I have to thank Michael J. Sandel for his ideas on meritocracy, a simple idea with mass appeal, and it's capability for corruption - his clarity and acuity is a balm for my mind. From a british social history perspective, to supplant both the correctness of, from the left, collective bargaining and people receiving fair wages for their productivity, and from the right, historic social cultural conservatism, with different aspects of the assumption that "meritocratic" market forces leading to benevolent and fair social outcomes (rather than this apparent global scale monopoly game, an economic retelling and of Hansel and Gretel guiding us into rapid decadence and social entropy, whilst governments, regulators and GAAP all fail to keep pace with rapid change), instead cementing the ongoing relative wealth and power of the winners of the game, ths new elite, in perpetuity. More power to you.
Believe, people around him enjoy more by listening to him in-person. Time in which there is a debate and multiple points from enthusiasts and finally summary by the Professor. Hope, to see and listen to him in the auditorium.
Alain de Botton has a book (and video available here on RUclips under the School of Life called Status Anxiety) that addresses meritocracy as it influences capitalism and results in a level of anxiety that is destructive to the social fabric of the nation. It was identified in the early 19th century in America by Alexi de Tocqueville on a tour. In other words, the most highly educated amongst us saw it coming and until now have done nothing to curb it.
I’m thinking, I’m the kind of man whom is considered as not providing a relatively important contribution to global society and I’m watching this invaluable testimony, unfortunately in Colombia our current president has no a little idea of the language of moral and ethics expressed here; as a senator he was working in favour of big corporations trying to avoid at all costs the implementation of policies which had as a goal to regulate the consumption of drinks and food that could represent a great risk to our health. So I deduce the information expressed here in terms of moral and ethics should not be fully appreciated in the high spheres of our government. Greetings from Bogotá.
purikurix the answer is no, what I want is a democracy that can influence our lives for good. I’m a conservative i tend to lean on the perspective of moral and ethics, as I see it, the world has become a common black market disguised as a free liberal economy where there are no limits in the pursuit of economic growth. It’s just a choice; our non ethical chain of technical progress is undermining the wellbeing and the proper preservation of a whole race.
The issue is that people don't want to be equal, and don't want life to be fair. Those at the top want to stay there and continue living in the privilege they have. Not everyone can be an elite, and the world cannot sustain the lifestyle of the elite for all people. Equality and meritocracy are an existential threat to the lifestyle of the elite.
At the end of the day, we express our real values when we make choices with our money. Sandel may think it's unfair that the garbage man doesn't get paid the same as the physician, but there are a lot more people who can take garbage and put it into a pile than can perform surgery. Taking out the garbage is an essential function, true, but that's captured in the demand curve for garbage men. The reason the garbage man doesn't get paid much is because of the supply of people capable and willing to do the job. Sandel thinks "we don't value the garbage man"... but that's not true.
But what if in the next ten years there was a shortage of garbage men and an excess of physicians, to the point where garbage men earnt more than physicians, is the garbage man morally any more deserving of his pay than before?
You, like many, many people defending free market economics, miss the point. The garbage man doesn’t need to make as much as the physician (although I would argue as an American who has been serviced by both that the garbage man’s value far exceeds that of my profit-generating physicians). His point, and mine, is that nobody who contributes to a community in any way should be forced to live in squalor and shame because their contribution is less “valuable.” There are ways to quantify value that are not monetary. I would argue that the corruption and exploitation exercised by the American oligarchy in order to achieve economic domination negates their relative value to society and cast it instead as a major detriment. What good is Jeff Bezos doing by building a multi-million dollar yacht too big for any mooring on Earth? Let them eat cake is a very dangerous sentiment, as history has demonstrated. Wealth does NOT equal value nor indicate intelligence. But we’re asking Bill Gates to answer questions on climate, homelessness, poverty… it’s insane. He stole Windows. He stole the mouse. He’s not Einstein, he’s Ponzi. Equating money and the accumulation of wealth with relative value to the nation is foolish at best and down right ignorant at least.
