The problem is the outsized economic returns to "higher IQ." It's worked out well for me (*) and plainly a lot of people on the board, but it isn't sustainable. Nor is it particularly fair.

(*) In part, because of the accident of time. The market for legal services is in the midst of secular change, one symptom of which is the 25% drop in LSAT takers in just the last couple years, and that during a recession when you'd expect law school to be more appealing as a place to wait out the bad times. It's tougher to get a career going and gain a foothold. (OTOH, the legal market has been overbuilt for years.)

Well, that's a value judgment, but looking at the people at the top echelons of our government and corporations, it appears that ship has already sailed.

Ships sail. Ships sink. New ships are built. Human society is more than 235 years old.

(edit - stupid use of possessive instead of plural)

All societies that evolve beyond the tribal are (or quickly become) plutocracies. It's more interesting to focus on how difficult it is for a non-plutocrat to join the plutocrats and how well off the non-plutocrats are.

It may be more interesting to you; it’s as impossible as pretending you can live your life pretending there's a real possibility that everyone can be major-leaguers.

The big monkey hits the little monkey, and the screws all the lady monkeys first.

Yes, that is the both the natural way and the inclination we have to revert to it as a cultural model. Not Social Darwinism, but Darwinism. Fortunately the process in the process screwed itself (potentially, if we make use of it) by creating the organs and means to rise above that. It’s hard, but it’s what civilization struggles to do—to transcend head-butting and harems of alphas. It’s done because it’s good for the whole and for the individual. You don’t have to stay awake nights worrying some rival might garrote you in your sleep.

You can work to have a system that says, you, too, can get all the girls, or you can work to have a system that more equitably allows an allocation of those girls. Libertarian capitalists/entrepreneurials don't understand that the two are a conceptual contradiction but at a certain point the two are very much at odds in practice--you can't strive for the first and not have the effect of working to exclude the second. If a rich Johnny Carson or a Sultan or a Mormon Elder gets to monopolize the prized sexual years of multiple women, it ineluctably follow that some men are going to get the short end of it--and they will be pissed because of that, even if they don't make the connection for the source of their dissatisfaction at the conscious level. Equal opportunity, even if democratic Libertarianism fostered that, is not enough—it doesn’t lead to equality even as a theoretical matter. You can be for cultural democracy or you can be for harem plutocracy. You can't have both, and you can’t strive for one without working to hobble the other.

Yes, that is the both the natural way and the inclination we have to revert to it as a cultural model. Not Social Darwinism, but Darwinism. Fortunately the process in the process screwed itself (potentially, if we make use of it) by creating the organs and means to rise above that. It’s hard, but it’s what civilization struggles to do—to transcend head-butting and harems of alphas. It’s done because it’s good for the whole and for the individual.

But if the alphas then create a warped political appeal that uses other Darwinistic instincts (most notably tribalism based around sacred/profane and in-group/other-enemy dualities) to the point where they successfully convince the lower classes that the organs and means to rise above that is vile, evil, class warfare that only godless commies and Kenyan Muslim socialists believe in, well, at the very least you have to stand back in some awe of that trick turned, right?

You don’t have to stay awake nights worrying some rival might garrote you in your sleep.

You clearly don't live near me.

Holy christ! Do you have trouble reading? No, that is THEIR position. You know, your "America's leading authority on the economics of immigration", which by the way you absolutely know that to be true since a reporter wrote that.

Ah, so you don't even have a horse in this race. You're just arguing to argue. Now I get it.

But if the alphas then create a warped political appeal that uses other Darwinistic instincts (most notably tribalism based around sacred/profane and in-group/other-enemy dualities) to the point where they successfully convince the lower classes that the organs and means to rise above that is vile, evil, class warfare

But those dualities aren't based on class, or even economics. They're based on culture -- "brie eating, wine-sipping Frenchies" vs. "selfish retrograde racists."

That's the problem -- the elites have diverted people's attention from economics and placed it four-square on these irrelevencies and imaginary cultural affinities. They've taken economics, and thereby their position and privilege, off the table by deflecting attention from it. Someone of a conspiratorial bent might think it was on purpose.

