The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth
bbc.com
bbc.com
Spending money on education, healthcare, and retirement is pernicious? Self-perpetuating, perhaps, but pernicious, really?
That seems like exactly the word to use for self perpetuating inequality to me...
Problems of inequality are complex and have many different factors at play. I think it's extremely dangerous to discourage the wealthy from using their wealth in this manner. We need to explore the root causes of problems of inequality and this type of rhetoric does NOTHING but fester resentment.
Edit: that is to say, yes, I'm in favor of taxing the rich and universal healthcare. I don't see how enacting those policies would be an alternative to people investing their resources in improving their own lives in ways that are harmless to society at large, if not beneficial.
Sure, but in countries that have a really good free public university system even the rich want to send their kids there. In fact going to to a private fee-charging university can be seen a sign that you weren't smart enough to get into a good university on your own merits.
That being said the rich can and will use their money to increase the chance of their kids getting into those good universities by moving to neighborhoods that increase the chances of their kids getting into good primary schools, so that they can get into good high schools.
Honestly, this is such an insane sentiment. Things are getting better for everyone! Increased focus on health and education is obviously a good thing for society; you have to have some seriously fucked up priorities if you think jealousy is a reasonable objection to that fact.
Recognizing the flaws in a system is not advocating tearing it down, or even shifting direction.
For instance, you can simultaneously believe that the carbon emissions of countries lifting themselves out of poverty will be an ecological disaster, while also cheering them on because the alternative is a permanent human tragedy.
If the mere suggestion that there are problems with the inequality capitalism brings is enough to kill your civility and launch you in to a tirade, I'd suggest taking a step back and avoid commenting on the topic here.
Feel free to advocate for politically motivated artificial poverty, and I'll feel free to object in very strong terms.
If you're looking for an argument, why not just walk down the street shouting at random people that look like they might have socialist leanings. I guess it takes less courage to do it over the internet.
People get different outcomes, and it's "unfair", and if we can't lift someone up then we'll damn well hold someone else down to make it "fair", even if it benefits nobody to do so.
This is why equality-of-outcome is a harmful impulse. (And it's mostly just raw envy with a layer of lipstick slapped on anyway).
Choice quotes:
>"Given that everyone can now buy designer handbags and new cars..."
>"Knowing which New Yorker articles to reference or what small talk to engage in at the local farmers’ market enables and displays the acquisition of cultural capital, thereby providing entry into social networks that, in turn, help to pave the way to elite jobs, key social and professional contacts, and private schools."
This article is really stupid.
-Rich people bragging about going to/sending their kids to nice schools
-Eating fancy food
-Ostentatiously namedropping highbrow pop culture
are some sort of recent phenomena? Come on :)
There isn't much substance here.
> The US Consumer Expenditure Survey data reveals that, since 2007, the country’s top 1% (people earning upwards of $300,000 per year) are spending significantly less on material goods, while middle-income groups (earning approximately $70,000 per year) are spending the same, and their trend is upward.
That's a pretty stupid assertion.
Perhaps in the old days, when overt classism was still accepted, conspicuous consumption yielded something for the spender. Now it is often frawned upon in the West, why bother? So the money saved is invested in consumption/investments with better returns. That is rational.
I believe the real luxury good of today is exclusivity and privacy: private dating apps and social networks, vacations, clubs, etc. This article covers it well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/magazine/how-privacy-beca...
Probably an effect. You can't choose to invest long-term if you can't afford it.
Families with this kind of mindset are unlikely to stay poor for more than 1-2 generations. (This is probably one reason why hundreds of millions in China arose from poverty to middle-class in a single generation, although I do not see many economists in the West discussing it in the context of China's rise.)
---
"Zhang Yang, a bright 18-year old from a rural town in Anhui province in China was accepted to study at a prestigious traditional medicine college in Hefei. But the news was too much for his father Zhang Jiasheng.
Zhang's father was partly paralysed after he suffered a stroke two years ago and could no longer work. He feared the family, already in debt to pay for medicines, would not be able to afford his son's tuition fees.
As his son headed home to celebrate his success, Zhang Jiasheng killed himself by swallowing pesticide.
Zhang's case is an extreme. But East Asian families are spending more and more of their money on securing their children the best possible education.
In richer Asian countries such as South Korea and emerging countries like China, "education fever" is forcing families to make choices, sometimes dramatic ones, to afford the bills.