The great irony of the university degree in America is that the mere requirement, along with the commercialization of its institutions, is very quickly destroying the perceived value of the degrees, themselves. This and the constant reference to and exploitation of the reputations of our most highly valued institutions of higher learning. How many crooked politicians were educated at Harvard and Yale, Columbia, GW, etc. and gone on (or continue to go on) to positions of power that allow them to exploit America and it’s people for personal gain? Think about the message that sends to future generations of students.
If you said so , I will, do it as soon as possible, we’re here to enjoying our life’s, but not to suffer, as my experiences, for my next life journey I will do the same ways for living, and love the life’s that you live , if you don’t know someone who you doesn’t know anything about the past and capability and even their private lives, do not give your beliefs, to those who you do not trust them because sometimes you will not be able to taken your vote back , the candidate should go to the university and identify themselves to the students. ,
Sometimes academic clarity is a sacrifice of depth. I think we need to demand higher skill levels of the participants in our community, as well. Reading and understanding Jacques Derrida, for instance, should be a skill everyone has developed. We’ve spent far too long “simplifying” education for the sake of “efficiency.” It’s like substituting books with crib sheets. It’s the engagement with the subject presented in-depth by a book- or study-length work that is the essence of education, not the “key takeaways.” Intellectual growth cannot be achieved through quicker, easier, more accessible programs. It’s like weight training for the brain and the mind. If the goal is to compete for the Mr. Universe title, just going to the gym and running “circuits” will never get you there. If university study doesn’t change you fundamentally, you did it wrong. Far from being the “easiest” and most “worthless” degree programs available, the Liberal Arts demand a level of thought, engagement, and performance equivalent to the physical training of US Navy SEALS. There are no bubble tests, no way to “cram” your way through a degree, and no way the unoriginal matriculate. As it should be.
lol, you are so deep into the tyranny that you dont even dare to question the Pareto principle's background assumptions and its relations to meritocracy ideals
Sandel's critique of pay differentials is off base. Wages aren't determined by some abstract & vague moral principle such as "fairness." They're based on the economic principles of productivity & supply and demand. If you bring in a lot of money into any organization you're likely going to be paid well for it.
I think that what he’s trying to say is that whether or not you possess an abundance of qualities which are deemed ‘valuable’ or ‘useful’ to a particular society at a given point in time is a matter of luck of natural ability and your environment. I don’t think that Sandel is against the idea of pay differentials since this seems to be an unavoidable and imperative aspect of society; I think Sandel’s argument is that we should not consider someone to be of a greater moral worth than another simply because of their abundance of talent. I think this goes back to Sandel’s idea of arbitrary factors playing a role in the social hierarchy and also the notion that everybody in society has a role to play and simply by that fact alone, irrespective of income or accomplishment, we deserve to be valued on equal terms.
Sorry if I’m coming off as incoherent here I’m still very wet behind the ears when it comes to discussing matters such as this and I’ll be glad to talk with you about any objections you may still have to Sandel’s ideas.
Crises can create openings for rethinking many things in our social order. So can Revolution. If inequality doesn’t shrink soon, this exercise of “how to begin” will be relegated to absurdity. People are starving. People are being put out of homes. People who want yo work cannot because they are not afforded opportunities. If you run an economy where benefit hinges upon direct, visible, measurable, compensated participation, I think you’d be much better off making damned sure MOST people can participate BENEFICIALLY. Right now, the mere fact of employment proves participation, but participation alone is no longer a guarantee of benefit. When a single mom must have two or three jobs to make ends meet, what benefit to society? When her children are at health, academic, and social risk including drugs, alcohol, unwanted pregnancy, etc. her “contribution” is MORE than negated, the cost of participation is much greater than the benefit. And the rich continue to justify their blindness by citing meritocracy. Is frustrating on a level that is visceral.
Not sure where Sandel is going here. Some of the happiest, most contented and productive people I know, never stepped foot in a university. Are academics becoming superfluous in the scheme of things?