Ah, so you don't even have a horse in this race. You're just arguing to argue. Now I get it.

I get it as well. You're a troll. Good day.

The problem is the outsized economic returns to "higher IQ." It's worked out well for me (*) and plainly a lot of people on the board, but it isn't sustainable. Nor is it particularly fair.

No, it's not particularly fair. But neither is being weak, sickly and nearsighted if you're from a tribe of paleolithic hunter/gatherers.

Why do you say it's not sustainable though? Assuming the people in the bottom 80% are more or less placated, I don't see why such a system couldn't have a decent run.

That's the problem -- the elites have diverted people's attention from economics and placed it four-square on these irrelevencies and imaginary cultural affinities. They've taken economics, and thereby their position and privilege, off the table by deflecting attention from it. Someone of a conspiratorial bent might think it was on purpose.

I'm thinking I disagree with your assertion that they have "diverted people's attention from economics" and distracted them with tribal/cultural in-group/out-group logic. I'm pretty sure the tribal logic comes first, and the high-end economic reasoning is a recent add-on.

Why do you say it's not sustainable though? Assuming the people in the bottom 80% are more or less placated, I don't see why such a system couldn't have a decent run.

Worked for thousands of years.

909:

I agree. We didn't evolve to be capitalist/entrepreneurs. That's an effect, and it's not an irreducible given. it can be reduced to ultimate antecedents.

We first have a tendency for cooperation for mutual benefit. To effect that, we systematize it, and use that system to further our advantage. To do that we only have to pay lip service to social organization if we could get away with it, starting at the tribal level on up. But we can't. So why kid ourselves with pie in the sky ideas. For it to actually work, lip service isn't enough.

* Supposedly. I don't know how it works in practice.

In practice it seems like there's a shortage of low wage workers. I know that Boston Pizza (and this is just one example) is recruiting in places like Sri Lanka. They have a tough time keeping their places in northern Alberta staffed. I also know that Tim Horton has an arrangement with Immigration Canada whereby they provide first jobs for immigrants with Immigration paying part of the salary.

In practice this means it can be a real game . You place your order, but if you want anything more complex than an extra large, double-double it's always a guess as to what you actually get. (And I mean such complex things as glazed or frosted cinnamon rolls are problematic). At some locations there may be only one person who actually speaks English (and the staff may have no common language either)

I'm pretty sure the numbers aren't huge.

Incidentally we do have migrant farmworkers and the like. Just nowhere near the scale of California.

And as I've mentioned earlier in the thread, immigrant can buy their way in. By that I mean there's a separate (never filled) queue for people with a minimum level of wealth who are prepared to commit to opening a business or the like.

I'm thinking I disagree with your assertion that they have "diverted people's attention from economics" and distracted them with tribal/cultural in-group/out-group logic. I'm pretty sure the tribal logic comes first, and the high-end economic reasoning is a recent add-on.

The "tribes" are "liberal" and "conservative" -- the fissure between them is almost entirely cultural in nature.

You're right, the tribal logic comes first. That's why the fissure transcends economics. The selfish, NASCAR-loving racists would rather get #### on economically than to have to associate, and be associated with, the brie-eating, wine-sipping Frenchies.

Why do you say it's not sustainable though? Assuming the people in the bottom 80% are more or less placated, I don't see why such a system couldn't have a decent run.

20/80 could maybe be sustained, but we're at 1/99 now ... right? That's the template in common usage.

People aren't happy with the internationalist corporatization of the economy and life. They rioted against it back in '99-00, demonstrated again in 2011 with Occupy, etc. If that oppositionist trend continues, it will eventually prevail.

@846 - That sounds like a recipe for higher quality porn! Since only the best of the best will get jobs.

In practice it seems like there's a shortage of low wage workers. ...

It's interesting how much times have apparently changed. When I was a kid in the '80s, fast-food places were staffed almost entirely by teenagers, but now it seems like they're staffed by older native-born people or immigrants.

