Check your privileges

[Timsup2nothin]

I was sitting on a bus the other day, having to listen to a fresh-out-of-highschool-female going on and on, quite loudly in a full bus, about her latest month long trip to Europe, and how she was about a third grader when she had first gone alone to Barcelona on some children's camp. She was headed to her friend's fancy wedding, after which she would go sailing with another friend's family for a few weeks after that. To top it off, she gleefully chided, how happy she was on the state of her life, and how she was thankful of go SHE had made the right decisions on life to be where she was. All I could think of was "check your priviledge".

I guess that is what if feels like hearing me bang on about how great it is being a white young european heterosexual cis-male and flaunt my priviledge in their face. Oh yeah, I don't do that.

Good on you for not doing that, and thanks for sharing a fine example.

 

[Peuri]

Well she clearly is on an ego-high. I feel your distaste, but I also have a hard time to fault her for diving full into it. Cause it is a great high. I guess what I am in on faulting her for is her phony "thankfulness". Thankfulness implies humbleness. Without it, it is a thin disguise of gloating. And to gloat without shame and top it of with false humbleness. That is a bit much lack of self-awareness. A bit much self-appreciating. She won't settle for self-appreciating her. She also needs to self-appreciate herself for self-appreciating herself. Meta-dick-strike! Knock-down

To be honest, I was quite irritated by her priviledge compared to mine (working class family), but what really set my head spinning was what she said she was thankful about. She was thankful of her own decisions, while clearly it was her wealthy parents and friends she should have been thanking, not herself.

Well, I don't know her, maybe she was an IT millionaire by the age of 4 or batteled with drug addiction, to be thankful about her decisions or was asked elope by Enrique Iglesias and turned him down or something. But the way she came across was the worst stereotype of a millenial. She was young though, so I guess the narciccism will time down later on.

 

[Peuri]

Good on you for not doing that, and thanks for sharing a fine example.

Hahaha, you got me there. In saying what I don't do, I in fact did it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To be honest, I was quite irritated by her priviledge compared to mine (working class family),

My view on jealousy is very Nietzsche. It is not only normal, it is healthy to realize what you desire. Be it for working towards it or facing it as out of reach. Both make up the balance of a good life, I think.

but what really set my head spinning was what she said she was thankful about. She was thankful of her own decisions, while clearly it was her wealthy parents and friends she should have been thanking, not herself.

Yes. That is what I was on about. However, I am worried by your IMO inconsequential insistence on her faults. I think you maybe do not see what clearly differentiates her from yourself, and I actually tried to provide that,
You are a privileged frack by any global standard. And even in the poorest country in the world, most will have some privilege. Just few a whole lot more than many. So privilege isn't really the problem, personally, psychologically speaking. It is a fact of life.
We all want it, some get it. End of story.
What is the problem is how we relate to it, again strictly personally speaking (socially, morally etc.. a whole nother can of worms). Since this is what we can actually change. Since this is what will define the part of us not externally determined. And this part is always there. Always important. And your privilege as a citizen of a rich country means actually, that it is VERY important. That is a big one. For many people, in some important ways, they are mostly fracked, period. Bad luck. You may be fracked, with some statistic likelihood. But just as statically assured is, that it matters how you relate to that. And that is its own privilege in this messed up world. And it actually is a big one, put in global relation.

She was young though, so I guess the narcissism will time down later on

It will. But will it go down enough, or may it re-bounce with anger and bitterness mixed in? I think a lot of very successful people chose the later. Cause the illusion is so dame sweet. They are like addicts to their self-image. Non-surprising, really, since the mechanism conventional addictions attach to are already there for natural proceedings to attach to them. I guess vanity has some evolutionary merit. Happiness not as much.

edit: To get back to the girl. The girl is a prick in a unique and also just the way I already said in my previous post. She is a prick by faking humbleness in an effort to be actually even more vain.
You, additionally, dislike her for her privilege. That is fine. But not fair. This is not something that makes her actually any more of a bad person than anyone. Because anyone is subject to privilege and we all are glad for it and cherish it. Privilege is great, period. That is the bottom line. Some rise above it. Some undercut it. And all that may be praise-worthy or deplorable. But privilege is the base line.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You mean the Dostoyevsky poem?

Yes, but it is a story and not a poem.

 

[stfoskey12]

70/100 on the Buzzfeed quiz.
I lose some points for being irreligious and on the low end of a healthy weight. My family is reasonably well off, but doesn't watch enough TV to think paying for cable is worth it, and I've never gone further from home than Alaska. But being a white, straight, male, I gain a lot of points.