Sandel is great at what he does but this is not his field and he makes some good points but some terrible ones too in his simplistic notion of the election of Trump
Please try to remember when listening ( to any philosopher ) that they will lead you to a conclusion through a series of assumptions that they hope you will not challenge. When Sandel does this you must catch it and stop the lecture to truly consider whether what he says you can really agree with. Most of his assumptions I don't agree with so i don't agree with his conclusion. Do you believe Sandel will sacrifice his lifestyle for the "common good"? Do you believe that when Sandel needs a plumber he does so by reciting eenie meenie miney mo? nah!
Isn't there an implied inverse of Sandel's logic? If I should be thankful for being born into an established and successful family, should I be sour and resentful if I'm born into a poor one? Should I expect and demand charity?
You shouldn't have to accept that an accident of birth determines your likely life outcomes and the amount of personal sacrifice and effort needed to achieve them. Nor hould you have to accept that an accident of birth should determine who rules over you. This was the basis of the great US experiment in a non-despotic form of Government. Sadly, as John Adams predicted, just 8 years into the life of the new Republic, the tyranny of a remote aristocracy has been replaced by the tyranny of a hime-grown oligarchy.
@@SafeTrucking The only way to really ensure equality of upbringing is to remove children from their parents at birth and have them raised by the State. It is clear that any given society has members who possess the values necessary for a fruitful and productive life - discipline, persistence, patience, curiosity, and creativity - and others who don't. Those values are not necessarily natural, but are instilled in individuals from their parents. Therefore, you cannot have a equality of upbringing if all members of a society are permitted to raise their own children.
@@davekuhn1770 Who said anything about "equality of upbringing"? I'm speaking about the role of the State in removing barriers to socioeconomic mobility. Not sure how you got to your argument from that.
@@SafeTrucking What are the barriers? In a meritocracy, anyone can succeed if they possess qualities conducive to success, which do not cost anything, and apply them in their pursuits. You made the claim that one’s birth determines one’s outcomes and the sacrifices required. If you’re pointing out that some come into possession of what others before spent a lifetime building, how is that a problem and how would you “fix” it? If, instead, you’re taking issue that some are born into bad families that do not instill qualities conducive to success into their children, then we’re talking about the same thing; I’m simply pointing out that it’s unavoidable unless the State takes over child rearing.
@@davekuhn1770 There is no "meritocracy", mate, there is a selection process that's primarily based on birth status: if you have wealthy, well connected parents you automatically have "merit" and if you don't, you don't. It's not a matter of personal qualities, it's access to capital, access to educational opportunities, specific skill sets, access to mentors and contacts and the existence of favours owed and so on. Poor parents may have work ethic and other great qualities in abundance, but they don't have a golden stairway to carry you over the structural barriers that exist. It requires you to be genuinely exceptional to succeed in competition with people who only have to have average talent but a great start through an accident of birth. Many of the very wealthy have made a pledge to divest themselves of their great wealth and to only pass on a relatively small amount to their children. The argument being used by those people is that access to great wealth diminishes the drive to work. There is an old saying about families that acquire great wealth, based on the same premise: "gutter to gutter in 3 generations". You keep trying to express my position in absolute terms: "You made the claim that birth determines one's outcomes", but I'm sure you understand that it's all about skewing probabilities. Instead of trying to misrepresent my argument, try thinking about it and engage with it, that leads to much more interesting and fruitful discussions.
Lol, I’ll take the guy who keeps the lights on and the guy who keeps the car running over the gender studies graduate or the diversity trainer any day of the week.