I wonder if Canada's skill-based immigration system has resulted in a shortage, or if the situation is similar to the U.S., where the welfare system makes it more appealing — and oftentimes more profitable — for people to stay at home rather than accept jobs at the lowest end of the wage scale. (I remember reading stories back at the start of the recession, when unemployment started to spike, about how seemingly every fast-food restaurant in the U.S. still had a "Help wanted" sign in the window.)

The two-tiered, hollowed-out society we've built is prime territory for the kind of apocalyptic ######## that Santorum preacher is spewing.

Stipulated. Zero evidence has been presented that demonstrates that raising tariffs on Chinese imports (or for that matter cracking down on illegal immigration from Mexico) fixes this....

WAIT! What if we just hired people to police the border at $20/hr!

As near as I can figure it - economic growth (not unlimited, but you know, a few %/year) is necessary but not sufficient to reclaim any standard of living gap. There is certainly no guarantee that increasing GDP helps "the 80%", but those people ain't getting helped first. I mean, in a _capitalist_ society. You want to go to a true or 80% planned economy... I don't think you do.


And I echo @893 - how are things less elitist now than in 1960? 1910? 1860? 1810?

20/80 could maybe be sustained, but we're at 1/99 now ... right?

Nope.

People aren't happy with the internationalist corporatization of the economy and life. They rioted against it back in '99-00, demonstrated again in 2011 with Occupy, etc. If that oppositionist trend continues, it will eventually prevail.

Anti-globalization rioters never had anything close to popular support. OWS was not a movement of the desperate poor against the elites. It was the wannabe elites who couldn't cut it against the elites.

Anti-globalization rioters never had anything close to popular support. OWS was not a movement of the desperate poor against the elites. It was the wannabe elites who couldn't cut it against the elites.

But if the working and middle class ultimately stop being deflected by the cultural "wars" and say "They may be dirty hippies, but they're *my* dirty hippies," that's when the system won't be sustainable. It didn't happen during Vietnam and it hasn't happened yet, but never say never.

Anti-globalization rioters never had anything close to popular support. OWS was not a movement of the desperate poor against the elites. It was the wannabe elites who couldn't cut it against the elites.

And "Tea Partiers" aren't actually the 1% either. They're angry old white men. Go figure.

Anti-globalization rioters never had anything close to popular support.

I would sadly agree that this is pretty much true.


OWS was not a movement of the desperate poor against the elites. It was the wannabe elites who couldn't cut it against the elites.

This, not so much. I would say those who were poor who were/are protesting, or even vocalizing support if not willing to be beaten or arrested, were not any kind of wannabe elites at all. I know you'll be shocked to hear that not everyone wants to be you, Good Face.

It's pretty easy to see that even if YES, there are plenty of wannabe elites who were supportive, it wasn't the bell-curve of the population or purpose. FOX, like you, would probably disagree.


(EDIT: I do remember Ray pulling out some stat that 3/4ths of OWS were of some high income level or something.)

But if the working and middle class ultimately stop being deflected by the cultural "wars" and say "They may be dirty hippies, but they're *my* dirty hippies," that's when the system won't be sustainable. It didn't happen during Vietnam and it hasn't happened yet, but never say never.

It won't be hippies and radicals that would topple the system. It would be a demagogic strong-man type that could appeal the traditional values and economic discontent. Think Juan Peron, not Che Guevara.

how are things less elitist now than in 1960? 1910? 1860? 1810?

I can't speak to 1810, but after 1860 we got rid of slavery, after 1910 we removed many of the worst elements of unrestrained capitalism (as the libertarians cried in their beer), and after 1960 we pretty much tore down the walls of formal segregation, and many of the informal walls as well. What we have now is a form of half true / half BS "meritocracy" that reinforces itself largely by networking** and inbreeding***. It doesn't have the worst features of the old elitism, but if you haven't cracked the code it may not work out a whole lot better in practice.

**See the makeup of the current Supreme Court for a rather blatant example of this: 5 justices graduated from Harvard Law School, 3 from Yale, and 1 from Columbia after beginning at Harvard.

***You don't see executives marrying their secretaries any more. Instead they marry their associates.

Let's see if I have this straight. Over two decades in which GDP exploded, incomes of the top 5% exploded, the stock market exploded, barriers to capital movement and formation were torn down ... immigration alone caused the wages of everyday working people to fall over 8%.

