Silvaire wrote:
That slowly expanding opportunity in my life motivates me greatly and makes me quite happy
Can we get like buttons on this site ;-)
Basically if you do some sh1tty job, like enforcing yellow jackets, you will never be proud of it even if they pay you 100k.
I think you would. How much you get payed signals importance or cleverness which translates to success.
That’s probably true in practice because a yellow jacket enforcement job will select on the character profile which thinks yellow jackets are important 
But if you could find a job which is so irrelevant that nobody doing it thinks it is worthwhile, money alone would not make them speak proudly of it.
That’s probably true in practice because a yellow jacket enforcement job will select on the character profile which thinks yellow jackets are important
Exactly, and getting 100k for it pretty much proves him right (in his eyes at least), and how can you argue against his view?
Another thing to note. According to the news, researchers have found that women avoid having children if the man has a lower status than her. Shows the importance of social mobility
researchers have found that women avoid having children if the man has a lower status than her. Shows the importance of social mobility
You didn’t need to “research” that one – that one goes back to before the pyramids.
Actually, nowadays, in the modern society (not the 3rd World where you are mostly spot-on about social status) that decision involves much more than social status. Most (not all) men are reluctant to have kids so need to be “worked on” over time. So it tends to be rather more obvious factors and I would say that in N Europe straight social status barely features. Here in the UK it tends to be (1) income (2) doesn’t dislike kids (3) likeable and with a non-violent disposition.
If you are a left-wing-biased researcher (and most researchers in social sciences are, because it is much easier to get funding for “politically fashionable” stuff ) you will always connect “competence” with “social status”. In reality the two are disconnected, with most people who really know what they are doing. Most people who go for social status are doing it to make up for a reduced competence or a reduced intelligence. And it works – to some degree. As the saying goes: if you’ve got it – use it!
MedEwok wrote:
Social sciences have long since demonstrated that wealth is – in most cases – not accumulated by hard work (alone).
Social sciences would as those involved in writing such studies have no idea what hard work is. Most of them never have had a genuine idea or tried something which has not been chewed over by others before them many times.
To anyone who has spend many years working day and night to achieve both professional and financial success it is an insult. Clearly, there will always be those who inherit fortune but there are also many who start as nothing and come up on their own.
MedEwok wrote:
This is of course contrary to the myth of the American Dream which is very persuasive and probably the reason why Americans tolerate living in an unfair society more than Europeans
I suppose this has to do with how few those writing social sciences reports know what the so called American Dream is all about. I won’t repeat my “mantra story” about the European and American fathers at the boat show, but no American I ever talked about that dream ever told me that he thought that achieving the dream was guaranteed or even easy. The whole thing is about going where you want to go and pursue happiness is your own responsibility and obviously a result of hard, dedicated work.
MedEwok wrote:
Most “hard working” jobs are actually pretty poorly paid, e.g. nurses, construction workers, soldiers, firefighters etc.
There goes the definition of what “hard work” is. While I have a lot of respect for all those professions and they are hard physical labour, working to achieve an end is a different thing. Most people I know who have reached a certain goal did not do so in 42 hours a week but in 80 or 90. Most of them don’t even look at it as “work” in the sense that there is a boss telling them what to do but they do what they do because they want to do it. To many, this will always be a thing they never will understand as for them work is simply clocking in and out and seeing to it that they don’t overexert themselfs in between.
MedEwok wrote:
I think the “hard work” required to get wealthy mainly refers to acquiring rare skills that set you apart from others and make you (or your services or products) valuable.
Yes. And to be willing to spend a LOT of time and effort doing so.
AdamFrisch wrote:
The US has many faults, but it’s still a place where anyone, from any social structure, can reach any position. I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s healthy that even a B-actor can be elected official.
I think it has a lot to do with the belief in the possibility that you can achieve something, whereas in Europe many are even conditioned as kids that they will never rise above the social status of their parents. Probably the worst of that is in India with their caste system, but the perception still exists elsewhere too. Well, it’s wrong. People who believe in themselfs and their capabilities as well as who are capable indeed will always have the chance to rise, but it involves taking risks and, yes, working a lot harder than others.
Peter wrote:
If you are a left-wing-biased researcher (and most researchers in social sciences are, because it is much easier to get funding for “politically fashionable” stuff ) you will always connect “competence” with “social status”.
I think this is the crux of a lot of this research that is pulled out. Although I stuided a real science at universtity even amongst my friends it was nearly universally the more left leaning ones that continued on to phd’s and attempted to stay in academia as long as possible with funding. The more right leaning ones tended to want to go into business or the private sector as being much more interesting to them.
The US has many faults, but it’s still a place where anyone, from any social structure, can reach any position. I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s healthy that even a B-actor can be elected official.
That’s a great thing to aspire to, but there are many countries in the world where that is more true than it is for the USA, or for that matter the UK:
Peter wrote:
Most people who go for social status are doing it to make up for a reduced competence or a reduced intelligence.
That’s absolutely true IME.
From here
I don’t understand when people are ironic or serious in this thread.