When you take away the dignity of people who work hard to be part of the community, rebuff them for the ways in which they can participate, you destroy their desire to try. At its core, this is an argument for greatly reducing income inequality, returning all means of participation to the status of “worthy” and the elimination of homelessness, poverty, food insecurity, and the lack of access through judgement of “unearned pleasure.” Social Mobility only works as an incentive if it is possible, achievable, in a lifetime. In America, that is no longer the case. The “system” is stacked against you and the ONLY way to achieve the American Dream is to begin at a level of privilege restricted to the upper 10% of the entire nation. Period. Show me a poor person who has risen to the nation’s highest office since Lincoln. Huh. So, we are at the mercy of the privileged and that mercy has vanished in favor of blame fueled by this ridiculous adherence to a non-existent meritocracy. This allows the exploiters to eschew their guilt and culpability in favor of justification. In a room with an arrogant, undeserving narcissist, doesn’t it make you want to slap the snot out of someone? Yeah? French Revolution. Russian Revolution. When the disparity becomes too great and all you can offer is cake, the fabric of the nation is endangered. We need laws, unions, policies to force equity because the rich have demonstrated over the past 50 years that they are incapable of moral and ethical behavior.
I quite disagree with Mr. sandell 's critiques because being poor is a disease of attitude. self education is important and today is quite free. what you do and think create your reality.
Yeah, the poor person who wants to start a business but doesn't have access to capital just has a bad attitude. They should be grateful to be given the chance to work for someone who does have that access, for peanuts, because as we all know, money defines merit! God bless America, the land of the free to starve...
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Professor Michael Sandel. Your lessons are always provoking and deeply relevant to the struggle of humanity in the divided world.
I have to thank Michael J. Sandel for his ideas on meritocracy, a simple idea with mass appeal, and it's capability for corruption - his clarity and acuity is a balm for my mind. From a british social history perspective, to supplant both the correctness of, from the left, collective bargaining and people receiving fair wages for their productivity, and from the right, historic social cultural conservatism, with different aspects of the assumption that "meritocratic" market forces leading to benevolent and fair social outcomes (rather than this apparent global scale monopoly game, an economic retelling and of Hansel and Gretel guiding us into rapid decadence and social entropy, whilst governments, regulators and GAAP all fail to keep pace with rapid change), instead cementing the ongoing relative wealth and power of the winners of the game, ths new elite, in perpetuity. More power to you.
Believe, people around him enjoy more by listening to him in-person. Time in which there is a debate and multiple points from enthusiasts and finally summary by the Professor. Hope, to see and listen to him in the auditorium.
I love his ideas and I agree with everything he says!!!
This is great insight.
Alain de Botton has a book (and video available here on RUclips under the School of Life called Status Anxiety) that addresses meritocracy as it influences capitalism and results in a level of anxiety that is destructive to the social fabric of the nation. It was identified in the early 19th century in America by Alexi de Tocqueville on a tour. In other words, the most highly educated amongst us saw it coming and until now have done nothing to curb it.
hmm... my really quick summary- Don't be a narcissist and learn from the proverb "It takes a village to raise a child"
Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan is great on the theme of luck etc
First to comment!! Thats all i can say... because this is deep.
Achilles!! Achilles!!
@@jimbodriver1015 honestly, I can't recall what wanted to say!!! Was it just to get a kick out of peoples' miffed reactions to my silliness!
I’m thinking, I’m the kind of man whom is considered as not providing a relatively important contribution to global society and I’m watching this invaluable testimony, unfortunately in Colombia our current president has no a little idea of the language of moral and ethics expressed here; as a senator he was working in favour of big corporations trying to avoid at all costs the implementation of policies which had as a goal to regulate the consumption of drinks and food that could represent a great risk to our health. So I deduce the information expressed here in terms of moral and ethics should not be fully appreciated in the high spheres of our government. Greetings from Bogotá.
Do you favour paternalism?
purikurix the answer is no, what I want is a democracy that can influence our lives for good. I’m a conservative i tend to lean on the perspective of moral and ethics, as I see it, the world has become a common black market disguised as a free liberal economy where there are no limits in the pursuit of economic growth. It’s just a choice; our non ethical chain of technical progress is undermining the wellbeing and the proper preservation of a whole race.
Thanks to Vidmantas Tutlys for recommending this video
The issue is that people don't want to be equal, and don't want life to be fair. Those at the top want to stay there and continue living in the privilege they have. Not everyone can be an elite, and the world cannot sustain the lifestyle of the elite for all people. Equality and meritocracy are an existential threat to the lifestyle of the elite.