You don't have it straight. One study said that immigration caused the wages of high school dropouts -- not "everyday working people" -- to fall by 8% over two decades.

It would be a demagogic strong-man type that could appeal the traditional values and economic discontent.

Luckily it has been proven that the English language is not capable of sustaining demagoguery

This assumes a society that glorifies "higher IQ" is a society worth living in.

Well, not for you it isn't.

You don't see executives marrying their secretaries any more. Instead they marry their associates.

This is the critical change from which everything else flows -- most importantly, the perpetuation of privilege and distinct "class" mores (most notably, the "ecumenical niceness" of which Charles Murray rightly speaks).

One study said that immigration caused the wages of high school dropouts -- not "everyday working people"

High school dropouts and their perfect labor market substitutes high school graduates -- that's who everyday working people are. They aren't law school grads.

It doesn't have the worst features of the old elitism, but if you haven't cracked the code it may not work out a whole lot better in practice.

Eh, the old elitism had its issues, but in the past era, when the WASPs were on top, they belonged to a single social universe. They belonged to the same country clubs and fraternities, they weren't diverse and atomized. They were vulnerable to social shunning, and maintaining their standing mattered, and along with it ideas like reputation and honor. So unwritten rules were mostly followed, and there was a sense of shame. Now only money matters, with traditions and social norms eroded. We are discovering the hard way that not all the important rules are written into law. And if reasonable behavior requires government enforcement, not socially required norms of behavior, then graft and corruption, both private and public, inevitably follows.

***You don't see executives marrying their secretaries any more. Instead they marry their associates.

This is increasingly true.

They belonged to the same country clubs and fraternities, they weren't diverse and atomized. They were vulnerable to social shunning, and maintaining their standing mattered, and along with it ideas like reputation and honor. So unwritten rules were mostly followed, and there was a sense of shame. Now only money matters, with traditions and social norms eroded. We are discovering the hard way that not all the important rules are written into law. And if reasonable behavior requires government enforcement, not socially required norms of behavior, then graft and corruption, both private and public, inevitably follows.

I don't know, I'm not sure reputation and honour (no matter how important in a culture) has ever provided much of a limit on corruption. Elites have always had their share of corruption and exploitation. Changing social norms really just change the face you put on it.

EDIT: In fact depending on what past you're talking about, the elite social norms themselves serve to justify the exploitation.

High school dropouts and their perfect labor market substitutes high school graduates -- that's who everyday working people are.

I believe in one of the studies the average "native" has 12.9 or some such years of schooling. So the everyday worker in America is technically more than a high school graduate.

There is a little over 201 million people in America that are 25 or older.

57% of those people have some college or better. 12.4% have not finished high school and 30.7% have a high school diploma. Americans aged 25 to 34 have only 38% of their population with a high school diploma or less. 35 to 54 is a little under 41%. So as we go along the average worker in America will have more and more schooling.

I don't know, I'm not sure reputation and honour (no matter how important in a culture) has ever provided much of a limit on corruption. Elites have always had their share of corruption and exploitation. Changing social norms really just change the face you put on it.

And yet America is well on its way transitioning from a high trust society to a low trust society. Faith and confidence in our public institutions is at an all-time low, and I don't imagine our private ones are doing so great either. I suppose I could be wrong in my analysis, but I'm not convinced our current "meritocracy" is any better than the old WASP elites.

I suppose I could be wrong in my analysis, but I'm not convinced our current "meritocracy" is any better than the old WASP elites.

To the extent the values and practices of the WASP elites were useful, and transmitted to others, we were better off then since the meritocratic "elite" has effectively seceded from American life into their cocoon of nice non-judgmentalism.(*)

The WASP elite had confidence in their way of life and prosletyzed for it. Today's "elite" doesn't.

(*) And therefore Charles Murray was correct when he wrote this in his recent book. So, to sum up, he was right about the data and right in his anthropological study of the new "elite," but terribly wrong in his failure to attribute the decline in white working class virtues primarily to the terrible job market they've faced.

Well, as long you yourself were a WASP they were all for teaching you the glory of their ways otherwise they walled themselves off from you.