There are families selling their apartments to raise the funds to send their children to study overseas.
---
Extreme Spending
...
It is not just middle-class families. Workers also want their children to do better than themselves and see education as the only means of ensuring social mobility. Some go deep into debt.
"Families are spending less on other things. There are many cases of rural parents not buying healthcare that their doctors urge on them... Part of the reason is that they would rather spend the money on their children's education," said Mr Kipnis.
"
What? China's economic boom has little to do with their view on education. They "simply" moved from farmers in extreme poverty to 6 day/12h shifts factory workers in poverty. I don't dispute it's relatively better for everyone, but it's hardly something to aspire to (particularly since other countries made the transition ages ago, so it's not even replicable unless we're talking about a really poor country that now has to compete with China too).
The BBC article has a much more negative spin about this than you portray. It even suggests it can be detrimental to the country.
The real reason some cultures obsess about education is because there are severe and very real penalties if you fail some exam in middle school.
Finally, this is direct contradiction with your parent comment. Are poor people poor because they don't invest in the future or are they more likely to? Because if all you're saying is that poor people who invest long-term will not stay poor, that's almost a tautology.
Why has the industrialization of East Asia been so much faster and go further than in most other regions of the world? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, ..., and likely China. Also look at their PISA scores [1] (or other international exams). I believe that one major factor is the emphasis of education in the culture.
If you have other explanations, I'd like to hear.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisa
> The real reason some cultures obsess about education is because there are severe and very real penalties if you fail some exam in middle school.
The penetration of cultural emphasis on education is much deeper and broader than that. It starts almost from birth, and often before, and at all levels of society. Many people there pick partners using strong filters on educational level and institutions attended. High-achieving students are admired, not bullied, for example. The real reasons go back thousands of years. Check out Confucius philosophy and Chinese imperial examinations. [2][3]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination
> if all you're saying is that poor people who invest long-term will not stay poor, that's almost a tautology.
I said that because you claimed that investing long-term is probably the effect of being well-off.
Note: I agree there are drawbacks to extreme emphasis on education. But it is a good predictor of long-term material successes of a community and a country.
The why has China's industrialisation happen so late?
> I said that because you claimed that investing long-term is probably the effect of being well-off.
That is the main argument here. I still think it's an effect.
Everyone knows saving for a pension is worth it, everyone knows a more expensive fridge is more economical, everyone knows expensive shoes last longer, but not everyone can afford these solutions.
> Note: I agree there are drawbacks to extreme emphasis on education. But it is a good predictor of long-term material successes of a community and a country.
The South Korean government disagrees with you.
FYI I am reading your sources. One important concept in Confucianism is this:
> Social harmony results in part from every individual knowing his or her place in the natural order, and playing his or her part well.
It's not a guide that promotes social mobility. It was created for a certain time and place.
> What? China's economic boom has little to do with their view on education.
It most certainly does. You need to be educated to manage all those factories that make everything from toys to factories. You need educated engineers to design and build those factories in the first place. And you need educated people to engage in scientific research in your universities. In other words, a country doesn't simply become economically developed without having a culture of valuing education, and China has definitely been helped by its society's emphasis on getting an education.
> The real reason some cultures obsess about education is because there are severe and very real penalties if you fail some exam in middle school.
This is definitely not true. You can't coerce people to be educated by penalties. The simple fact is that even the poor understand that getting an education is one of the most reliable (and often only) paths to wealth and a better quality of life.
> It most certainly does. You need to be educated to manage all those factories that make everything from toys to factories. You need educated engineers to design and build those factories in the first place. And you need educated people to engage in scientific research in your universities.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Yes, there's a rising demand for qualified people. But that demand didn't arise because the supply was too great. Typically when supply rises, wages drop. China is the opposite.
> The simple fact is that even the poor understand that getting an education is one of the most reliable (and often only) paths to wealth and a better quality of life.
Then why are rich people more likely to have higher education? Why do the rich in China value education just as much if not more? Why are top universities in the world not in China?
I don't disagree with you here. I know the poor know this. I'm saying they're not stupid, they just can't "invest" as much.
Also, even the poor?! Seriously?
No worries :). One thing I like about HN is professional discourse and debate, rather than the utter chaos that conversations in other fora devolve into.
> I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Yes, there's a rising demand for qualified people. But that demand didn't arise because the supply was too great. Typically when supply rises, wages drop. China is the opposite.