At the end of the day, we express our real values when we make choices with our money. Sandel may think it's unfair that the garbage man doesn't get paid the same as the physician, but there are a lot more people who can take garbage and put it into a pile than can perform surgery. Taking out the garbage is an essential function, true, but that's captured in the demand curve for garbage men. The reason the garbage man doesn't get paid much is because of the supply of people capable and willing to do the job. Sandel thinks "we don't value the garbage man"... but that's not true.
This is exactly how market fails to capture deep moral concerns.
But what if in the next ten years there was a shortage of garbage men and an excess of physicians, to the point where garbage men earnt more than physicians, is the garbage man morally any more deserving of his pay than before?
You, like many, many people defending free market economics, miss the point. The garbage man doesn’t need to make as much as the physician (although I would argue as an American who has been serviced by both that the garbage man’s value far exceeds that of my profit-generating physicians). His point, and mine, is that nobody who contributes to a community in any way should be forced to live in squalor and shame because their contribution is less “valuable.” There are ways to quantify value that are not monetary. I would argue that the corruption and exploitation exercised by the American oligarchy in order to achieve economic domination negates their relative value to society and cast it instead as a major detriment. What good is Jeff Bezos doing by building a multi-million dollar yacht too big for any mooring on Earth?
Let them eat cake is a very dangerous sentiment, as history has demonstrated. Wealth does NOT equal value nor indicate intelligence. But we’re asking Bill Gates to answer questions on climate, homelessness, poverty… it’s insane. He stole Windows. He stole the mouse. He’s not Einstein, he’s Ponzi. Equating money and the accumulation of wealth with relative value to the nation is foolish at best and down right ignorant at least.
@@anandpatil610 indeed
The great irony of the university degree in America is that the mere requirement, along with the commercialization of its institutions, is very quickly destroying the perceived value of the degrees, themselves. This and the constant reference to and exploitation of the reputations of our most highly valued institutions of higher learning. How many crooked politicians were educated at Harvard and Yale, Columbia, GW, etc. and gone on (or continue to go on) to positions of power that allow them to exploit America and it’s people for personal gain?
Think about the message that sends to future generations of students.
If you said so , I will, do it as soon as possible, we’re here to enjoying our life’s, but not to suffer, as my experiences, for my next life journey I will do the same ways for living, and love the life’s that you live , if you don’t know someone who you doesn’t know anything about the past and capability and even their private lives, do not give your beliefs, to those who you do not trust them because sometimes you will not be able to taken your vote back , the candidate should go to the university and identify themselves to the students.
,
Sometimes academic clarity is a sacrifice of depth. I think we need to demand higher skill levels of the participants in our community, as well. Reading and understanding Jacques Derrida, for instance, should be a skill everyone has developed. We’ve spent far too long “simplifying” education for the sake of “efficiency.” It’s like substituting books with crib sheets. It’s the engagement with the subject presented in-depth by a book- or study-length work that is the essence of education, not the “key takeaways.” Intellectual growth cannot be achieved through quicker, easier, more accessible programs. It’s like weight training for the brain and the mind. If the goal is to compete for the Mr. Universe title, just going to the gym and running “circuits” will never get you there. If university study doesn’t change you fundamentally, you did it wrong. Far from being the “easiest” and most “worthless” degree programs available, the Liberal Arts demand a level of thought, engagement, and performance equivalent to the physical training of US Navy SEALS. There are no bubble tests, no way to “cram” your way through a degree, and no way the unoriginal matriculate. As it should be.
Endearing but you can't make laws that circumvent the Pareto principle. There will always be inequality of outcome.
lol, you are so deep into the tyranny that you dont even dare to question the Pareto principle's background assumptions and its relations to meritocracy ideals
So, what part of what Sandel argues for are claiming to be impossible?
N.B: His views don’t necessarily represent the views of the LSE admissions office.