33 on the Narz quiz.
Race: +10
Wealth/Status: +10 (above average but <1 million)
Celebrity: +0
Height: +3
Fitness : -5
Health: +5
Looks: +0
Career Help: +10

 

[metalhead]

well then, the trick seems to be how do we decide who gets what? are these hoarders just evil people or is it an illness? is the current "condition" due to human nature or the nature of our institutions (thanks @Traitorfish)? so many questions..... when you say that the privileged are erecting more barriers, are you implying that things are getting worse?? and what time frame are you using.

The part that involves redistributing actual tangible wealth in the form of dollars is simple. Every American gets the same amount. No more welfare, less federal housing assistance, no more food stamps.

As for the hoarders, I don't know if they are bad people, but I believe the elitism is intentional and they are incredibly daft if they don't understand what they're doing. It may be a simple product of human nature, but the whole reason we have stuff like societies and government is to ensure that the bad parts of human nature aren't harmful and destructive to other people.

Here is a great rundown of the issue, what has been done to hoard wealth and rob the American dream from the majority of the country. I think this is partly why a backlash against "elites" gained so much traction as personified by Donald Trump and to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders. People realize this is going on, even if it hasn't crystallized into a coherent meme in the popular imagination. Here's a key excerpt that wraps it up into a tidy package, but you should read the whole article:

They (upper-middle class Americans) then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals.
​

And it is definitely getting worse, because it is becoming more entrenched, and the differences harder to overcome. I can't give an exact time frame, but it's probably closely tied to the huge increase in college costs over the last 20 years, because this is how the most pronounced differences are perpetuated. Kids who are able to graduate college with little or no debt have an enormous leg up on their peers, even if they receive no further financial assistance from their parents. And because of this, because the top 20% have been able to wall themselves off in enclaves of privilege, those stuck outside look less and less attractive to college admissions people - and it just so happens that any kind of good middle class life now requires a degree from a decent school.

 

[rah]

and it just so happens that any kind of good middle class life now requires a degree from a decent school.

While I agree with most of what you say, this last part is just not true. My mechanic is more successful then most of my friends with degrees. (my plumber too) Almost every developer that works for me make really good money and only a few of them have degrees and they were from crappy schools. People have to start making smarter choices. Yeah, yeah, I know that's not the full solution but you don't have to go into deep debt to learn a trade that will support a decent life style.

 

[metalhead]

It's a dangerous myth perpetuated by, well, a lot of people that skilled trades are an occupation that just anyone can do. Would you want to fix toilets all day? Would you be able to tolerate that for 15 or 20 years before saving enough to run your own toilet fixing company? What about people who aren't fit to run a business, can anyone do that for 40 years? I sure doubt it. And even at that, "skilled trades" are being hoarded as well, by more education requirements, higher licensing fees, etc. It all trickles down, with the effect that jobs which do offer a solid middle class life without having to shell out for a college degree are nevertheless becoming less accessible in their own right.

I mean sure, there will always be niche fields where ability trumps credentials, but that's not how the bulk of the employment market functions. The drones of yesteryear needed nothing more than a pulse and the ability to punch a time clock to earn a solid middle class living, with job security, benefits, and a pension. I have a feeling your developers are significantly more skilled than that.

It's simple to tell people to "make better choices," but what you're really telling them is, "make choices that I think are better for you." What good does it do anyone to have people who aren't handy trying to become skilled tradespeople?

 

[rah]

The drones of yesteryear needed nothing more than a pulse and the ability to punch a time clock to earn a solid middle class living, with job security, benefits, and a pension.

Is this your goal? Not very realistic.
Some of the developers that work for me, I personally trained or they taught themselves. They didn't have the skill prior. Some of them I choose from our phone rep pool. The ones that showed desire and aptitude or some that came to me and asked what it would take for me to consider them. I want that guy that would willingly fix toilets. I don't hire drones. And yes, I know that not everyone would qualify for that. But these kids that are putting themselves in deep debt for degrees that will unlikely pan out into a well paying job are just making poor decisions.

 

[Lexicus]

Is this your goal? Not very realistic.

The distribution of income, despite what lots of people say, is not like the weather - it is ultimately determined by decisions made by people.

 

[rah]

I can't disagree with that. And it's not trending in the right direction. But there are always going to be higher paid jobs and lower paid jobs based on ability. (I'd like to think ability is the main determination but realize that it will never be 100% that way)

But I also don't believe that flipping burgers should guarantee you a middle class life style with a pension. It should just be a stepping stone along the way.

 

[Lexicus]

(I'd like to think ability is the main determination but realize that it will never be 100% that way)

The main reason we no longer have 'easy' jobs that yield a middle-class lifestyle (we still do, actually, but they're mainly union jobs and that's no coincidence) is the power imbalance that exists between employers and employees.