I agree with the fact. Honestly, I'm not sure about the underlying reasons for economic growth in China, so I will concede that I don't have much to back my assertion.
> Then why are rich people more likely to have higher education? Why do the rich in China value education just as much if not more? Why are top universities in the world not in China?
You are asking very broad questions as if they are closely related, which they are not. Rich people are free from the daily grinds of making ends meet which gives them more time to pursue some kind of education. They also have the means to afford the costs associated with getting an education, and are less likely to drop out because of monetary reasons.
Top universities in the world are not in China because of many many reasons. Some reasons are:
1. There is already a hospitable environment for academia in the US. Much like SV, its hard to replicate elsewhere.
2. English is not the medium of Instruction in many Chinese universities, making it harder to attract talent from around the world.
3. Not quite sure about this, but I'm guessing the US spends more on scientific research and engineering than China.
4. China until very recently (speaking relatively) was not a very politically stable country, and stability is very necessary for an academic community to take hold and grow strong. Most US Universities have been around at least since after the Civil War and European universities have been around for much much longer.
All of that is changing of course, but I'm pointing out the reasons why it is the way it is now.
> Also, even the poor?! Seriously?
Please don't quote me out of context. By even, my intention was that people who are trying hard to make ends meet, who don't have the basic necessities of life ... still understand that getting an education, which takes time and has no immediate alleviating benefits, can help them and is a path out of poverty. I did not intend to imply that they are somehow a lesser class of people, as you seem to imply with that statement.
I agree. I actually don't think we disagree on a lot besides pedantic disagreements outside the original discussion. That said... :)
> Top universities in the world are not in China because of many many reasons. Some reasons are:
I know the reasons, that you. Those questions were rethorical.
But please take a step back and see the discussion in context. If what nopinsight says is true, how come a society that valued education for millennia doesn't have the best universities today? Answer, nopinsight is wrong, Confucianism isn't about social mobility at all, it's the opposite, the obsession with grades and exams is relatively recent.
> Please don't quote me out of context. By even, my intention was that people who are trying hard to make ends meet, who don't have the basic necessities of life ... still understand that getting an education, which takes time and has no immediate alleviating benefits, can help them and is a path out of poverty. I did not intend to imply that they are somehow a lesser class of people, as you seem to imply with that statement.
Yes, my entire thread is basically defending poor people. They aren't stupid, they know education is important, they just can't invest long term. I don't understand why you are arguing with me.
The rich people I know display the following marks of belonging:
1) the ability to make a call and solve any petty problem they have (forgot to take a prescription to the pharmacy? Make a call, and the medicine will be released anyway, with compliments).
2) being relaxed and serene like a Buddhist monk
3) displaying levels of trust impossible to the less rich people. Like "you know Bitcoin and how it works, right? Could you buy some for me? Here's $30,000". I barely knew the guy!
I understand that an article cannot show the same level of detaik as a sociology book, but framing it as new is either disingenuous or uneducated.
It's like a weird ritualistic self-criticism exercise, to demonstrate goodness and status. Like watching a beauty pageant contestant answer a question about her flaws. Which is part of the virtue signaling that article is about! It's so meta.
And it's nothing like what an outsider to that subculture would write.
---
I'd actually say that getting a useless degree in an intensively political field is one of the more interesting 'new' forms of conspicuous consumption.
Back in the day, people used to get tutored in Latin or Christian theology to have upper-class cred. Now they get gender studies or "whiteness studies" degrees.
In each case the message is the same: I am so wealthy that I can spend all my time doing things that don't economically benefit me at all and are entirely focused on elevating my morality in the dominant activism of our age. It's a sort of ritualistic destruction of your own ability to earn a living, to demonstrate you don't have to earn a living. Like Chinese foot binding.
One example of this is all the physicists working as programmers. There are also a ton of examples of humanities students becoming lawyers, or product managers, or school teachers, or ...
E.g. philosophy and "gender studies" are both considered generally useless. But I'd say that philosophy at least can be applied to various types of work, and the course doesn't make a student less useful as a productive human.
With "gender studies" the student is actually becoming more useless by having his head filled with a bunch of moralisms, victimhood ideologies, and objectively false lies about the world. A naive highschooler is more useful in any workplace than a "gender studies" graduate.
It's more useful to know nothing than to know things that aren't true, or be full of propagandized anger at various identity groups.
My sister is an example of someone who studied gender studies as an undergraduate, and she's currently a quite successful high school English teacher.