HAHAHA
Sandel's critique of pay differentials is off base. Wages aren't determined by some abstract & vague moral principle such as "fairness." They're based on the economic principles of productivity & supply and demand. If you bring in a lot of money into any organization you're likely going to be paid well for it.
I think that what he’s trying to say is that whether or not you possess an abundance of qualities which are deemed ‘valuable’ or ‘useful’ to a particular society at a given point in time is a matter of luck of natural ability and your environment. I don’t think that Sandel is against the idea of pay differentials since this seems to be an unavoidable and imperative aspect of society; I think Sandel’s argument is that we should not consider someone to be of a greater moral worth than another simply because of their abundance of talent. I think this goes back to Sandel’s idea of arbitrary factors playing a role in the social hierarchy and also the notion that everybody in society has a role to play and simply by that fact alone, irrespective of income or accomplishment, we deserve to be valued on equal terms.
Sorry if I’m coming off as incoherent here I’m still very wet behind the ears when it comes to discussing matters such as this and I’ll be glad to talk with you about any objections you may still have to Sandel’s ideas.
Crises can create openings for rethinking many things in our social order. So can Revolution. If inequality doesn’t shrink soon, this exercise of “how to begin” will be relegated to absurdity. People are starving. People are being put out of homes. People who want yo work cannot because they are not afforded opportunities. If you run an economy where benefit hinges upon direct, visible, measurable, compensated participation, I think you’d be much better off making damned sure MOST people can participate BENEFICIALLY. Right now, the mere fact of employment proves participation, but participation alone is no longer a guarantee of benefit. When a single mom must have two or three jobs to make ends meet, what benefit to society? When her children are at health, academic, and social risk including drugs, alcohol, unwanted pregnancy, etc. her “contribution” is MORE than negated, the cost of participation is much greater than the benefit. And the rich continue to justify their blindness by citing meritocracy. Is frustrating on a level that is visceral.
ايها.السبدان.الكرمان.نحن.اليوم.في.السادس.سنه.عمل.بدون.اجر.التجار.يتقضون.اجارهم.في.الحين.ونحن.الي.اجل.غير.معروض.ايه.السانه.الكرام.ابحثو.لنا.عن.حل.وشكرا
HOW I WISH ....
my employes embrace the dignity of work....., better than the dignity of how money can buy
A critique of market economy but against meritocracy feels inconclusive to me
Not sure where Sandel is going here. Some of the happiest, most contented and productive people I know, never stepped foot in a university. Are academics becoming superfluous in the scheme of things?
Sandel is great at what he does but this is not his field and he makes some good points but some terrible ones too in his simplistic notion of the election of Trump
The common good aka the tyranny of the free-loader. Looks like someone likes Cuba.
32:15 ignorance rambles and rambles
Please try to remember when listening ( to any philosopher ) that they will lead you to a conclusion through a series of assumptions that they hope you will not challenge. When Sandel does this you must catch it and stop the lecture to truly consider whether what he says you can really agree with. Most of his assumptions I don't agree with so i don't agree with his conclusion. Do you believe Sandel will sacrifice his lifestyle for the "common good"? Do you believe that when Sandel needs a plumber he does so by reciting eenie meenie miney mo? nah!
Isn't there an implied inverse of Sandel's logic? If I should be thankful for being born into an established and successful family, should I be sour and resentful if I'm born into a poor one? Should I expect and demand charity?
You shouldn't have to accept that an accident of birth determines your likely life outcomes and the amount of personal sacrifice and effort needed to achieve them. Nor hould you have to accept that an accident of birth should determine who rules over you. This was the basis of the great US experiment in a non-despotic form of Government. Sadly, as John Adams predicted, just 8 years into the life of the new Republic, the tyranny of a remote aristocracy has been replaced by the tyranny of a hime-grown oligarchy.
@@SafeTrucking The only way to really ensure equality of upbringing is to remove children from their parents at birth and have them raised by the State. It is clear that any given society has members who possess the values necessary for a fruitful and productive life - discipline, persistence, patience, curiosity, and creativity - and others who don't. Those values are not necessarily natural, but are instilled in individuals from their parents. Therefore, you cannot have a equality of upbringing if all members of a society are permitted to raise their own children.