But I also don't believe that flipping burgers should guarantee you a middle class life style with a pension. It should just be a stepping stone along the way.

But why? What possible reason could you have for this belief other than an irrational prejudice against burger flipping?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But I also don't believe that flipping burgers should guarantee you a middle class life style with a pension. It should just be a stepping stone along the way.

A stepping stone to what? Tell me what "good job" flipping burgers is preparing someone for? Explain to me how this supposed job is more important to me as a member of society than the guy who is preparing my food.

This "that lowly job is just a stepping stone" idea is something that has been woven into the social fabric just to make the people who punch a time clock somewhere else feel better about themselves.

 

[rah]

Because people should be inspired to seek more skill than required to flip burgers and not just settle for that.
Flipping burger should be just to prove that you're willing to work hard and show up and you're ready to do more.
It should make you want to learn more, even if it's just to learn to be a short order cook, and maybe move up to a chef.

Many restaurant managers started out flipping burgers.

 

[metalhead]

Is this your goal? Not very realistic.

Maybe not on those exact terms, but terms which approximate them. I think a college degree is quite valuable, including degrees you'd likely term "unlikely to pan out," as they teach things like communication and critical thinking skills, which many employers say is lacking among people who choose "better" degrees than those dumbasses in liberal arts school. So I'm fine with education, but you need to make it like it used to be, where college was financially accessible without significant debt to most who wanted to go.

Then you need a mandated shorter work week, so that employers are forced to bring more people into the labor force. This will in turn create demand for other, less skilled labor in retail and entertainment.

Some of the developers that work for me, I personally trained or they taught themselves. They didn't have the skill prior. Some of them I choose from our phone rep pool. The ones that showed desire and aptitude or some that came to me and asked what it would take for me to consider them. I want that guy that would willingly fix toilets. I don't hire drones.

They might not have had the skill, but I'm assuming they had the aptitude and willingness to learn, yes? And that you selected them because you saw this in them?

We all want the guy who willingly fixes toilets, because he will take pride in his work and a toilet which fails can be an utter catastrophe. Same thing with electricians, because they can burn our houses down. That's why I don't think it makes the slightest bit of sense to say that people should pick skilled trades as a career path. Because they should only do so if they want to, and have the aptitude to be successful at it.

Because people should be inspired to seek more skill than required to flip burgers and not just settle for that.
Flipping burger should be just to prove that you're willing to work hard and show up and you're ready to do more.

But why is this ask made of burger flippers and not factory workers? Why is it acceptable to do rote work in a factory for 40 years and call it a career, but not in a restaurant? Should factory workers also be inspired to seek more skill? If not, why not?

 

[Lexicus]

Because people should be inspired to seek more skill than required to flip burgers and not just settle for that.
Flipping burger should be just to prove that you're willing to work hard and show up and you're ready to do more.

Again....why? This isn't a reason, this is just a restatement of your opinion...

 

[rah]

we still do, actually, but they're mainly union jobs and that's no coincidence) is the power imbalance that exists between employers and employees.

I have to give you that one. But on the other side of that one, maybe if the unions hadn't gotten so corrupted and greedy, maybe their power wouldn't have declined. You are right that part of the blame falls on the imbalance.

 

[rah]

Maybe not on those exact terms, but terms which approximate them. I think a college degree is quite valuable, including degrees you'd likely term "unlikely to pan out," as they teach things like communication and critical thinking skills, which many employers say is lacking among people who choose "better" degrees than those dumbasses in liberal arts school. So I'm fine with education, but you need to make it like it used to be, where college was financially accessible without significant debt to most who wanted to go.

Then you need a mandated shorter work week, so that employers are forced to bring more people into the labor force. This will in turn create demand for other, less skilled labor in retail and entertainment.

I have a poly sci degree so I'm not totally unsympathetic to your argument. And yes it should be made more affordable. But that doesn't remove the onus on people to make better decisions.

Shorter work weeks are not the answer. We don't need anything else that will make us less competitive globally and adding that kind of expense certainly won't help.

 

[Lexicus]

I have to give you that one. But on the other side of that one, maybe if the unions hadn't gotten so corrupted and greedy, maybe their power wouldn't have declined. You are right that part of the blame falls on the imbalance.

Bah, this whole 'unions are corrupt and greedy' trope/meme is complete nonsense. There were and are plenty of problems with unions, but they are considerably less corrupt than their opponents. Union power has been undermined by a concerted, decades-long campaign by the right in this country, not by the moral failings of unions.