(EDIT: I do remember Ray pulling out some stat that 3/4ths of OWS were of some high income level or something.)

I don't recall doing that. My argument, on the contrary, was that people who have jobs don't have time for silly "protests" beyond token appearances. And that these people "occupying wall street" could reduce the income gap simply by going out and getting a job and a shower instead of engaging in inane protests.

(Cue the liberals telling me how difficult it is to get a job right now. I grant that it is difficult to find a job when you're busy camping out on the sidewalk and generally being a nuisance to responsible people passing by who are trying to earn a living.)

A couple of weeks ago the police finally cracked down on the Occupy DC crowd. Man, what a dirty little camp. The rats in that park were as big as babies. All I really know is that some of the protesters must have spent a fortune on their living arrangements since some of those tents were bigger than my apartment and had nicer stuff in them than mine as well.

According to the poll done in October of OWS 49% of them are under 30 and 28% of them are older than 40. 85% of them were employed.

I believe the poll that showed their income was between 50 to 70k was the online poll at the OWS website but of the people who did the poll only 25% of them had taken part in actually protesting.

@923 - parity error. I meant how are things MORE elitist now.

So the American Dream was a lie? The WASP-o-stacracy was for our own good?

Better to let China bury us.

(Cue the liberals telling me how difficult it is to get a job right now.

I thought it was the conservatives in this thread saying how difficult it is to get a job right now.

Your local protestors should take some lessons from the Occupy Nottingham movement. They've carved out a corner of the town square and for the first month or so I thought it was just the sleeping quarters for the workers on the fair that covered the rest of the square. I walk past that place almost every day and I swear I've never seen any of those people talking to passers-by or anything. The British don't seem to have any middle ground between "protesting" by sitting quietly and fire-bombing police stations. (Though I'm fairly sure those two groups are very different people)

I thought it was the conservatives in this thread saying how difficult it is to get a job right now.

Only when they're talking about other conservatives: "Because of Obama, I can't find a job." When they talk about liberals, it's always, "Shut up and get a job, hippie."

When they talk about liberals, it's always, "Shut up and get a job, hippie."

I was going to say beatnik, but you're in the ballpark.

***You don't see executives marrying their secretaries any more. Instead they marry their associates.


This is increasingly true.

I don't know how many execs ever married their secretaries. Second marriage or affair, maybe. Everyone married young, most guys were probably hooked up by the time they had a decent secretary.

Now, yeah. I guess the other status reasons for marrying like race and religion have faded, so there needs to be something new. Never got the point of two Type A job obsessives mating, though maybe all they want to talk about is work anyway.

(Cue the liberals telling me how difficult it is to get a job right now. I grant that it is difficult to find a job when you're busy camping out on the sidewalk and generally being a nuisance to responsible people passing by who are trying to earn a living.)

If you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about, amirite?!

I don't know how many execs ever married their secretaries. Second marriage or affair, maybe. Everyone married young, most guys were probably hooked up by the time they had a decent secretary.

1. Never #### the client.
2. Never #### a coworker.
3. Never #### around on your wife.

In *that order.* If you're going to break one of those rules, break the third with someone who you aren't in a business relationship with.

When they talk about liberals, it's always, "Shut up and get a job, hippie."

I was going to say beatnik, but you're in the ballpark.

Bring back the University of Minnesota Spankalogical Protocols!

I was going to say beatnik, but you're in the ballpark.

Axiomatic learnings #4. A man who reads poetry can't be trusted with your daughter(1). A man who doesn't read poetry can't be trusted at all.

Consider: Copyright math explains piracy of movies and music. Why not illegal immigration?

The presentation is only five minutes long.

Axiomatic learnings #4. A man who reads poetry can't be trusted with your daughter(1). A man who doesn't read poetry can't be trusted at all.

Are you linking to yourself saying the exact same thing on a different website? Impressive dedication to narcissism.

And I echo @893 - how are things less elitist now than in 1960? 1910? 1860? 1810?

Is this serious? Society is much, much less elitist now. I mean, look at literacy levels if nothing else.

@949 see @938

Too late to edit.