportation network, the state becomes less of a benefit and more of a burden.
This new legislation isn't surprising at all. Arizona legislators are morons.
What society needs to avoid is putting our young people into debt. An educated society is a civilized society. The argument that unless you pay for something you will take it for granted, is flawed.
Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.
Another place short sighted rich people are fucking everything up.
Tribes are gangs, only not modern versions.