[frgtpsswrdlame]

>edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed.

Now now relax. You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good because they glue our society together. You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that?

>It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism.

Sure but the veneration is usually weak, it's akin to the 'noble savage' - the 'hardworking blue-collar.' It's veneration at a distance, contact between the wealthy and the poor is frequently uncomfortable for both.

>One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves.

You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models.

>I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order.

Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?

[Helmet]

> Now now relax.

We can have a sensible discussion without condescension.

> You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good......You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that?

I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident.

>You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models.

I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class.

> Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?

What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist. I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>We can have a sensible discussion without condescension.

Fair.

>I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident.

Well no. It may be self-evident when you're honest with yourself but when "we're" honest with "ourselves" it's not at all, hence the downvotes and disagreement in the replies.

>I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class.

This is the success sequence stuff? Look it's just not very true. Almost the entirety of various 'success sequence' poverty figures can be explained by one thing: maintaining full-time work. Everything else is small or zero. Well maintaining full-time work isn't always easy! There's a variety of circumstances outside ones control which can affect your ability to maintain full-time work.

http://www.demos.org/blog/8/13/15/success-sequence-extremely...

>What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist.

You didn't need a social scientist or sociologist to declare that class distinctions are natural and helpful. Why the trepidation on race?

>I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.

Are many mobile in an effortful sense though? Say I have a society where at birth we roll a bingo machine filled with balls 1-5 and we assign you to a quintile. This society would demonstrate perfect intergenerational mobility yet there would be no way to exert effort and change your circumstance - same as race. Now what if instead of a bingo machine we just had a very large 'luck' component to mobility? It's the same deal. It's not just about how many went from bottom quintile to third quintile or better, it's about how it happened.

[Helmet]

>This is the success sequence stuff? Look it's just not very true. Almost the entirety of various 'success sequence' poverty figures can be explained by one thing: maintaining full-time work

This isn't true, and a random blog post where the author has difficulty replicating the studies results does not prove it so. There is a mile high pile of literature that shows marriage and high school graduation to be vitally important. It would not surprise me in the least that these two are strongly correlated with full-time employment. The "Success Sequence" has lifted more people from poverty than any social welfare program has to date.

Here is some compiled literature:

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marri...

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IFS-Millennial...

>You didn't need a social scientist or sociologist to declare that class distinctions are natural and helpful. Why the trepidation on race?

I genuinely still have absolutely no idea what you are asking me to clarify, and I'm taking offense at your insinuation that I'm being coy about some matter regarding race. I will gladly answer your question, but what is it that you are asking or need clarification on? Are you asking me if racial distinctions are natural? Yes, race is hereditary, is this not self-evident?

> Are many mobile in an effortful sense though?

I don't know what you mean by effortful, so the best I can answer you is to say that socially mobility is a very real and recognized phenomena in the United States of America.

>This society would demonstrate perfect intergenerational mobility yet there would be no way to exert effort and change your circumstance

As far as I understand you, your underlying premise here is that social mobility is, like a dice roll, pure luck. I think this premise is completely baseless.

>'luck' component to mobility? It's the same deal

It absolutely isn't the same deal. I don't doubt that race makes it more difficult for some people to succeed, but this is completely tangential and I'm finding it difficult to see what, if anything, this has to do with my original statement.