@@davekuhn1770 Who said anything about "equality of upbringing"? I'm speaking about the role of the State in removing barriers to socioeconomic mobility. Not sure how you got to your argument from that.
@@SafeTrucking What are the barriers? In a meritocracy, anyone can succeed if they possess qualities conducive to success, which do not cost anything, and apply them in their pursuits. You made the claim that one’s birth determines one’s outcomes and the sacrifices required. If you’re pointing out that some come into possession of what others before spent a lifetime building, how is that a problem and how would you “fix” it? If, instead, you’re taking issue that some are born into bad families that do not instill qualities conducive to success into their children, then we’re talking about the same thing; I’m simply pointing out that it’s unavoidable unless the State takes over child rearing.
@@davekuhn1770 There is no "meritocracy", mate, there is a selection process that's primarily based on birth status: if you have wealthy, well connected parents you automatically have "merit" and if you don't, you don't. It's not a matter of personal qualities, it's access to capital, access to educational opportunities, specific skill sets, access to mentors and contacts and the existence of favours owed and so on. Poor parents may have work ethic and other great qualities in abundance, but they don't have a golden stairway to carry you over the structural barriers that exist. It requires you to be genuinely exceptional to succeed in competition with people who only have to have average talent but a great start through an accident of birth.
Many of the very wealthy have made a pledge to divest themselves of their great wealth and to only pass on a relatively small amount to their children. The argument being used by those people is that access to great wealth diminishes the drive to work. There is an old saying about families that acquire great wealth, based on the same premise: "gutter to gutter in 3 generations".
You keep trying to express my position in absolute terms: "You made the claim that birth determines one's outcomes", but I'm sure you understand that it's all about skewing probabilities. Instead of trying to misrepresent my argument, try thinking about it and engage with it, that leads to much more interesting and fruitful discussions.
Look up the video: 'Critical Thinking 101- Part 2: Debunking the Tyranny of Merit'' by The Hyperian Source
Lol, I’ll take the guy who keeps the lights on and the guy who keeps the car running over the gender studies graduate or the diversity trainer any day of the week.
When you take away the dignity of people who work hard to be part of the community, rebuff them for the ways in which they can participate, you destroy their desire to try. At its core, this is an argument for greatly reducing income inequality, returning all means of participation to the status of “worthy” and the elimination of homelessness, poverty, food insecurity, and the lack of access through judgement of “unearned pleasure.”
Social Mobility only works as an incentive if it is possible, achievable, in a lifetime. In America, that is no longer the case. The “system” is stacked against you and the ONLY way to achieve the American Dream is to begin at a level of privilege restricted to the upper 10% of the entire nation. Period. Show me a poor person who has risen to the nation’s highest office since Lincoln. Huh. So, we are at the mercy of the privileged and that mercy has vanished in favor of blame fueled by this ridiculous adherence to a non-existent meritocracy. This allows the exploiters to eschew their guilt and culpability in favor of justification. In a room with an arrogant, undeserving narcissist, doesn’t it make you want to slap the snot out of someone? Yeah? French Revolution. Russian Revolution. When the disparity becomes too great and all you can offer is cake, the fabric of the nation is endangered. We need laws, unions, policies to force equity because the rich have demonstrated over the past 50 years that they are incapable of moral and ethical behavior.
Tell me you are a communist without telling me you are a communist
Likely the worst system... possibly except for all the rest...
This lecture smells like snake oil made from dead snake rotten for ages.
I quite disagree with Mr. sandell 's critiques because being poor is a disease of attitude. self education is important and today is quite free. what you do and think create your reality.
Yeah, the poor person who wants to start a business but doesn't have access to capital just has a bad attitude.
They should be grateful to be given the chance to work for someone who does have that access, for peanuts, because as we all know, money defines merit!
God bless America, the land of the free to starve...
@@SafeTrucking Doesn't have access to capital, time, and social connections